Delhi District Court
State vs Gautam on 27 March, 2025
IN THE COURT SH. ROHIT KUMAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS - 04
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE VS. Gautam FIR NO: 451/12 P. S. Prashant Vihar.
U/s 323/452/506/509/ IPC
a. Cr. Case No. : 5284512/2016
b. The date of commission : 08.11.2012
c. The date of Institution of the : 28.02.2020
case
d. The name of complainant : Sh. Ramesh Chander Sethi
e. The name of accused persons : Gautam
and their parentages S/o Sh. Ram Nath Aligh R/o Flat
No. 8-C, Kukrain Society, Sector-
13, Rohini, Delhi.
f. The offence complained of : 323/452/506/506 IPC
g. The plea of accused : Not guilty
h. Orders reserved on : 25.03.2025
I. The final order : Accused is convicted for the
offence u/s 323/451/506/506 IPC
j. The date of judgment : 27.03.2025
Vide this judgment, the accused is being Convicted of the offence punishable under Section 323/452/506/506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") in this case FIR No. 451/12 Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below:
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:02:33 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 1/17
1. PROSECUTION'S CASE:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.11.2012 at about 9:30
-10:00 pm at flat No. 22-D Kukhrain Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused committed house tress pass by entering into the house of the complainant Sh. Ramesh Chander Sethi after having made preparation for causing hurt/assault and also caused simple injuries on the persons of complainant and his wife Smt. Savita Sethi. Further, on the aforesaid time and place accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant Ramesh Chander Sethi and his wife Savita Sethi with intent to kill them and also uttered the words intending that the same shall be heard by the wife of the complainant That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is stated to have committed an offence u/s. 323/452/506/509 IPC, which leads to registration of FIR No. 451/12 at PS Prashant Vihar.
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"), charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
Accused person was summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per s. 207 CrPC.
Based on the charge-sheet, a notice for the offences punishable u/s. 323/452/506/509 IPC was framed against the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
3(a). PW 1 Ramesh Chander Sethi deposed that on 08.11.12, at about 9:32-10 p.m. he was present at his house alongwith his wife, mother. Somebody rang the bell of the door of his house and his wife attended the bell and opened the door. A person namely Gautam Alakh forcefully entered Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 2/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:02:45 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 his house and said a loud voice "where is Sethi" and pushed his wife to one side. His wife raised alarm. PW1 came out from his room. Thereafter accused attacked upon him by some article on his chest. In the meantime their neighbourer namely S.K. Sethi were watching the whole incident while standing in the balcony at his house. Thereafter, S.K. Sethi came to his house. The accused also started to give abusing language to the abovesaid S.K. Sethi. He correctly identified the accused Gautam in the court. Thereafter, S.K. Sethi asked him to go down stairs. Thereafter, they reached at the ground floor of said house. Accused Gautam threatened him and S. K. Sethi to withdraw the case against his brother in law and in case they don't withdraw the case against his brother in law he would kill them when he was present alongwith S.K. Sethi at third floor. After 4-5 minutes S.K. Sethi and Gautam also reached at ground floor. The member of society were also present at the ground floor on hearing the noise. One of member called at 100no. Thereafter the instructions of closing the door of society was given to Guard. Gautam was highly drunk at that time. Police arrived at the spot but before that accused went to his respective house. Police officials alongwith society members reached at the house of accused Gautam. Thereafter, police took them to PS Pr. Vihar. Police officials got them medically examined. During the investigation IO recorded his statement.
PW1 has further deposed that after the incident, whole society got together at the spot. Thereafter, all the members of the society reached in front of the house of the accused which was locked from inside. Police official somehow apprehended the accused and taken the accused to the PS. Police official had taken accused, PW1, S.K.Sethi to the hospital by police vehicle. When they were going to the hospital, accused used abusive language against him. Accused also gave fist blow on his chest His medical examination was also conducted at hospital. Accused had given threats to kill him.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State he identified his Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 3/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 KUMAR 16:02:57 +0530 signatures on the complaint Ex. PW1/A to the police. He admitted that he was a property dealer by profession and also secretary of the society. He admitted that in society (flat no. 1A) there was going on work of illegal construction. He deposed that they made the complaint regarding this to the MCD and the said flat belonged to the relative of the accused Gautam. He admitted that the incident took place between 9.30 to 9.45 pm. He admitted that accused pulled the hair of his wife and used abusive language against them. On being pointed out by Ld. APP, he correctly identified the accused in the Court. He admitted that accused was living in flat No. 8C, Kokhran Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini and used to misbehave with the persons of the society and admitted that he narrated the whole incident to the police.
PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
3(b) PW2 Smt. Savita Sethi deposed that she lived at the abovesaid address with her family and was a housewife. On 08.11.2012 at about 9.30 p.m her door bell rang. When she opened the door, she found accused Gautam at her door and he asked for her husband. At that time, her husband was the Secretary of RWA of their society and as such the society members used to come to their house regularly and it was a routine affair. Her husband also came to the door and accused Gautam gave him beatings. In the meantime one of her neighbour Mr. Sethi also came to their house and then both Mr. Sethi and her husband as well as the accused went down stairs and there also accused gave beatings to her husband. While entering into her house, the accused had pushed her. The accused had also called some goons from outside their society. The reason for the incident was that one of the relative i.e. jeeja of accused had extended his flat due to some extent and his immediate neighbour had complained to her husband regarding this. Being secretary, her husband took action on that complaint and wrote a letter to the jeeja of accused to do the necessary correction by removing the extended part. The accused wanted her husband withdraw the said action i.e. to Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 4/17 Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:11 +0530 withdraw the said letter given to his jeeja.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, she admitted that for the past few days accused was threatening her husband to kill him and on the date of incident also, he had threatened them. She has admitted that in the morning of 08.11.2012, a small quarrel/altercation took place between her husband accused regarding parking and that dispute was sorted out with the intervention of society persons. She has admitted that on 08.11.2012 at around 9.30 pm when she opened the door, the accused pushed her and pulled her hair and entered into her house. She admitted that she fell down due to the said assault. She has admitted that accused was shouting "Sethi Kaha Hai, Aaaj use nahi chhodunga". She admitted that accused was abusing in fithy language at that time. She admitted that after hearing the noises, her husband came out from the room and accused immediately attacked him and gave him beatings but she denied the suggestion that he was carrying some metal object with which he hit her husband. She has admitted that after Mr. S.K. Sethi came out of his house after hearing the noises, the accused also gave beatings to him & then her husband and S.K Sethi ran towards ground floor and accused also ran after them. She had admitted that accused had given beatings to her and her husband after entering into her house and he also threatened and abused them. She denied the suggestion that she had stated similarly in her statement to the police. She has voluntarily stated that she was not interrogated nor her statement was recorded. She could not tell the exact details of the incident earlier due to her age and health factor and also because of lapse of time one tends to forget certain things. She correctly identified the accused in the Court.
