Delhi District Court
2. Title Of The Case: : State vs Pawan Kumar Goel on 19 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ASHWANI PANWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-I(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
1. Unique I.D. No. : 2033633/2016
2. Title of the case: : State Vs Pawan Kumar Goel
FIR No. 521/2006, PS Mehrauli
3. Date of institution : 27.06.2009
4. Date of reserving Judgment : 23.05.2022
5. Date of pronouncement : 19.07.2022
JUDGMENT :
(a) The date of commission 11.05.2005,16.05.2005,
28.05.2005& 29.05.2005
(b) The name of complainant Rajni Goel, W/o Sh. Sanjeev Goel,
R/o House No. C-53, 1st Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
(c) The name & address of the 1. Pawan Kumar Goel, S/o Late Sh.
accused persons Chunni Lal, R/o House No. 346/58,
Saidulajab, Chaudhary Charan Singh
Marg, New Delhi.
2.Shobha Rani, W/o Sh. Manjeet,
R/o House No. 4/18, Subhash Nagar,
Delhi
3.Bhupesh Kumar, S/o Sh.Sulhar
Singh, R/o House No. 4/18, Subhash
Nagar, Delhi (Proceedings abated
vide order dated 02.04.2022)
FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 1 /10
4. Santosh Goel, W/o Sh. Pawan
Kumar Goel, R/o House No. 346/58,
Saidulajab, Chaudhary Charan Singh
Marg, New Delhi (Proceedings
abated vide order dated
21.03.2022)
(d) The offence complained of U/s 506 IPC
(e) The plea of the accused Not guilty
persons
(f) The final order Convicted
(g) The date of such order
19.07.2022
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1. As per prosecution, on 11.05.2005 at B-9, Sultan Apartments, Saidulajab, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli and on 28.05.2005 at C-53, Ist floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, all the accused persons i.e. Pawan Kumar Goel, Shobha Rani, Bhupesh Kumar and Santosh Goel in furtherance of their common intention, entered into the house of the complainant Rajni Goel with intent to commit an offence after having made preparations to cause hurt, wrongful restraint or assault. Further, on 11.05.2005, 16.05.2005, 28.05.2005 and 29.05.2005 at various time and places including B-9, Sultan Apartments, Saidulajab, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli and C-53, Ist floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily threatened to FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 2 /10 kill the family of the complainant Rajni Goel with intent to cause alarm to her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 452/506(II)/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was prepared and filed in the Court.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet and annexed documents, cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. On appearance of the accused persons provisions of the Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") were complied with and after hearing arguments, charge qua the offences punishable under Section 452/506(II)/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons to which the accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses to substantiate the accusations against the accused persons.
4. PW-1 is Rajni Goel. She deposed that on 11.05.2005 accused persons namely Pawan, Santosh, Bhupesh and Shobha along with their associates came to Sultan Apartments resident along with hockey sticks and iron rods. She correctly identified all the accused persons. All the accused persons threatened to kill her family members, kidnap her children and falsely implicate her. They also extended threats qua demanding of money of Rs. 15 lacs which were deposited by her in a committee run by accused Shobha and Bhupesh. Thereafter, all the accused persons left her house. Subsequently on 15.05.2005 she asked to return the money to accused Shobha through telephone but accused Shobha refused to return her money. Thereafter, on 16.05.2005 at about 9:28am, she received a telephone call from accused Bhupesh that he was a section officer and has links with police officials.
FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 3 /10Thereafter, on 20.05.2005 she shifted from Saidulajab address to Malviya Nagar address. Thereafter on 28.05.2005 in the evening all the accused along with 3-4 persons came at her residence. Accused Pawan was having possession of a knife. The accused persons again threatened her and she made a call at 100 no. Thereafter, all the accused persons left her house. On 29.05.2005 again all the accused persons came to her house in one vehicle bearing no. DL-3CAB-2281. All the persons were having possession of hockey sticks and iron rods and all the accused persons threatened her that if she would ask to refund the money, they would kill her family. She again made a call at 100 no. Thereafter, they used to receive phone calls from Balraj, Sudesh, Dharmender, Dayanand and Santosh and they used to threaten her that if she would ask to return the money, she would have to face dire consequences. She proved complaint given to SHO, PS IGNOU, Maidan Garhi as Ex. PW1/A. Site plan was prepared at her instance. IO recorded her statement.
