Delhi District Court
State vs . Vaibhav Gupta And Anr. on 30 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN
M.M (NE) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 04/2010
U/s : 323/341/506/34 IPC
P.S : Bhajanpura
State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and Anr.
Unique Case ID No. 461984/2015
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 461984/2015 2. Date of institution of the case : 01.03.2011 3. Name of complainant : Om Prakash Gupta 4. Date of commission of offence : 18.12.2009 5. Name of accused parentage & address
i.) Vaibhav Gupta, S/o Sh. Rajender Gupta, R/o Gali No. 8, Daya Nand Gali, Arya Samaj Mandir, North Ghonda, Delhi- 110053.
ii.) Sunil Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Ram Rakshpal Gupta R/o Gali No. 8, Daya Nand Gali, Arya Samaj Mandir, North Ghonda, Delhi-110053.
6. Offence complained of : 323/341/506/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of which order was reserved : 11.03.2022
10. Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2022 FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 1 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.12.2009, at about 08:00 AM, at Arya Samaj Temple, Gali no. 8, North Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi, the accused persons namely Vaibhav and Sunil Kumar along with their associates Ravi(since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Om Prakash Gupta from proceeding towards Room no 1 and 2 of the aforesaid Mandir by holding him and thereafter Ravi and Sunil gave beating to him. Further, the complainant was pushed due to which he fell. Also, the accused persons extended threats to kill him. The FIR for the offence under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered on 06.01.2010 on the complaint of Mr. Om Prakash Gupta. After the registration of FIR, the IO investigated the present case and filed the charge sheet against both the accused on 01.03.2011. No clue was found regarding Ravi @ Abhishek and hence, inquiry regarding him was closed vide order dated 12.07.2013.
2. After supplying of documents and hearing the accused, Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.07.2013 was pleased to frame a separate charge under Section 323/341/506(ii)/34 IPC against both the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty in respect of the allegations contained in the charge and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in all.
PW1 is Om Prakash Gupta, that is the complainant. He has deposed that on 18.12.2009, he along with Ajab Singh Chaudhary, Ram Naresh and Yogesh and some other persons were present as Arya Samaj Mandir, situated at Gali no 8 North Ghonda, FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 2 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. Yamuna Vihar Road, Delhi. After performing hawan at the Temple, he was leaving. He stated that one Ram Raksh Pal Gupta was allowed by him to stay in the aforesaid temple. While he had gone to his village, the said Ram Raksh Pal Gupta expired and his son and daughterinlaw came to see him. They stated that they would stay till Tehravi of Ram Raksh Pal Gupta but did not vacate the premises even after that. There was total six rooms in the aforesaid temple and each room was given no. 16. On the date of incident, two rooms were in the possession of accused Vaibhav Gupta and on each room was affixed the number of the said rooms. He correctly identified the accused persons Vaibhav and Sunil present in Court. He further deposed that at about 08:00/08:30 AM, when he asked Vaibhav Gupta who has affixed tape on the rooms, accused Vaibhav, Sunil and Ravi stopped his way and caught hold of him and gave beatings to him. He also stated that accused persons threatened to kill him. He stated that he was saved by the Ajaib Singh, Ram Naresh, Gopal and some other persons. He deposed that he also dialed No. 100 and Police came to the spot and took him to GTB Hospital. He stated that his statement was also recorded which is Ex. PW1/A. In his cross examination he deposed that the time of the Yagna in winter is 07:45 Am to 09:00 AM. He further stated that the incident in question occurred after completion of Yagna. He admitted that other than the persons mentioned in his examination in chief, no other public witness came to save him. He denied the suggestion that he fell from the stool which was used by him for sticking the tape outside the rooms. He could not remember if his statement was recorded by the Police on the date of incident itself i.e. 18.12.2009. He denied the FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 3 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. suggestion that in his subsequent statement dated 06.01.2010, he admitted that he has wrongly mentioned the involvement of Ravi. He was confronted with the statement mark X. He also the denied the suggestion that he has instituted false case against the accused persons to get the house of the accused persons vacated. He denied the suggestion that he was not beaten up and he has falsely implicated the accused persons.
PW2 is Ajab Singh. He has deposed that on 18.12.2009, after the hawan ceremonies had been completed, he along with Ram Naresh and complainant Om Prakash Gupta were present in Arya Samaj mandir and were sitting near the hawan kund at around 07:30/08:00 AM. He deposed that they saw that somebody had put tapes on serial no. of Room no. 1 and 2. He further deposed that complainant Om Prakash removed the said tapes with a stick. Vaibhav, Sunil and Abhishek were present, and they started beating the complainant. He further stated that he along with Ram Naresh saved him and dialed No. 100 to call Police. He further deposed that then they were taken to the Police Station. One Ct. took complainant to the GTB Hospital. Police officials did not take any action and asked us to return to our houses. Thereafter, complainant filed this case in Court. He correctly identified accused Vaibhav and Sunil present in the Court.
