Delhi District Court
Court Of Delhi In Satish Kumar & Ors. vs . State. 2012 Vi on 1 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 123/2003
PS: Dabri
U/s 323/341/34 IPC
State V. Birender Singh etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of institution of the case : 30/04/2003
Unique Identification Number : R1023432003
Date of commission of offence : 01.03.2003
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ram Dass
S/o Sh. Ashrafi Lal
R/o RZ60/12, Gali No.5,
Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
Name of accused and address : 1). Birender Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
2). Chetan Singh
S/o Sh. Birender Singh
Both Resident of: RZ60/12
Gali No.5, Main Sagar Pur,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 341/323/34 IPC
FIR No.:123/2003 Page 1 of 10
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date on which Judgment was reserved: Not Reserved Date of such order : 01.08.2013 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered against the accused persons on the complaint of Complainant Sh. Ram Dass in which he alleged that on 01.03.2003 at about 12:00 noon, his daughter was playing outside the room at RZ60/12, Main Sagar Pur, Gali No.5, Delhi. Meanwhile their landlady came there and stopped his daughter to play there abusing her. He and his wife came outside and asked the landlady why she asked abusing their daughter. Thereafter, his son/accused Chetan came there and tried to beat his wife. He asked him not to scuffle but he (accused) caught hold the complainant and gave beatings to him with fists at his face and chest. Meanwhile other accused Birender Singh and he also caught hold the complainant and accused Chetan continued to beat him. Because of which he sustained injuries at his chest, mouth and ear. At his complaint the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both FIR No.:123/2003 Page 2 of 10 the accused persons for the offence U/s 323/341/34 IPC.
2. Both the accused persons were summoned and notice served upon them for the offence u/s 323/341/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Seven witnesses and examined Five witnesses in support of its case.
4. PW1 Ram Dass is the complainant who stated that on 01.03.2003 when his daughter was playing outside the house, his landlady asked his daughter not to play and abused her to which he and his wife objected. Because of it both accused persons gave beatings to him at his chest and other parts of body. Then he went to police and got medical treatment at DDU hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and arrested accused persons vide memo's Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 and their personal search were conducted vide memo's Ex.PW1/C1 and Ex.PW1/C2.
5. PW2 ASI Suraj Bhan recorded the FIR of the present FIR No.:123/2003 Page 3 of 10 case, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on the rukka in this regard is MarkA.
6. PW3 Ct. Umed Singh stated that on 01.03.2003 he along with IO/SI Gyan Singh reached at the spot where they came to know from public persons that injured already went to PS. IO returned to PS and he remained at the spot. After some time IO and injured came back at the spot. At the instance of complainant, both accused persons were arrested and their personal search were conducted vide memo's Ex.PW1/B1 & B2 and Ex.PW1/C1 & C2 respectively.
7. PW4 Ct. Shyam Lal took the injured to DDU Hospital on 01.03.2003 on the instructions of IO and got him medically examined vide MLC No.3653/03.
8. PW5 Sanno Devi stated that on 01.03.2003 her daughter Shailja was playing in the gallery near the door at the first floor. Then her landlady came upstairs and asked her daughter not to play there and also abused her. When she and her husband objected to this she also abused them and went down stairs. After some time accused FIR No.:123/2003 Page 4 of 10 Chetan Singh came upstairs and started abusing them and tried to assault her but her husband stopped him. In the meantime the father of accused Chetan Singh i.e Birender Singh came upstairs and he caught hold of her husband and both the accused persons started beating her husband and some how her husband rescued himself and came down stairs in the gali. But they followed him and again beat him in the gali. Police came at the spot. IO recorded her statement.
9. No other witness examined by the prosecution despite several opportunities. Therefore P.E. Closed. Statement of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded in which they denied all the allegation against them and stated that the case of the prosecution is concocted and they were falsely implicated in this case. They further stated that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence.
