Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Sharma on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,JMFC-08,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI.
STATE Vs. DEEPAK SHARMA
FIR No.: 282/2012
PS: Jyoti Nagar
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 78831/2016
Number
B Name of the Shri Bhupender Kaushik S/o Lt. Shri Shiv
Complainant Charan Sharma
C Name of the accused Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Satish
Chand Sharma R/o: H. No.1/1275,
Maan Sarovar Park, Delhi.
D Date of commission of 03.09.2012
the offences
E Date of Institution of the 11.03.2013
case
F Offences charged 323/341/34 IPC.
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2025
of judgment
J Final Order Acquitted for offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC
.
K State represented by Sh. Arun Kumar Mavi, Ld. APP for the
State.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment a case registered against accused Deepak Sharma vide FIR no. 282/2012, PS Jyoti Nagar shall be decided and disposed off.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the the Prosecution case are that on 03.09.2012, Complainant namely Bhupinder Kaushik left his home on his motor cycle FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 1 of 15 bearing registration No. DL 5SV 0752 for Honb'le High Court of Delhi to meet an Advocate. On his way when he reached at 100 ft. Road, Near Bisht Saree Centre, Durgapuri Extn, accused Deepak Sharma along with his associates stopped the motor cycle of complainant and thereafter started beating complainant which caused injuries on complainant's forehead and lips. This alleged incident caused simple injury to complainant. Thus, a case was registered u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
3. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 11.03.2013 for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC against accused whereupon Cognizance was taken in the matter on the same date and on account of his appearance before this Court, copy of Chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Detailed arguments were heard on the point of charge and thereafter, on 12.11.2013, charge was framed against the accused Deepak Sharma u/s 323/341/34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence.
5. It is pertinent to note that in total 11 witness have been cited by the prosecution however witnesses cited at serial no. 8, 9, 10, 11 of the list of witnesses have been dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 12.03.2018 as accused has not disputed the preparation of MLC and the opinion given by the doctors therein. Accordingly, above said witnesses are not required to be examined as accused has admited the said documents by way of his signature on the said MLC at point A which is hereby exhibited as Ex. X. FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 2 of 15
6. Testimonies of the examined Prosecution witness are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
PW1 Bhupinder Kaushik:- He deposed that he is posted in MTNL as Executive Officer. On 03.09.2012, he left his home at about 12.30 pm, on his motorcycle bearing registeration No. DL 5SV 0752 for Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He further deposed that on his way, when he reached 100 foota road, near Bisht Saree Centre, Durgapuri Extn., he saw accused Deepak Sharma (present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) was standing there along with his four associates. He further deposed that accused stopped his motorcycle with the help of associates and after restraining his way, the accused started beating him with the help of one sharp edged object due to which, he sustained injuries on his forehead and lips. He further deposed that he started shouting for help and then accused ran away with his associates. He deposed that he became unconsicous and after 15 minutes when he regained his consciousness, he made a call at 100 number and PCR van arrived at the spot and took him to GTB Hospital where he got emergency treatment. He further deposed that local police officials came at the hosptial and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he got stitches on his forehead and lips in the hospital. He further deposed that he visited the place of incident along with police officials and then police officials prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that accused Deepak Sharma was having previous enmity with him and therefore, accused attacked him on the day of incident in order to take revenge.
PW1 recalled for cross examination on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. During his cross examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO in the Emergency Ward of GTB Hospital at about 3- FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 3 of 15 3.30 pm. He further deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement Ex. PW1/A that when he reached at 100 foota road, near Bisht Saree Centre, Durgapuri Extn., he saw accused Deepak Sharma with four other accused persons. PW1 is confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where Bisht Saree Centre is not recorded and also instead of "four accused persons", "some persons" were mentioned in the statement which is Ex.
