Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh on 7 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAHIMA RAI SINGH, MM02 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Ramesh
FIR No: 94/2000
U/s 452/324 IPC
PS: Krishna Nagar
Case No. 1243/16
1. Serial No. of the case : 412/13
2. Date of commission of offence : 16.04.2000
3. Name of the complainant, : Smt. Ram Pyari
parentage and address W/o Sh. Gian Chand,
R/o H. No. C17, Main Road,
Arjun Nagar, Delhi.
4. Name of the accused persons, : Ramesh
their parentage & address S/o Sh. Ram Charan
R/o H. No. 528, Gali no. 9,
West Kanti Nagar, Delhi
Presently residing at
H. No. 16, Gali No. 1,
Khajani Nagar, Delhi
5. Date when judgment was : 20.03.2018
reserved.
6. Date when judgment was : 07.07.2018
pronounced.
7. Offence complained of : U/s 452/324 IPC
or proved.
8. Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
9. Final Judgment : Accused is convicted
for offences u/s 452/324
IPC.
FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 1 of 10
Brief statement of facts / reasons for decision of the case:
1. Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 16.04.2000 at about 9:30 AM accused Ramesh committed house trespass by entering into the house no. C17, Gali No. 6, Arjun Nagar situated within the jurisdiction of PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi belonging to the complainant used as a human dwelling after making preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and caused simple injuries on the person of complainant Smt. Ram Pyari with a sharp object and thus, thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/s 452/324 IPC.
2. Accused was summoned by the Court after taking cognizance of the offences. The provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C were complied with and the copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused. On the basis of material on record, charge was framed on 05.07.2000 against the accused for the offences u/s 452/324 IPC, to which accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In the prosecution evidence, the prosecution has examined seven (07) witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. B.C. Jangra (public witness), PW 2 HC Prem Pal (Duty Officer), PW 3 Smt. Madhu Dhir (public witness), PW 4 Dr. Ashok Sabharwal (examined injured and prepared her MLC), PW 5 Ct Rajesh Kumar (joined investigation with IO), PW 6 Inspector Sunil Kumar, (Investigating Officer) whose examinationinchief remained incomplete, hence his statement cannot be read in evidence and PW 7 HC Satender Singh (produced register no. 19 in regard of depositing of case property in Malkhana.
FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 2 of 104. After closing the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 05.09.2017. The incriminating evidence/material on record was put to the accused in simple language. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused stated that it was a family dispute between family members of the complainant and her son. During this a fight occurred between complainant and her son and as a result of which complainant sustained injuries. The accused preferred not to lead defence evidence, therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. I have heard final arguments from both the sides and carefully perused the record. Let us firstly go through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
5.1 PW1 B.C Jangra is son of injured who has deposed that he has a ply shop at C17, Main Road, Arjun Nagar, Delhi and the residential house is situated behind his shop. He further deposed that on 16.04.2000 at about 9.30 am, he was coming to his house and all of a sudden he heard a noise of his mother Smt. Ram Pyari (who has now expired). He further deposed that accused Ramesh came from his house and that he knows him prior to this incident as he used to purchase ply from their shop. He further deposed that he alongwith his neighbours chased accused but he was not apprehended, then he came to his house and saw that his mother had injuries on her head and hand and blood was oozing out. He further deposed that his mother told him that accused (present in the court today) gave beating to her. He further deposed that thereafter he took his mother to Moga Medical Centre. He further deposed that he searched the address of the accused and came to know FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 3 of 10 that accused is residing at H. No. 528, Gali No. 9, West Kanti Nagar and that police came at the spot and recorded the statement of his mother Ex. PW 1/A. He identified her signature at point A on the same. He further deposed that after that he alongwith police came at the spot and police prepared site plan at his instance and that on the next day, he joined investigation of this case and police arrested the accused at his instance vide his personal search memo Ex. PW 1/B, which bears his signature at point 'A'. He also deposed that he told the police that accused gave injury to his mother and that he know the accused for last 10 years and that accused demanded articles from him on borrow and that he refused him. He further deposed that on 12.05.2000 he again joined the investigation of this case and produced a iron (teg) "Randa" which was in a wooden frame. He further deposed that the said teg was found by him during the course of cleaning. He further deposed that he saw this teg many times with accused Ramesh when he came to the shop and from this tegi accused caused injuries to his mother. He further deposed that the said teg was kept in a white cloth and after preparing pulanda the same was sealed with seal of SK and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/C and his statement in this regard was recorded by the police on the same day. His further examinationinchief was deferred for want of case property. The witness was recalled for his further examinationinchief after about nine years and at that stage, MHC (M) has produced the case property sealed with the seal of SK having particular of the present case written on the pullanda. After breaking the seal of pullanda, one iron (teg) "Iron of randa" was shown to the witness to which he correctly identified the same and the iron (teg) "Iron of randa" was exhibited as Ex. P1.