10. I have heard the final arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused persons are actual culprits who in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant and gave beatings to him. The accused FIR No.:123/2003 Page 5 of 10 persons deserve maximum punishment as per law. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused persons stated that they had committed nothing wrong with the complainant. The witnesses had given contradictory statements, therefore, their evidence is not believable. The story of the prosecution is concocted. Accused persons are facing the trial of false case without any reason since last about 10 years. Therefore, they may be acquitted in the present case. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record.
11. In the present case, notice was served to accused persons regarding the allegation that at the time of incident in furtherance of their common intention, they wrongfully restrained the complainant Ram Dass and also caused him simple hurt with blunt object.
12. Definition of hurt is given in section 319 IPC i.e. "whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt." Section 321 IPC clarifies that whoever do this act voluntarily, he said to be voluntarily causing hurt. This offence is punishable u/s 323 IPC.
FIR No.:123/2003 Page 6 of 10
13. Wrongful restraint is defined u/s 339 IPC as "whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." This act is punishable u/s 341 IPC.
14. In the present matter two public witnesses are examined by the prosecution. PW1 is complainant/injured himself and PW5 is the eye witness i.e. wife of complainant. PW1 in his statement before the court stated that on the day of incident when his daughter was playing outside their house, their landlady asked her not to play. PW1 and PW5 objected to this at which quarrel started. Accused persons came there and gave beatings to the complainant.
15. PW5 also gave corroborative version to PW1 and stated the identical version that both accused persons gave beatings to her husband i.e. PW1. Ld. Defence Counsel stated that complainant in his statement before the court not stated regarding specific allegation of wrongful restrained by the accused persons and only stated regarding beatings. However, when statement of PW1, PW5 and FIR No.:123/2003 Page 7 of 10 complaint of complainant Ex.PW1/A are read together as a whole, then the allegation of wrongful restrained by the accused persons clearly came on record. PW5 specifically mentioned during her statement before the court that "....in the meantime the father of accused Chetan Singh i.e. Birender Singh present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came upstairs and he caught hold of my husband and both the accused persons started beating my husband...." In the complaint Ex.PW1/A which was given to the police on the day of incident also it is mentioned by the complainant that during scuffle with accused Chetan, accused Birender came there and caught hold the complainant and they both gave beatings to him.
16. Therefore, the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that PW1 not reproduced the specific words that accused persons restrained him during his evidence before court and therefore he is telling lie, is not acceptable as court has to see the statements of all material witnesses as a whole to reach at a conclusion. The sense of evidence is more important than the words used by the witness. Moreover, when a layman appears before the court for evidence after about 3 years of the incident, then the minor discrepancies in his FIR No.:123/2003 Page 8 of 10 version are but natural to occur. It is also observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State. 2012 VI AD(Delhi) 664 that "the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses are bound to occur as the witnesses cannot be expected to give a parrot like evidence."
17. The events occurred after the incident as stated by the complainant are also attract corroboration from other witnesses which give strength to his reliability. PW1/complainant stated that after the quarrel he went to police station and police send him to DDU for treatment. PW3 (Ct. Umed Singh) who reached at the spot with I.O. also stated the same thing as..... "it was told by the public persons that the injured had gone to the PS....". Then PW4 (Ct. Shyam Lal) stated that he got conducted the medical examination of the injured as instructed by the I.O.
18. Therefore, the fact that after the incident, injured himself went to the police station and thereafter he was sent to the hospital by the police along with a constable for his medical examination indicates that the complainant was having injuries because of which FIR No.:123/2003 Page 9 of 10 his medical was conducted. The fact of injuries inflicted on him is also proved by the statement of PW1 and PW5. It is admittedly a case of simple hurt and therefore, nature of injury or any other expert opinion regarding the injuries is not so important. Therefore, non proving of contents of the MLC cannot be held as there was no injury or beating to the complainant.
19. Keeping in view the combined statements of all witnesses, documents placed on record and above said discussion, court comes at the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case against both the accused persons for the offence u/s 341/323/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Chetan Singh and Birender Singh are hereby convicted for the offence u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
Put up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 03.08.2013.
Announced in the open court on this 01st day of August 2013 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 10 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
FIR No.:123/2003 Page 10 of 10