She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 3(c) PW-3 Sh. Surender Kumar Sethi deposed that on 11.11.2012, at about 9:45-10:00 PM, he was present at his home. He heard some noises and he went downstairs and saw that a quarrel took place between accused and complainant. Accused Gautam gave beatings to Complainant and also pushed Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 5/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:03:17 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 wife of the complainant. He correctly identified the accused in the court. In the meanwhile, after hearing some noises, some neighbours also gathered there. He alongwith other neighbours tried to settle the matter but no fruitful result came out. Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number. In the meanwhile, accused fled from there and hid in his house. After 40-45 minutes, police officials reached there. He and 2-3 neighbours narrated the said incident to the police. After that police officials called police force to apprehend the accused as the public persons could harm him. Police officials apprehended the accused and took him to the PS. From the PS, he alongwith complainant were taken by the police officials to the hospital for medical examination. He alongwith all the society members remained at the PS till 4:00 am of next day. Thereafter, FIR was registered and they came back to their society. IO recorded his statement.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State he admitted that the incident took place on 08.11.2012. He admitted that while trying to save the complainant from the clutches of the accused, the accused also gave beatings to him. He also admitted that the accused had a sharp weapon in his hand and he also attacked him and the complainant with the said weapon and he sustained injuries on his right hand. He admitted that the society members saved him and the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Prior to this incident, there was a dispute between accused and his brother in law regarding the renovation of the flat. As being a President of the society, he objected to the said renovation of the flat and this was the main reason for the above said quarrel. He admitted that accused threatened him and the complainant during the said quarrel and he was not in his senses as he was in a drunken condition during the said incident. He admitted that accused had fought with the society members prior to the incident. He admitted that accused pushed the wife of the complainant and caught hold her hairs and also gave beatings to her. He admitted that the accused was living in Flat No. 8C, Kukrain Society, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi when the said incident Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 6/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:22 +0530 took place.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 3(d) PW-4 Gaurav was a fruit vendor at Azadpur. He did not remember date and time due to lapse of time. On one day, in the evening he heard abusive language from the fourth floor. Thereafter, he came outside from his house and he saw that accused Gautm and behind him Ramesh Kumar Sethi and his wife came down from the fourth floor. Neighbourers/society persons were also gathered there after hearing the abusive language. He along with neighbourers and society persons tried to solve the matter by intervening between accused Gautam and Ramesh Kumar Sethi. After that 100 number call was made by someone and police reached at the spot and some proceedings were conducted by the police. After that they all went to PS. He correctly identified accused Gautam in the court.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he admitted that the incident took place on 08.11.2012 at around 9.30/9.45 p.m. He admitted that accused Gautam abusing in a filthy language. He voluntarily deposed that he did not remember if S.K. Sethi was present at the spot or not. No beatings were given by accused in his presence.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 3(e) PW-5 Jaspal Singh Sethi was doing the work of scrap. He has deposed that on 08.11.2012 he was standing on the gate of society. He saw that accused Gautam and Sethi were abusing each other. Later on he came to know from society members that accused Gautam had gone to the house of Ramesh Chand Sethi and had beaten him with fist blows. He correctly identified accused Gautam in the court.
He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. On Court Question put to the witness that at what time he was stating to have been standing at the gate of society, he replied at around 10/10.30 pm after having dinner.
On a further court question whether Gautam, Ramesh Sethi were Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 7/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:28 +0530 standing in the society when he was standing at the gate, he replied that he was talking a walk and when he reached at the gate, he saw that many people had gathered there and accused Gautam and Ramesh Sethi were also present there.
3(f) PW-7 Dr. Uday Kumar Singh that in the year 2012, he was posted at BSA Hospital, Sec-06, Rohini as CМО. MLC No. B-5721/2012 of Gautam was prepared by his junior i.e. Dr. Arvind and the same were counter signed by him, which is now Ex. PW-7/A. The same was prepared on 08.11.2012 at around 11.30 pm. MLC No. B-5722/2012 of Ramesh Chander Sethi was prepared on 08.11.2012 at 11.35 pm was prepared by junior Dr Arvind, which is now Ex. PW-7/B, on which right side from point A to point B, he had opined that the patient has sustained no injuries. The said MLC bears his signature at point C. MLC No. B-5723/2012 of patient Surender Kumar dated 08.11.2022 at 11.35 pm was prepared by junior Dr. Arvind, and the same endorses his signature at point A. The same i.e. MLC opined nature of injury to simple.
He was cross-examined with Nil, opportunity given. Statement of accused U/s 294 CrPC was recorded on 15.03.2022 in which accused not disputed DD no. 35A dt. 08.11.2012 PS Prashant Vihar.
4. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF THE FACTS:
This being the factual, evidentiary and the legal position of the present case, let us analyze whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the accused person on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt".
5. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 323:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 8/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:03:35 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 452 Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which ...