The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 4 of 10 accused .
5.2. PW 2 HC Prem Pal has deposed that on 16.04.2000, he recorded FIR No. 94/2000 on the basis of a tehrir which was sent by SI Sunil through Ct. Rajesh and he produced the original FIR register containing the original FIR No. 94/2000 and exhibited the carbon copy of FIR as Ex. PW 2/A and deposed that the same is in his handwriting and bears his signature.
The witness was not crossexamined by the accused despite opportunity given.
5.3. PW 3 Smt. Madhu Dhir has deposed that on 16.04.2000, she heard a noise of one Ram Pyari who was residing in C17 in front of her house. She further deposed that she came outside and saw the accused present in the court (correctly identified) who was coming out from the H. No. C17 belonging to the complainant and complainant was also came outside. She further deposed that blood was oozing and she received injuries on her hand. She further deposed that police recorded his statement.
The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5.4 PW Dr. Ashok Sabharwal has deposed that on 16.04.2000, he was posted at Monga Medical Centre as consultant surgeon and on that day, he examined the patient namely Ram Pyari brought by B.C. Jhangra (son of the patient), R/o C17, Main Road, Arjun Nagar, Delhi vide MLC 001/2000 which is Ex. PW 4/A, bearing his signature at point 'A'.
The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
5.5. PW 5 Ct. Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on 16.04.2000, he FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 5 of 10 joined the investigation alongwith IO and on receiving DD No. 14A, they went at the spot i.e. C17, Gali No. 17, Arjun Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that one Smt. Ram, Pyari had received injury and she was taken to hospital by her son. He further deposed that thereafter, they went at Monga Medical Centre where Smt. Ram Pyari was found admitted. He further deposed that her MLC was collected and IO recorded her statement and prepared a rukka and handed over to him for the registration of the FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS for the registration of FIR and after sometime, he came at the the spot i.e. C17, Gali No. 17, Arjun Nagar, Delhi and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He further deposed that IO recorded the statements of some public persons and thereafter they went at H. No. 528, Gali No. 9, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi in the search of accused where they came to know that the accused was not present since morning. He further deposed that thereafter they came back and IO recorded his statement in this regard. He further deposed that on 17.04.2000, he again joined the investigation with the IO and he alongwith IO went at C17, Gali No. 17, Arjun Nagar, Main Road, Delhi where eye witness namely Harmandeep of the case met them and thereafter, they alongwith eye witness went at H. No. 528, Gali No. 9, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi where accused Ramesh was arrested at the instance of Harmandeep. He further deposed that IO interrogate the accused and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 5/A , which bears his signature at point A and personally searched vide personal search memo which is already Ex. PW 1/B, bearing his signature at point 'B', He further deposed that information of arrest was given to the brother of accused namely Ramkhilwan. He further deposed that thereafter IO recorded statement of Harmandeep and thereafter FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 6 of 10 Harmandeep was discharged and accused lead them at Radhey Puri, Ganda Nala where iron rod was searched but no clue was found. He further deposed that thereafter accused lead them at the spot i.e. C17, Gali No. 17, Arjun Nagar, Delhi and pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex. PW 5/B, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter they came back at PS where son of Ram Pyari namely Baggu met them who identifies the accused. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Baggu u/s 161 Cr. P.C and accused was sent to the lock up. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard. The witness has correctly identified the accused in the court.
The witness was not crossexamined by the accused on the date of his examinationinchief, however, later on on application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. the witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused in length.
5.6. PW 6 Inspector Sunil Kumar was partly examinedinchief by the prosecution and thereafter he was not produced for his further examinationinchief and crossexamination. Therefore, his part examinationinchief cannot be relied upon in evidence and PE was closed.