In his cross examination, he stated that Hawan time in Mandir is from 07:00 to 08:00 AM. He denied the suggestion that complainant had fallen from the stool and received injuries on his person. He further deposed that in his statement to the Police, he had also stated that one boy namely Ravi was also present at the time of FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 4 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. incident. However, he was confronted with the statement Mark A from Point A to A where it is recorded that no boy in the name of Ravi was present at the spot. In his cross examination he admitted that accused persons along with their family are residing in the same locality since the year 2008 prior to the death of Ram Raksh Pal Gupta. He further admitted that the tape was not put on the serial no of Room no. 1 and 2 in his presence. He also could not talk about the colour of the tape. He further deposed that complainant Om Prakash Gupta had told him regarding the putting of tape on the serial numbers of Room no 1 and 2. He stated that he did not accompany Om Prakash Gupta to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that incident took place at about 07:30 AM to 07:45 AM.
PW3 is HC Braham Prakash and is a formal witness.
He has deposed that on 06.01.2010, he was posted as DO from 04:00 PM to 12 Midnight. At about 04:10 PM, HC Jayanti Prasad presented one Rukka and based on same, FIR no 4/2010 was registered Ex. PW3/A is the computerized copy of the FIR. Ex PW3/B is the Rukka. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the FIR in question is ante dated and ante time.
PW4 is Dr. Neeru Chugh. She has deposed that on 25.01.2010, She was Senior Resident at GTB Hospital. On the said day, she had given final opinion of the ENT vide MLC no. V5772/09 of the injured Om Prakash. As per the clinical treatment records, she deposed that nature of as simple. He final opinion report is Ex. PW4/A bearing her signatures at Point A. In her cross examination she denied the suggestion that there is no injury to the complainant. She however admitted that she FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 5 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. cannot state whether the injury in question can be received due to fall or not as she has not examined the patient personally and has only examined his XRay.
PW5 is IO ASI Jayanti Prasad. He has deposed that on 18.12.2009, he was posed as HC in PS Bhajanpura. On receipt of PCR call relating to quarrel at Arya Samaj mandir, he went to the spot with Ct. Krishan Kumar. He further deposed that there he met complainant Om Prakash and asked him regarding the quarrel. Complainant told him that poster of Shubh Deepawali was hanging at Hall no. 1 and 2. When the complainant asked the accused Vaibhav as to who has posed the said poster, Vaibhav replied in the affirmative stating that he had posted the said poster. Thereafter, hot words were exchanged between them, and Vaibhav hit complainant. He also deposed that complainant told him that Sunil and Ravi stopped the way of the complainant. PW5 further deposed that thereafter he recorded the statement of complainant already Ex. PW1/A having his signatures at point B. Then he prepared the rukka which is already Ex PW3/B and having his signatures at point B. Thereafter he handed the rukka to Ct. Krishan Kumar for registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, Ct. Krishan Kumar returned to the spot. Then he and Ct. Krishan Kumar searched for the accused and one public person informed them that accused Vaibhav and Sunil are standing at PS Bhajanpura. PW5 further deposed that he returned to the PS and interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B respectively. Subsequently they were released on Police Bail. He also deposed that he made inquiry qua suspect Ravi but no person by the said name was found.
FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 6 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.
Ld. APP for the State after taking permission of the Court for leading questions to the witness wherein PW5 admitted that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/C. He also admitted that he prepared the personal search memo of accused persons Vaibhav and Sunil Ex. PW5/D and PW5/E respectively.
In his crossexamination he conceded that he does not remember the date when the statement of the complainant was recorded. However, he stated that it was evening time. He also stated that he recorded the statement of complainant twice. He also admitted that on 06.01.2010, complainant had given the statement that he had wrongly mentioned the name of Ravi in his complaint. He could not remember the time of PCR Call but admitted that the incident was of morning. He further stated that on 18.12.2009, when he reached the spot, 10 to 15 public persons had gathered at the spot. He further stated that the incident took place inside the Arya Samaj Temple where 3 to 4 public persons had gathered and therefore, he did not inquire about other public persons. He admitted that he did not make any inquiry from the neighbors or other public persons except members of the Arya Samaj mandir. He denied the suggestion that complainant slip from the stool during the checking of the tapes. In his cross examination he further stated that the place of quarrel is point A in the site plan Ex. PW5/C. He admitted that all the 6 rooms have not been shown in the site plan. He also admitted that there were no other tapes except the poster of Shubh Deepawali. He denied the suggestion that the present matter has been falsely lodged at the instance of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that the FIR was lodged on the same day due to falsity of the allegations.
FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 7 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.