Section 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 509 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 9/17
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:42 +0530
6. Brief facts of the prosecution are that on 08.11.2012 at about 9:30 to 10:00 pm at Flat No. 22D, Kukhrain, apartment Sector-13, Rohini, accused Gautam S/o Sh. Ram Nath Ali had committed the house tresspass by entering into the house of the complainant namely Ramesh Chandar Sethi after having made preparation for causing hurt/assault and caused simple injuries on the persons of the complainant and his wife Smt. Savita Sethi. Furthermore, accused has also threatened the complainant and his wife for life and also uttered the words intending that same shall be heard by the complainant. Accordingly, accused has committed the offfences u/s 323/452/506/509 IPC.
It is pertinent to mention that in this matter, prosecution has examined five key witnesses including the complainant and his wife to substantiate the story of the complainant. The other witnesses are hearsay in nature.
It is pertinent to mention that this incident had occurred on 08.11.2012 and on the same day, MLC of the complainant Ramesh Chand Sethi was got conducted. In the MLC No. B-5722/2012, Ex. PW-7/B, it has been written that there was no fresh external/visible injury seen on the body at the time of examination. It is pertinent to mention that this MLC was prepared at 11:35 pm on the same day just after the incident. It is pertinent to mention that no MLC was got prepared for the another victim/wife of the complainant namely Savita Sethi. It is again pertinent to mention that one MLC No. B- 5723/2012, Ex. PW-7/C of another witness namely Surender Kumar was got prepared wherein it has been written that there was a small superficial abrasion on the head. It is also written in the said MLC that there was no other fresh external/visible injury found on the body at the time of the examination. It is pertinent to mention that the perusal of MLCs and opinion of the concerned doctor thereon is very relevant because as per the specific allegations of the complainant in complaint Ex. PW-1/A, he was beaten by Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 10/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:47 +0530 the accused and he was carrying metal object in his hand at the time of beating. It is also written in the complaint that due to this beating some injury was caused at the chest of the complainant. In the said complaint, it is also written that accused has also attacked witness Surender Kumar Sethi with the object which he was carrying. However, these specific allegations of beating by the accused are not substantiated with any medical records filed along- with charge sheet. As per the MLC (Supra), there was no fresh injury on the body of the complainant, nevertheless some injury was on the body of Sh. S. K. Sethi.
These are the specific allegations of the complainant that he and Mr. Surender Kumar were beaten with the metal object carried by the accused on the day of incident. However, it is pertinent to mention that during the investigation, no such material/object was ever recovered from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the said allegations are not substantiated with any recovery.
In this matter, PW1/complainant Ramesh Chander Sethi was examined before the Court. PW1 in his examination in chief deposed that accused Gautam Alakh had forcefully entered his house and he was saying in loud voice "Where is Sethi" and he also pushed his wife to one side. Also deposed that his wife had opened the door. It is also deposed that he was attacked by the accused with some article on his chest and in the meantime, neighbour namely S K Sethi who was watching whole incident while standing in his balcony had come to his house and accused has also used abusive language for Mr. S. K. Sethi. It is deposed that accused Gautam had threatened him and Mr. S K Sethi to withdraw the case against this brother in law and in case they do not withdraw the case against his brother in law, he would kill them. It is further deposed that accused Gautam was highly drunk at that time. It is pertinent to mention that as per the deposition of PW1, accused Gautam had Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 11/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:03:53 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 used the bad language for Mr. S.K Sethi and he has also pushed his wife one side. It is also pertinent to mention that as per PW1 accused Gautam had entered the house forcefully after pushing the wife of the complainant to one side.
It is pertinent to mention that PW1 in his cross-examination done by the ld. APP for the State has also deposed that accused had pulled the hair of his wife and used abusive language against them. It is pertinent to mention that accused was correctly identified by the PW1 before the Court. As per the deposition of PW1, there was the use of the abusive language by accused person for his wife and accused has also pushed his wife oneside and entered inside the house forcefully.