5.7. PW 7 HC Satender Singh has produced register no. 19 in regard of depositing of the case property in the malkhana i.e. one iron "Randha" (Tegi) duly sealed with the seal of SK. He has exhibited copy of an entry no. 1850/153 dated 12.05.2000 Ex. PW 7/A (original seen and returned) made by SI Sunil.
The witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity given.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 7 of 10
6. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that that on 16.04.2000 at about 9:30 AM a accused Ramesh committed house trespass by entering into the house no. C17, Gali No. 6, Arjun Nagar situated within the jurisdiction of PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi belonging to the complainant used as a human dwelling after making preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and caused simple injuries on the person of complainant Smt. Ram Pyari with a sharp object and thus, thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/s 452/324 IPC.
7. The testimony of PW 1 is consistent on the point that the accused Ramesh committed house trespass after making preparation of hurt and cause hurt to his mother/complainant Ram Pyari. Accused has been correctly identified by PW 1 and no major contradiction has come on record during his crossexamination to doubt his credit worthiness. PW 1 who is also son of the complainant/victim has duly proved the version of the complainant which was reduced into writing by Ex. PW 1/A and has identified her signature at point 'A' in the same. The Ld. Counsel for the accused had the opportunity to crossexamine the witness PW 1 over the same and during crossexamination he was unable to prove any contradiction in the complaint. PW 1 also able to put on record the motive behind the said assault as according to PW 1, he refused the accused to borrow articles from his shop. The testimony of PW 1 also deposed about the recovery of weapon of assault i.e. Iron Tega (Randa) while cleaning and that the accused used to carry the same with himself during his visit to the shop of PW 1. PW 1 has been crossexamined in length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, no question has been asked about the said recovery or identity of weapon meaning thereby that the recovery and the identity of weapon has been admitted FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 8 of 10 by the accused.
8. Further PW 1 in his crossexamination has further stated that he heard noise of one lady Smt. Madhu Dhir at the time of incident who has been examined by the prosecution as PW 3 in the present matter. PW 3 Smt. Madhu Dhir has also identified the accused as the person as the one who came out of house of complainant at the time of incident and that the complainant also came outside at that time with blood oozing and injuries on her hand. The fact that PW 3 failed to identify the accused in crossexamination can be duly explained by the fact that the witness was again called for examination after a lapse of 08 years. Moreover, from the testimony of PW 1 on the point that PW 3 was present at the spot at the time of incident also ruled out the fact that the said witness PW 3 was planted against the accused or that she was interested witness.
9. The MLC of the complainant/victim was duly proved by the testimony of PW 4 Dr. Ashok Sabarwal and his testimony alongwith the MLC i.e. Ex. PW 4/A proved that simple injury was caused to the complainant/victim.
10. PW 1 and PW 5 has also deposed that the accused was known to the complainant and her son as he used to regularly visit the shop of complainant and her son meaning thereby the accused was already known to the complainant at the time of incident.
11. Though the part examinationinchief of the IO cannot be read in evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove the testimony of PW 5 as well as other witnesses that the accused has committed house trespass after preparation of hurt and that simple injuries were caused to the complainant Smt. Ram Pyari with the sharp object beyond FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 9 of 10 shadow of reasonable doubt. No material inconsistencies/ contradictions/loopholes in the evidence/material put forth by the accused in the case of prosecution against him. The accused also could not bring any defence evidence in his defence.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it may be said that the prosecution has proved all the necessary ingredients of the charge of Section 452/324 IPC against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and on the other hand the accused has failed to bring on record any material for his alleged false implication. Consequently, the accused Ramesh is convicted for the offences under Section 452/324 IPC.
Let copy of judgment be provided to the convicts free of cost.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
on 07 th July, 2018 MAHIMA by MAHIMA RAI
RAI Date: 2018.07.07
16:14:19 +0530
(MAHIMA RAI SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate02,
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment contains 10 pages & each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by MAHIMA MAHIMA RAI
RAI Date: 2018.07.07
16:14:34 +0530
(Mahima Rai Singh)
MM02 East District/KKD Courts
Delhi/07.07.2018
FIR No. 94/2000 State Vs. Ramesh Page No. 10 of 10