4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 02.09.2015 wherein they claimed that they are innocent. They denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Both the accused stated that they wish to lead evidence in their defense and hence the matter was fixed for DE. However, no list of witness was filed despite ample opportunities and vide order dated 05.11.2015, right to lead DE was closed. Matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments. Despite repeated adjournments, final arguments were not advanced. However, an application under 311 Cr.P.C was moved. The said application was also dismissed on 23.08.2017 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court holding that accused persons are only trying to delay the proceedings. Matter was renotified for final arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and the accused persons. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas as per the accused, the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions.
6. It is to be seen that the accused persons are charged for the offences under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC.
Section 323 provides as under: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily 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 341 IPC provides the punishment for the offence of wrongful confinement defined under Section 340 IPC. It provides as under: FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 8 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.
Wrongful confinement: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
Section 506 IPC provides the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 IPC.
Criminal Intimidation: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do , or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation. - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
7. Two material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. PW1 Om Prakash Gupta is the complainant and has deposed that the accused persons stopped his way and caught hold of him and gave beatings to him. PW2 Ajaib Singh has supported the version of the PW1. However, there are material contradictions in the testimony of the PW1 which have been left unexplained by the prosecution. Firstly, the complainant has stated that the incident happened on 18.12.2009 at 08:00 am/8:30 am. Simultaneously, in his cross examination he has stated that the incident happened after the Yagna ceremony. He also stated that the timing of Yagna ceremony in winter is 7:45 am to 9:00 am. Therefore, the incident could not have happened before 9:00 am. This contradiction regarding the time was left unexplained.
8. On the other hand, PW2 has deposed that the incident happened FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 9 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.
around 7:30/8:00 am. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for the difference in time stated by the two witnesses. This is important as both the witnesses admittedly agreed that in the incident happened after the hawan/yajna ceremony. Since both the witnesses are related to the temple management committee and admittedly aware of the timings of hawan/yajna conducted on daily basis, the contradiction regarding the time of incident remained unexplained.
9. Secondly, perusal of the testimony of PW5 IO ASI Jayanti Prasad shows that he has stated that on 18.12.2009, he was posed as HC in PS Bhajanpura. On receipt of PCR call relating to quarrel at Arya Samaj mandir, he went to the spot with Ct. Krishan Kumar. Then he prepared the rukka which is Ex PW3/B and having his signatures at point B. Thereafter he handed the rukka to Ct. Krishan Kumar for registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, Ct. Krishan Kumar returned to the spot. On the other hand, PW3 HC Braham Prakash has deposed that on 06.01.2010, he was posted as DO from 04:00 PM to 12 Midnight. At about 04:10 PM, HC Jayanti Prasad presented one Rukka and based on same, present FIR no 4/2010 was registered. Thus, the information regarding the incident was received at the police station and FIR was registered on 06.01.2010. The delay in the registration of the FIR was left unexplained. Although delay in registration of FIR in itself is not fatal to the case of prosecution but delay left unexplained is a material circumstance, the benefit of which must go to the accused. This coupled with the fact that in his testimony PW5 IO ASI Jayanti Prasad has deposed that he went to the place of incident on the same day i.e. FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 10 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. 18.12.2009 and rukka was also prepared on the same day and after registration of the FIR, he investigated the matter on the day of incident itself i.e. 18.12.2009. However, records speak to the contrary. FIR was registered on the basis of rukka received on 06.01.2010 and on 06.01.2010. This is material contradiction which goes to the root of the matter and throws doubt about the veracity of prosecution version.
10. Lastly, this Court finds that no motive for the alleged offences has been shown to exist, by the prosecution. The complainant has not deposed anything about any previous enmity between him and the accused persons. He has also not stated anything as to why the accused persons suddenly attacked him and thereby causing injuries on his person. Although, the presence of motive is not a prerequisite in a criminal trial to prove the guilt of the accused but in the given facts, it appears to be a material omission.
In has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 as under: "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
11. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused Vaibhav Gupta and Sunil Kumar beyond reasonable doubts. There are material holes in the prosecution, and it has failed to prove the chain of circumstances linking the accused persons with the offence in question as the testimonies of witnesses are contrary to the admitted FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 11 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr. facts on record. In these circumstances, accused Vaibhav Gupta and Sunil Kumar are acquitted hereby for the offences under Section 341/323/506/34 IPC.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Rupinder Rupinder Singh Dhiman
Singh Dhiman Date: 2022.03.30
Dictated & announced in (Rupinder Singh Dhiman)
18:17:12 +05'30'
the open Court on 30.03.2022 MM01/NorthEast/KKD
It is certified that this judgment contains twelve (12) pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by Rupinder Singh Dhiman Rupinder Singh Dhiman Date: 2022.03.30 18:17:24 +05'30' ( Rupinder Singh Dhiman) MM01/NorthEast/KKD 30.03.2022 FIR No. : 04/2010 Page No. 12 of 12 State Vs. Vaibhav Gupta and anr.