In this matter, wife of the complainant Smt. Savita Sethi was examined before the court as PW2 and it was deposed by PW2 before the Court that on 08.11.2012 at about 9:30 pm, when door bell was rang, she opened the door and found the accused Gautam at the door. Further deposed that her husband also came to the door and accused Gautam gave him beatings and in the meantime, one of her neighbour Mr. Sethi also came to her house and thereafter, Mr. Sethi and her husband as well as the accused went downstairs and there also accused had given beatings to her husband. It is specifically deposed that while entering into her house, accused had pushed her. Further deposed that the reason for incident was that one of the relative i.e. Jija of the accused had extended his flat to some extent and his immediate neighbour had complained to her husband regarding the same. On the said complaint, being the secretary of the society, her husband took action on the said complaint had also wrote a letter to the brother in law of the accused for doing some necessary correction by removing the extended part. Further deposed that accused wanted her husband to withdraw the said action.
It is also deposed by PW2 in her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 12/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:03:58 +0530 APP for the State that when she opened the door, accused had pushed and pulled and her hair entered inside her house. It is pertinent to mention that PW2 in her deposition before the Court specially deposed that she was pushed by the accused and her hair were also pulled by the accused. However, it is pertinent to mention that she had specifically denied one suggestion that accused was carrying some metal object with which he had hit her husband. From this deposition, carrying of metal object by the accused person is highly disputed. As discussed above also, there is no recovery of any metal object from the possession of the accused. However, PW2 has specially deposed before the Court that her husband was beaten by the accused on the day of the incident. It is also deposed that accused had given the beatings to her also and they were threatened by the accused. It is pertinent to mention that no MLC was got prepared for the PW2 therefore, the fact of beating of PW2 by the accused person is disputed. Same has not been substantiated with any medical documents.
In this matter, PW3 Mr. Surender Kumar Sethi who was the neighbour of the complainant and has also witnessed the incident deposed before the Court that on the day of incident, he was present at his home and heard some noises. Thereafter, he went downstairs and saw that a quarrel took place between the accused and the complainant. Further deposed that accused Gautam had given beatings to the complainant and had also pushed the wife of the complainant. He has correctly identified the accused person before the Court.
During the cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW3 deposed that accused had a sharp weapon in his hand and he was attacked by the accused with the said sharp weapon. Further deposed that he had sustained injuries on his right hand. It is pertinent to mention that carrying of sharp weapon/metal object by the accused is highly disputed. In this matter Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 13/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:04:04 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 as discussed above, there is no recovery of any metal object. Moreover, PW2 Savita sethi has also denied the suggestion qua carrying of the object by the accused at the time of incident. It is again pertinent to mention that in the MLC No. B-5723/2012 of PW3, Surender Kumar Sethi Ex. PW7/C, it is mentioned therein that there was no fresh external/visible injury on the body at the time of examination, qua this MLC, Dr. Uday Kumar Singh was examined before the Court as PW7. PW7 had deposed before the Court, nature of the injury to the PW Surender was simple and patient in MLC bearing no. B-5722/12 had sustained no injury. It is pertinent to mention that this MLC bearing no. B-5722/12 was with respect to the complainant.
PW3 further deposed that accused had threatened him and the complainant during the quarrel and accused was not in his senses as he was in a drunken condition that further deposed that accused had pushed the wife of the complainant and caught hold her hair and also gave beatings to her. It has been deposed by PW3 during the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. counsel for accused that he was present and had seen that accused was pushing the wife of the complainant, holding her hair and giving the beatings to her. It is pertinent to mention that PW3 has also deposed the same story on the same line which was deposed by PW1 and PW2. There is no inconsistency in the testimonies of PWs qua the fact of beatings by the accused person of the complainant, his wife and Mr. Surender Kumar Sethi. There is also no inconsistency qua holding of hair of the wife of the complainant and pushing of her by the accused person in the testimonies of PWs. There is only one inconsistency qua whether accused was carrying the sharp weapon/material object at the time of the incident. This inconsistency is not relevant because accused has not been charged u/s 3254 of IPC. Instead, he has been charged u/s 323 of IPC. It is pertinent to mention that nevertheless there is no injury as per the MLC of the complainant and no MLC was prepared for the PW Savita Sethi, fact of beating is also Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 14/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:04:26 +0530 substantiated with the MLC of MR. Surender Kumar Sethi Ex. PW7/C and there is no inconsistency between the testimonies of PWs. In the said MLC, nature of injury was simple. It is pertinent to mention that when PW7 was examined before the court qua the MLC bearing no B-5723/2012 for the patient Mr. Surender Kumar, PW7 deposed that nature of the injury was simple. After this deposition, no question was asked by the accused person from the PW7 and cross-examination was closed after giving the opportunity with the noting 'NIL".
