Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/329/2011 on 31 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 329/11
PS : Sultan Puri
U/s 323/354/451/506/509/34 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0063822014
State v. Rajesh & ors.
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 54/2/14
b)Date of commission of offence : 15.07.2011
c)Name of the complainant : Ruby D/o Shri Raj Kumar R/o
Karamvir Ka Makan Village
Pooth Kalan, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : 1. Rajesh S/o Sh. Dilbagh Singh
R/o 1395, Pooth Kalan,
Delhi.
2. Suman W/o Sh. Rajesh
R/o 1395, Pooth Kalan,
Delhi.
e) Offence complaint of : 323/354/451/506/509/34 IPC
f) Charge framed u/s : 323/451/506/509/34 IPC
g)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 16.07.2015
i)Final Order : Both accused convicted u/s
323/451/506/509/34 IPC
j)Date of decision : 31.07.2015
FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 1 of 12
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1. Both the accused Rajesh and Suman are facing trial on the allegations that both the accused caused hurt to the complainant Ruby and threatened her and furled abuses on her in order to insult her modesty by entering into house. The accused persons are the parents of the two boys (JCL) who came on motorcycle and hit against the leg of younger sister of the complainant. When the complainant asked them about them they starting beating the complainant after restraining her from going inside her house. They even followed her when she entered her house and tour her kurta. The accused persons came at the spot and they also gave beatings and insulted the complainant by furling abuses. On these allegations, investigation has been carried out and after investigation charge sheet for the offence u/s 323/354/451/506/509/34 IPC has been filed. On appearance of accused, copies of the charge sheet were supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 323/506/509/451/34 IPC was made out against both the accused and charge was accordingly framed by the Ld. Predecessor to FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 2 of 12 which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses.
PW1 Complainant Ruby stated that she along with her sister Mansi were coming from the shop after purchasing rice. Suddenly two boys came on motorcycle and hit against the leg of her younger sister. Her younger sister received injury and blood started oozing out from her leg. She confronted the two boys why they were not driving properly to which they replied 'Tu kirayedar ki ladki hoke itna bol rahi hain". Thereafter, the said boys started beating her. When she tried to enter her house, they restrained her way and kept on beating her. On entering the house, they followed her inside the house and gave beatings to her and tore off her suit. After sometime, her mother reached at home. In the meanwhile, father and mother of the two boys i.e accused Rajesh and Suman entered in the house of the complainant. The complainant correctly identified both the accused in the Court. The accused persons started beating her and her mother. After sometime, many villagers gathered at the spot and rescued them. Someone made a call to the police at 100 number, police arrived and took them to the hospital where they were medically examined. PW1 FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 3 of 12 remained admitted in the hospital for about a week. After her discharge from the hospital, IO recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. She stated that name of those two boys who hit her sister by motorcycle were Gaurav and Akash. As the witness did not disclose all the facts, Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine the witness to ascertain facts. PW1 stated that the said boys caught hold of her in the street by neck and gave beatings to her. The accused persons namely Rajesh and Suman abused her in filthy language. They also scattered their household belongings. Accused Suman threatened her of dire consequences such that she will not be able to show her face to any one. Both the accused abused her in filthy language and gave beatings to her.
PW2 is the father of the complainant. He corroborated the version of PW1/the complainant and stated that they made call to the police on 100 number. Police took his daughter Ruby / PW1 to SGM Hospital where she was medically examined and remained in the hospital for one week. He correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
PW3 is the mother of the complainant. She also corroborated the version of the complainant/ PW1. FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 4 of 12 PW4 ASI Ramesh Chand is the Duty Officer. He stated to have received rukka sent by SI Bharat Bhushan on basis of which he registered FIR Ex.PW4/A and made endorsement of the rukka Ex.PW4/B. PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra correctly identified the signatures of Dr. Mrigender Dass on the MLC Ex.PW5/A on which PW5 has opined that injuries of the patient are simple with his signatures at point A. In the present matter, IO of the case expired during the pendency of the trial and hence could not be examined. After cross examination of the witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
3. All the incriminating evidence was put to both the accused Rajesh and Suman and their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded. In reply to the incriminating evidence the accused persons stated that their house is in front of the house of the complainant. The children were found on the road. They never entered the house of the complainant. The never gave beatings to the complainant and her mother. They stopped the quarrel of the children on the road. The complainant might be suffering from other disease. They never gave beatings to the complainant. The case is a false case. The mother of Ruby is a black mailer. There was a quarrel between the children FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 5 of 12 and she wanted to make money out of it. The witnesses are interested witnesses being father and mother of the complainant. Accused stated himself to be falsely implicated. Both accused chose not to lead any evidence in defence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel, Sh.B.S Solanki for both the accused. Counsel for the accused has argued that the incident took place at about 7 pm. There are contradiction in the version of the complainant at one place the complainant states that the wheel of the motorcycle moved over the foot of her sister whereas during examination in chief she stated that the motorcycle hit her leg. Doctor who prepared MLC did not appear to depose in this case. Accused persons were not known earlier to the complainant. The TIP was not got conducted by the IO. No public witnesses have joined the investigation. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following case laws: State of Haryana v. Inder Singh 2002 (2) (CCC) 464(SC); Ritesh Chakravorty v. State of M.P 2006 (4) (CCC) 405(SC); Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad v. Gandhi, Shanti Lal, Girdhar Lal AIR 1961 Guj. 196; Dhan Bahadur v. State 2008 (2) LRC 262 (Del.) and Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa 2015 (3) LRC 265 (SC) in support of his arguments. FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 6 of 12 Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution witnesses have corroborated version of each other and there is no discrepancy in their version. Ld. APP submits that the complainant and the public witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons as the perpetrator of the offence.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has to show the following ingredients of the offence u/s 323/451/506/509/34 IPC. i. Hurt was voluntary caused by the accused persons to the complainant/victim.