PW1/A. He further deposed that accused persons had stopped his motorcycle on that day and the accused persons had hit him with sharp edged weapon. Confronted again with the statement Ex. PW1/A, where "sharp edged object" is not mentioned. He further deposed that he became unconsious after receiving injury and regained his consciousness about after 15 minutes and then he called at 100 number. He further deposed that PCR Van arrived at the spot and they reached hospital at about 2-2.15 pm and his statement was recorded by the police at about 3-3.15 pm. He further deposed that IO remained present in the hospital for about half an hour after recording his statement Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he remained in Hospital for about 5.30-6.00 pm in the hospital for treatment and thereafter, he came back to his home. He further deposed that in the evening, police again came to his house and remained there for about 10-15 minutes. He further deposed that he demanded computerised copy of FIR from the IO but IO told him that he had to visit PS for the same. He further deposed that he did not accompany the IO on that day. He further deposed that after 2-3 days of the incident, IO again came at his home for getting him medically examined in GTB Hospital at 10.00 am. He remained in GTB Hospital for about 1-1.5 hours. Thereafter, he returned back after his medical examination. He further deposed that for enquiry of the progress of his case, he met with SHO after 2-3 days of his visiting to Hospital and he remained in the PS for about 10-15 minutes and thereafter, he returned FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 4 of 15 back to his home as the SHO told him that the accused was not traceable. He further deposed that he did not meet IO of the case after his visit to the hospital for second time for medical examiantion after 2-3 days of the incident. He further deposed that accused Deepak Sharma gave him beatings and caused him injuries on his forehead and upper lips while two persons held his motorcycle from front and two other persons from the rear side. He admitted that sister of accused Deepak is married to his son Amit Kaushik and there are matrimonial disputes between his son and sister of accused Deepak and that an FIR No. 198/2012, PS Jyoti Nagar is also registered for dowry harassment against Amit, himself and others.
PW2 Rakesh Kumar:-He deposed that on 03.09.2012, at about 10.30 pm, he was coming from Hardev Puri from the house of his uncle(chacha). He further deposed that there was 100 foota road near Durgapuri, Delhi. When he reached near Gali no. 2, Durgapuri Extn., where he saw 3-4 persons had surrounded the complainant Bhupinder Kaushik. He further deposed that one of them started beating Bhupinder Kaushik by fist blow and due to that, Bhupinder Kaushik fell down from the motorcycle. He further deposed that one of the accused shouted (Bhag Deepak Bhag) after Bhupinder Kaushik fell down. He further deposed that blood was oozing out from the forehead and lips of the complainant Bhupinder Kaushik when he took off his Helmet for his treatment. He further deposed that thereafter, Bhupinder Kaushik called at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and took him to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that he did not know Bhupinder Kaushik earlier and came to know him on the day of incident.
PW2 failed to identify the accused due to lapse of time.
FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 5 of 15During his cross examination, he deposed that he does not remember the exact date when police recorded his statement. Vol. His statement was recorded by the police after 2-3 days. Again said after 10-15 days. He further deposed that he was called at PS and his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he was not residing in the same gali in which Bhupinder Kaushik resides. He further deposed that the face of the complainant was covered with Helmet. He further deposed that he was retired from the Army as Hawaldar in year 2004 and on the date of incident, he was working as Security Guard at Shyam Lal College. He further deposed that on the date of incident, he was either on leave or he was on duty from 2 pm to 10 pm. PW3 WSI Urmila:- She deposed that on 03.09.2012, she was posted as duty officer at PS Jyoti Nagar. On that day, her duty hours were from 8 am to 4 pm. She further deposed that at about 3.00 pm, Ct. Anil brought the rukka and the same was prepared and sent by HC Chander Parkash, on the basis of which, she registered the present FIR No. 288/2012, copy of the same is Ex. PW3/A, bearing her signature at point A(OSR). She further deposed that she also made endorsement which is Ex. PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A. She further deposed that copy of the FIR and original rukka were handed over to HC Chander Prakash through Ct. Anil. Certificate of the computer generated FIR is Ex. PW3/C. PW4 Ct. Anil:-He deposed that on 03.09.2012, he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar as Constable and on that day, he was performing emergency duty along with HC Chander Prakash from 8 am to 8 pm. He further deposed that on receiving DD No. 46B, he along with HC Chander Prakash reached at the spot i.e. 100 foota road near Bisht Saree Centre, Durgapuri, New Delhi, they came to know that PCR van had taken the injured to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that they reached GTB Hospital and IO FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 6 of 15 collected the MLC of injured Bhupinder Kaushik and injured gave his statement which was recorded by the IO and IO prepared the rukka and the same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. He further deposed that after that, he went to get the FIR registered and came back at the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and the same was handed over to the IO. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant.
During his cross examination, he deposed that the spot of occurrence was a busy market place and he admitted that shops were opened. He further deposed that IO had enquired 3-4 persons who told that some quarrel had taken place and the injured had been taken to the hospital. He further deposed that he does not remember the name and address of the persons who met him at the spot, were noted down by the IO. He further deposed that he went to PS for registration of the FIR on his own bike but IO brought the injured at the spot by his bike.