It is pertinent to mention that there is no inconsistency between the deposition of PWs qua the fact the allegation that accused had entered inside the house of the complainant forcefully.
It is pertinent to mention that there was another witness namely Mr. Gaurav who has examined before the Court PW4. It was deposed by PW4 that on the day of incident in the evening he heard abusive language from the fourth floor and when he came outside from his house, he saw that accused Gautam and behind him complainant and his wife came down from the fourth floor and neighbours were also gathered thereafter hearing the abusive language. Further deposed that he along-with neighbours and society persons tried to solve the matter by intervening between the accused and complainant. During the cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW4 deposed that accused Gautam had used filthy language. Further deposed that no beatings were given by the accused in his presence. It is pertinent to mention that from the perusal of the testimony of PW4 it is reflected that he had not witnessed the incident happened inside the house of the complainant and he came out from his house after hearing the noises and later on joined the incident when all the concerned parties were present downstairs. Testimony of PW4 only relevant to one extent that accused Gautam was using filthy language in his presence.
Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 15/17ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:04:56 +0530 Date: 2025.03.27 In this matter, Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi was also examined before the court as PW5. PW5 deposed before the court that accused Gautam and Mr. Sethi were abusing each other and he later on came to know from the member of society that accused Gautam had gone to the house of complainant Ramesh Chander Sethi had beaten him with fist and blows. It is pertinent to mention that from the perusal of testimony of PW5, it is reflected that PW5 is a hearsay witness and he had joined the incident at the later stage and he had not witnessed the incident of beating.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence recorded before the court, documents available with charge-sheet, court is of the view that there is no inconsistency in the deposition of PWs and PWs are supporting the story of the prosecution/complainant. It is clearly established from the observation (Supra) that accused had entered inside the house of the complainant and abusive language was used by him. Further, it is also proved from the deposition of PWs that accused had given beatings to the complainant, his wife and his neighbour and wife of the complainant was also misbehaved. It is also proved from consistent testimonies PWs that accused had pulled the hair of the wife of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that non-MLC of any witness or no mentioning of injury on MLC, cannot be a ground for acquittal u/s 323 IPC. There is no inconsistency amongst PWs and the fact of beatings by accused person. Even simple hurt with no injury is also covered u/s 323 IPC. Further, from the perusal of the facts and deposition of witnesses, motive of the accused person is also clear because one complaint was registered her brother in law. It is pertinent to mention that there is no recovery of any metal/object which was allegedly used by the accused at the time of the incident, therefore, court is of the view that conviction u/s 452 of IPC cannot be done wherein preparation for causing hurt is a requisite condition. However, non-recovery of the said metal/object is suggesting that there is no preparation at the end of the Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 16/17 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:05:01 +0530 accused person. Offence u/s 452 IPC is serious in nature as compared to the offence u/s 451 of IPC. Conviction u/s 452 IPC can only be done if preparation at the end of the accused side is proved. With this observation, court is of the view that accused is entitled for the conviction u/s 451 IPC instead of offence u/s 452 IPC.
7. CONCLUSION:
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Considering the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt" and accused has failed to create any doubt in the story of the prosecution. Accordingly, the accused Gautam S/o Sh. Ram Nath Aligh is hereby convicted for the offences under Section 323/451/506/506 IPC IPC.
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
Announced in open KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27
16:05:06 +0530
court on 27.03.2025
(ROHIT KUMAR)
JMFC - 04 (North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/27.03.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature. ROHIT KUMAR Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR Date: 2025.03.27 16:05:11 +0530 (ROHIT KUMAR) JMFC - 04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/27.03.2025 Cr case 5284512/2016 FIR No 451/2012 State vs Gautam Page 17/17