ii. Accused had intention of causing hurt or it was with knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim. iii. Accused persons trespassed in the house of the complainant/victim to commit offence.
iv. Accused persons threatened the complainant of dire consequences to the victim, her person, representative or property or to the person representative or property of another in whom the victim was entrusted.
v. The accused do so with intention to cause alarm to the victim.
vi. The accused uttered words or made some sounds or gestures or exhibited any object or intruded upon the privacy of a FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 7 of 12 woman.
vii. The accused did so with intention that the same would be heard by the woman.
vii. The accused intended to insult the modesty of the woman.
6. In the present case, PW1/the complainant Ruby as well as PW3 Savita i.e. the mother of the complainant both have categorically stated that both the accused gave beatings to PW1 and PW3 brutally. Both have also stated that the accused persons had entered into the house of PW1 and PW3 to beat the complainant. PW1 has stated the same in her statement Ex. PW1/A before the police as well as when her statement was got recorded in the Court. Even during cross examination both PW1 and PW3 have remain firm to their statement. The MLC Ex. PW5/A of complainant Ruby clearly shows that simple injuries were caused to her. The concerned doctor who has given the opinion about the injuries being simple i.e. Dr. Manoj Dhingra has given his statement as PW5 in the present case. He has also identified the signatures of the doctor who prepared the MLC at point B saying that the said doctor worked with him and he had seen him writing and signing during his official course of duties. The son's of the accused persons Gaurav and Akash are stated to have beaten the complainant Ruby after entering in their house. It is not the FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 8 of 12 case of the accused persons they were not present on the spot. Even though the accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC denied to have entered in the house of the complainant or to have given beatings to her and her mother, however, they have not led any evidence in their defence. Hence, from the statement given on oath by PW1, PW3 and PW5 it is clear that hurt has been caused to the complainant and her mother by the accused persons Rajesh and Suman. From the statement of PW1 and PW3 it is clear that both accused trespassed in the house of the complainant in order to commit offence i.e. voluntary caused hurt to the complainant/victim.
7. As regards the offence u/s 506/509/34 IPC, PW1 has stated that accused Rajesh pushed her and accused Suman abused her in filthy language stating that the complainant has being beaten by her boys now they will make her condition such that she will not be able to show her face to anyone. Both of them stated that they will take her away and throw her at such a place that her family members will not be able to find her. Both the accused were abusing her in filthy language. PW3 also stated that both the accused persons were abusing her daughter Ruby in vulgar language.
8. It is the defence of the accused that the public witnesses / neighbours have not been examined by the IO. It was the neighbours FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 9 of 12 who told the name of the accused persons to the complainant and her family members. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC the accused persons stated that their house is in front of the house of the complainant. It is not the case that the identity of the accused persons is in dispute. The complaint has been given by name and it is admitted that the parties are neighbours to each other. As regard the contentions regarding no public witnesses being joined in the investigation, it is clear the complaint has been given on 20.07.2011 where as the incident took place 15.07.2011. During the said period the complainant was hospitalized and only after she was discharged from the hospital the IO recorded her statement. In case there is any technical lapse on the part of the IO/ Investigating agency, it does not wash away the incident and the whole procedural technicalities/procedural defects while recording the statement of the complainant by the IO does not falsify the incident.
9. It is not the case that the sole testimony of the complainant victim can not be relied upon. The complainant and her mother have duly supported and reiterated their version in the Court. They have been further corroborated by the statement of PW2 who is the father of the complainant. Their statement is credit worthy as no contradiction in their testimony could be raised despite cross FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 10 of 12 examination. The defence has failed to advance any justifiable reason for the complainant and the witnesses to depose against them. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses has remained blemish free and there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the said witnesses regarding the occurrence of incident.
10. There is a third contention of the accused persons which they have raised in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. That mother of the complainant is a black mailer and she wanted to make money out of the quarrel between the children. No such proof has been produced by the accused persons or any witness examined to show that any such black mail took place. PW1 during her statement starting crying stating that the accused offered Rs. 5000/ for the compromise in the present case. Hence, in case any offer was there, it was from the side of the accused persons.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the above discussions all the ingredients of the offence u/s 323/451/506/509/34 IPC are satisfied against both the accused persons. It is clear that the accused persons trespassed in the house of the complainant /victim, voluntary caused hurt to her, threatened her and insulted her modesty by uttering abusive words that such words be heard by the complainant Ruby. Hence, both the accused persons stands FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 11 of 12 convicted for the offence U/s 323/451/506/509/34 IPC.
Put up for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 03.08.2015.
Announced in open Court on this 31st day of July, 2015 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No.329/11 State v. Rajesh & ors. Page Number 12 of 12