PW 5 Ct. Kamlesh Kumar:-He deposed that on 30.09.2012 he was posted as Ct. at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that day, he joined the investigation in the present FIR with Ct. Chander Pal and went to Durgapuri where they met complainant Bhupinder Kaushik and then complainant joined the investigation with us. He further deposed that at the instance of the complainant, accused Deepak was arrested and complainant Bhupinder Kaushik told us that accused Deepak gave him beating on 03.09.2012. He further deposed that HC Chander Pal interrogated accused Deepak and accused Deepak was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A, bearing my signature at point A and his personal search memo was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/B, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that IO also prepared the point out memo at the instance of the accused which is Ex. PW5/C, bearing his signature at point A and disclosure FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 7 of 15 statement of the accused is Ex. PW5/D, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that accused Deepak was released on bail.
PW5 has correctly identified the accused present in the court.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he does not remember as to how long complainant Bhupinder Kaushik remained with them. He further deposed that complainant Bhupinder Kaushik pointed out the accused Deepak from a distance of about 15-20 yards. He further deposed that accused Deepak was apprehended after 15-20 minutes after meeting with the complainant Bhupinder Kaushik and during that period complainant was continuously talking to IO. He further deposed that accused was released from the spot itself.
PW6 ASI Chander Prakash:- He deposed that on 03.09.2012, he was posted at PS Jyoti Nagar as HC and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm and on receiving DD No.46 B at about 1.00 pm, he reached at the spot i.e. 100 foota road near Bisht Saree Centre, Durgapuri along with Ct. Anil. He further deposed that when they reached the spot, they came to know that injured was taken to the hospital in a PCR Van. He further deposed that he went to GTB Hospital and obtained the MLC of Bhupinder Kaushik and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point B and prepared tehrir which is exhibited as Ex. PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Anil for registration of the FIR and thereafter, Ct. Anil went to PS and registered the FIR. He further deposed that he along with complainant came back to the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Same is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that on 30.09.2022, accused Deepak surrendered in the PS and was formally arrested vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex.
FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 8 of 15PW5/A, bearing his signature at point B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/B, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Deepak which is already exhibited as Ex. PW5/D, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he has also prepaed pointing out memo at the instance of accused Deepak, same is already exhibited as Ex. PW5/C, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he obtained the result of the MLC, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet and submitted it before the court.
PW6 has correctly identified the witness present in the court.
During his cross examination, he deposed that the spot of occurrence was a busy market and there were several shops and several public persons were present. He further disclosed that none of the public persons disclosed their names and addresses and he had also not served any notice in this regard to them. He further deposed that he returned back to the spot along with injured from the hospital at about 2.30 pm. He further deposed that it is correct that injured Bhupinder Kaushik had not disclosed the name of any other eye witness of the incident or his particulars or the mobile number to him on the date of incident and afterwards. He further deposed that the alleged eye witness PW 2 Rakesh Kumar brought to him by injured on 25.09.2012. He further deposed that PW2 Rakesh Kumar had brought a written statement/application for giving to him and he placed the same on record and same is Mark X, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he had not recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW2 Rakesh Kumar. He further deposed that sister of accused Deepak Sharma was daughter in law of complainant, being wife of his son and it is correct that there were complaints filed by sister of accused against the FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 9 of 15 complainant's family and some matrimonial cases were pending against them.
7. Thereafter, on 04.04.2024, statement of accused Deepak Sharma u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused person denied the commission of alleged offences and stated that marriage of his sister was solemnized with the son of the complainant and complainant started demanding dowry and when he did not fulfill the demand of dowry they started beating his sister. He further stated he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Despite opportunity, accused Deepak Sharma preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence and accordingly, Defence evidence was closed and the matter was taken up for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused Deepak Sharma addressed detailed arguments in support of their respective cases.
9. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that alleged offences are made out against the accused person. He submitted that all the prosecu- tion witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case and have given uni- form testimonies and therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offences in question, accused Deepak Sharma deserved to be held guilty and he should be given maximum punishment.
10. Per Contra Ld. Counsel for the accused prays for acquittal of the ac- cused Deepak Sharma stating that there were major contradictions in the testimonies given by prosecution witnesses. He further argued that it is ad- mitted by the complainant Bhupinder Kaushik that there is previous enmity FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 10 of 15 with accused and matrimonial cases were pending before the court between them. He further argued that no public person has joined the investigation and no notice has been served to public persons to join the investigation, therefore prays for acquittal of the accused.
11. Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully pe- rused.
Appreciation of Evidence in the light of relevant legal provsions
12. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to the guilt of the accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused persons.
13. Before proceeding on to appreciate the evidence brought by Prosecution in this matter to prove its case, it is pertinent to take a look at the penal provisions invoked against the accused persons and their implications.