5. PW-2 is Sanjeev Kumar Goel. He deposed that on 11.05.2005, at about 8:00am, accused persons namely Bhupesh, Shobha, Pawan and Santosh along with 4-5 persons having rods and dandas in their respective hands came at his house i.e. B-9, Sultan Apartment, Saidulajab, New Delhi and started threatening him. At that time, he along with his wife and children were present inside the house. The accused persons told him that "Shobha se paise mange toh bacchon ko utha ke le jayenge, sajish mein phasa denge or jaan se maar denge" and thereafter all the accused persons left his house. Accused Shobha was running committee and his wife was a share holder in the committee. His wife demanded money from accused Shobha but he do not remember the date. On 16.05.2005, at about 9:00 to 9:30am, accused Bhupesh called at his residential land line number and the said phone was attended by his wife and stated that "Shobha se paise mange toh bacchon ko utha ke le FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 4 /10 jayenge, sajish mein phasa denge or jaan se maar denge ." Accused Bhupesh threatened his wife that he is working in Parliament as Section Officer and he has deep roots with Delhi police and stated that "tum mera kuch nahi bigad sakte". The same was informed by his wife. His wife used to receive threatening calls from the accused persons namely Bhupesh and Shobha every alternate days. On 20.05.2005, they shifted at Malviya Nagar address. On 28.05.2005, in the evening all the abovesaid accused persons along with 4-5 persons came at his house at Malviya Nagar. At that time he was not present inside his house. He received a call from his wife about visit of the accused persons. His wife also informed him that they were having dandas, iron rods in their respective hands and accused Pawan Goel was having a knife in his hand. His wife called at 100 number and police reached his house prior to his arrival and the accused persons were not present at his house. On 29.05.2005, at about 10:30-11:00am, all the abovesaid accused persons came at his house having dandas, iron rods in their respective hands. Thereafter, he called at 100 number. He could see the accused persons from jaali-wala-darwaja. The accused persons left his house prior to arrival of the police. Thereafter his wife lodged a complaint with PS Malviya Nagar. Prior to this on 16.05.2005, a complaint was also lodged by his wife with the PP Maidan Garhi. But no action was taken by the police against the accused persons and thereafter, FIR was lodged against the accused persons after direction of the court.
6. PW-3 is Duty Officer / SI Satyavir Singh. He deposed that on 28.07.2006 at about 10:00 am reader handed over a complaint to him for registration. On the basis of rukka, he registered the FIR No. 521/06 PS Mehrauli and proved the same as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 5 /10
7. PW-4 is ASI Naresh Kumar. He deposed that on 21.03.2008 he joined the investigation of the present case with IO/ASI Ram Bhaj. Accused Pawan and Santosh came to PP IGNOU to join the investigation of the present case with IO. After inquiry, IO arrested the accused Santosh Goel and Pawan Goel vide arrest memos as Ex. PW4/A & Ex. PW4/B respectively. He correctly identified both the accused in the present case.
8. PW-5 is SI Ram Bhaj. He deposed that during investigation, he searched the accused persons and sought the NBWs of accused Shobha Rani and arrested Santosh Goel and Pawan Kumar vide memo already Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively. On 03.05.2008 the file was marked to IO Inspector Manmohan for further investigation. He correctly identified all the accused persons.
9. PW-6 is ACP Manmohan. He deposed that on 03.05.2008 he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. On 25.11.2008 during the course of investigation, he arrested accused Bhupesh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A. Later on, accused Bhupesh Kumar was released after furnishing bail bonds and personal bond as he was already granted anticipatory bail by the Court. During further investigation, he tried to trace the accused Shobha Rani failing which he secured NBWs and later proceedings under Section 82 & 83 Cr. P.C. were initiated against accused Shobha Rani. Further she was declared PO on 15.04.2009. He filed the charge sheet in the present case. He correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court.
10. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed as no other witness was examined by the prosecution and the statements of the accused persons were FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 6 /10 recorded under Section 313 of the code. The accused persons have not led any witness in their defence, therefore, DE was closed and matter was posted for final arguments.
11. During the course of final arguments, it has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused persons be convicted. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
12. I have carefully heard the submissions of the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the entire evidence on record.
13. In order to prove its case the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention entered into the house of the complainant after having made preparation to cause hurt, wrongful restraint and assault and further that all of them threatened to kill the family of the complainant.
14. The accused persons have been charged with two offences. First of all, I will discuss the offence under Section 452 IPC. Section 452 IPC provides punishment for committing house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.
PW-1/complainant deposed that on 11.05.20005 the accused persons namely Pawan, Santosh, Bhupesh and Shobha along with their associates came to Sultan Apartments resident along with hockey sticks and iron rods. Further, on 20.05.2005 she shifted from Saidulajab address to Malviya Nagar address and on 28.05.2005 in the evening all the accused along with 3-4 persons came at her residence. On 29.05.2005 again all the accused persons came to her house in one vehicle bearing FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 7 /10 no. DL-3CAB-2281.
PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar Goel also deposed that on 11.05.2005, at about 8:00am, accused persons namely Bhupesh, Shobha, Pawan and Santosh along with 4-5 persons having rods and dandas in their respective hands came at his house i.e. B-9, Sultan Apartment, Saidulajab, New Delhi and started threatening him. At that time, he along with his wife and children were present inside the house.
The complainant and her husband categorically deposed that the accused persons entered their house on three occasions. Further all of them were carrying rods and dandas in their hands. There is nothing in cross examination of both the witnesses which could discredit their testimony. An intact testimony of both the witnesses proves that the offence punishable under section 452 IPC has been committed by the accused persons jointly in furtherance of their common intention.
15.As far as offence punishable under section 506(II) IPC is concerned it was deposed by the complainant that the accused persons threatened to kill her family members, kidnap her children and falsely implicate her. She further deposed that on 28.05.2005 again all the accused persons threatened her. PW-2 husband of the complainant also deposed on the similar lines and corroborated the deposition made by the complainant. Again no contradiction whatsoever appears in testimony of both the witnesses and the overall testimony of both the witnesses suggests that the accused persons caused alarm to the complainant by threatening to kill her family members and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506(II) IPC.
Here it is pertinent to mention the decision rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as State of U.P Vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998, wherein the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of rejecting the prosecution version either for want of FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 8 /10 corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. The Court held that if there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. The Supreme Court observed that it is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. It is unfortunate to note that the trend is to have easy recourse of appreciating evidence and reject it on the ground of some discrepancy here and there without making any effort to disengage the truth from falsehood. The pertinent observations of the Supreme Court are as under (para 13) :
"13. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard of falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version."FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 9 /10
16. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the above discussion, it could safely be said that the accused persons namely Pawan Kumar Goel, Shobha Rani, Bhupesh Kumar and Santosh Goel in furtherance of their common intention, entered into the house of the complainant Rajni Goel with intent to commit an offence after having made preparations to cause hurt and also threatened to kill the family of the complainant with intent to cause alarm to her. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Proceedings qua the accused Bhupesh Kumar and Santosh Goel have already been abated. Accordingly, the accused Pawan Kumar Goel and Shobha Rani stand convicted for the offence under section 452/506(II)/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI ASHWANI PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2022.07.19 15:44:59 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (ASHWANI PANWAR) COURT ON 19.07.2022 MM-1/SOUTH/SAKET COURTS/DELHI 19.07.2022 FIR No. 521/2006 State v. Pawan Kumar Goel Page 10 /10