14. Accused Deepak Sharma has been charged for offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC. First offence i.e. offence u/s 323 IPC is framed against the accused. It is to be noted that to decide whether accused is liable to be FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 11 of 15 convicted for the offence u/s 323 IPC or not, reference to Section 319 IPC is essential. Section 319 IPC defines the "Hurt" and it lays down that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or informity to any person is said to cause "Hurt". A bare perusal of Section 319 IPC shows that even causing bodily pain falls within the ambit of Section 319 IPC and if the said bodily pain is caused voluntarily then the said offence is punishable u/s 323 IPC.
Second offence with which accused Deepak Sharma is charged is Section 341 IPC. It is to be noted that to decide whether accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 341 IPC or not, reference to Section 339 IPC is essential. Section 339 IPC defines "Wrongful restraint" and it lays down whoever voluntarily obstruct any person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain that person. A bare perusal of Section 339 IPC shows that whoever voluntarily obstructs any person from proceeding in any direction is said to commit an offence punishable u/s 341 IPC.
Further, charge u/s 323 and 341 IPC has been framed r/w Section 34 of IPC. A bare perusal of the Section 34 shows that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of said person is liable for that act in the same manner as it was done by him.
15. Coming to the facts of the case at hand, prosecution has examined total six witnesses i.e. from PW1 to PW6. As per the testimony of PW1 Bhupinder Kaushik, he stated that he did not accomapny the IO on the date of incident and directly went to his home after medical examination. However, as per the testimony of PW4, PW5 and PW6, site plan was prepared by the IO i.e. PW6 in the presence of PW4 and PW5 at the instance of complainant Bhupinder Kaushik on the date of the incident. Further more, as per the testimony of PW1 he suffered injuries on his face FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 12 of 15 with sharp edged object, however, as per the version of PW2, Rakesh Kumar alleged eye witness, injuries were sustained due to fist blows given by one of accused. Further persual of the MLC which is admitted by accused and exhibited as Ex. X does not support the version stated by PW1 as nothing related to the injuries caused by sharp edged object has been stated in the MLC.
16. Furthermore, PW2 Rakesh Kumar stated in his testimony that blood was oozing out from the forehead and lips of the complainant when complainant took off his Helmet. However, there is no such mention by the complainant i.e. PW1 wearing Helmet in his testimony. Further, PW2 Rakesh Kumar alleged himself to the eye witness of the incident, however, as per the testimony of PW6, PW6 stated in his cross examination that it is correct that the injured/complainant/PW1 has not disclosed the name, particulars, mobile number of any other eye witness rather aforesaid alleged eye witness PW Rakesh Kumar was brought to IO by the complainant/injured/PW1 on 25.09.2012 i.e. almost after 20 days of the incident. Further, as per the version of PW3 Ct. Anil, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant i.e. PW1 and IO i.e. PW6 has brought the injured at the spot by his own bike, however, as per the testimony of PW1, he never came back at the spot. Further as per PW3, accused was arrested at the instance of PW1 Bhupinder Kaushik. However, as per testimony of IO i.e. PW6, accsued Deepak Sharma has surrendered in the PS.
17. After appraisal of prosecution evidence it is established that testimonies of prosecution witnesses i.e. (from PW1 to PW6) could not lend any support to the prosecution case as there were material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Further, no FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 13 of 15 independent evidence has been collected which can link the accused Deepak Sharma with the alleged offences.
18. In the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter titled as Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala [2019 (SCC online) SC 974], elucidating upon the onus of proof in a criminal trial, it was held that:
9. The burden lies on the Prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the Accused has only to create a doubt about the Prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An Accused is not required to es-
tablish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the Prosecution. If the Accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the Accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the Prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Also, Narinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171], it was held by the Apex Court that:
However great the suspicion against the Accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the Accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the Accused and the Prosecution has to bring home the offence against the Accused by reliable evidence. The Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
19. Thus, this court has no hesitation in holding that despite examination of plethora of witnesses and bringing several documents on record, Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts as required in law. Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case. Culpability can be attached to the accused only if it is proved that he has committed the alleged offence, which in this case, the FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 14 of 15 Prosecution failed to do despite several efforts. In these circumstances, as a natural corollary to the above discussion, this court does not hold the accused Deepak Sharma guilty in the present case.
Conclusion
20. In view of the appreciation of evidence as well as above held discussion, accused namely Deepak Sharma is held not guilty and acquitted for the charges levelled against him under section 323/341/34 IPC. Bail bonds furnished in compliance of Section 437A Code of Criminal Procedure are accepted for the period prescribed by law.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (RAHUL SAINI)
on 15.01.2025 JMFC-08/Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
15.01.2025.
FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 15 of 15
FIR no. 282/2012 PS : Jyoti Nagar State vs. Deepak Sharma Page 16 of 15