Delhi District Court
State vs Hari Ram And Ors on 20 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-008732-2018
Sessions Case No. 539/18
State Vs. 1) Hari Ram
S/o Sh. Mahi Lal
R/o A-145, Shish Mahal Enclave
Gali No. 8, Prem Nagar-III
Kirari, Delhi
2) Jitender
S/o Sh. Hari Ram
R/o A-145, Shish Mahal Enclave
Gali No. 8, Prem Nagar-III
Kirari, Delhi
3) Urmila Devi
W/o Hari Ram
R/o A-145, Shish Mahal Enclave
Gali No. 8, Prem Nagar-III
Kirari, Delhi
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. : 460/18 VIRENDER
Police Station : Aman Vihar VIRENDER KUMAR
BANSAL
KUMAR
U/s : 308/323/341/34 IPC BANSAL Date:
2024.12.20
17:14:34
Date of institution : 08.08.2018 +0530
Date of arguments : 26.11.2024
Date of pronouncement : 20.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The story of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 16.04.2018, Smt. Sarita w/o Kamal Kumar eloped with CCL 'B' @ 'A' S/o Hari Ram Sharma. They returned after about 20 days. Sarita and CCL 'B' @ 'A' admitted their guilt and Kamal Kumar pardoned them, asking them not to repeat the same again.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 1 of 45
2. Kamal Kumar noted that even thereafter, CCL 'B' @ 'A' used to stand in front of their house and laugh on his wife. He asked CCL 'B' @ 'A' many times not to do such activities, but he did not mend his ways. On 22.05.2018 at about 9:30 PM, CCL 'B' @ 'A' was standing in the street in front of his house, when he asked him not to stand there, CCL 'B' @ 'A' told him that he will again take away his wife and if he will come in between he would kill him. In the meanwhile, Shripal Yadav, father of Kamal Kumar, also came there and tried to make CCL 'B' @ 'A' understand, but CCL 'B' @ 'A' started quarreling with him also. In the meanwhile, Jitender, brother of CCL 'B' @ 'A' and Hari Ram, father of CCL 'B' @ 'A', came there armed with dandas. They assaulted Shripal Yadav with the dandas and abused him. Urmila Devi, w/o Hari Ram, also came there armed with danda using abusive language and assaulted Shripal Yadav. They all gave beatings to Shripal Yadav. Jitender hit on the head, Hari Ram hit on the forehead over the right eye, Urmila hit on the hand and head of Shripal Yadav and CCL 'B' @ 'A' hit on the head and feet of Shripal Yadav. Kamal Kumar stayed away from there due to fear. On hearing the shouts of Kamal Kumar, his wife Sarita and his sister-in-law Geeta came there to save his father. They were also assaulted by the accused persons. Kamal made a call at 100 number. PCR van came and removed Shripal Yadav to the hospital. On the complaint of Kamal Kumar, FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. Ld MM, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable U/s 308 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The CCL 'B' @ 'A' is SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 2 of 45 separately tried before the JJB.
3. The other three accused persons were charged for the offences punishable U/s 308/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and 341/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Kamal Kumar, the complainant, was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 16.04.2018, his wife left the house with CCL 'B' @ 'A' and returned after 20 days. On enquiry, she told that she was with CCL 'B' @ 'A' during this period and also admitted her mistake. He accepted the apology tendered by his wife and allowed her to live in the house.
5. CCL 'B' @ 'A' used to stand in front of his house and laugh on seeing his wife on several occasion. He asked him not to do so, but he did not pay any heed. On 22.05.2018 at about 9:30 PM when CCL 'B' @ 'A' was standing in front of house, he asked him to leave that place, on which he started abusing and threated to kill him, if he came in between CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his wife Sarita. CCL 'B' @ 'A' said that he will again take away his wife. On hearing the noises, his father came out and tried to pacify the matter, on which CCL 'B' @ 'A' started quarreling with his father. In the meanwhile, Jitender, elder brother of CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his father Hari Ram, also reached there armed with dandas and started beating his father. Urmila, mother of CCL 'B' @ 'A', also reached there armed with danda. She also abused his father and gave beatings to his father saying "aaj inko jaan se maar denge".
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 3 of 45
6. In the meanwhile, his wife Sarita and her elder sister Geeta also came there and all the accused persons gave beatings to them. CCL 'B' @ 'A' gave danda blow to his father after taking it from his mother. His father sustained injuries on his head, forehead, eyes, arms and legs. Due to fear, he did not intervene and kept himself on one side. Jitender and Hari Ram also slapped him. He called at 100 number. Police came on the spot and removed his father to SGM Hospital. He also accompanied his father to the hospital. Police made enquiries from him and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. IO also prepared the site plan of place of incident Ex.PW1/B at his instance.
7. Accused Jitender and Hari Ram were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. The accused persons made disclosure statements Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. IO took the accused persons to the spot and prepared the documents Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H. Accused persons also got recovered three dandas, i.e. one baseball danda, one wooden danda and one bamboo danda from under the bed, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/J. IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/K of the place of recovery. He identified the bamboo stick as Ex.P1 which was in the hand of accused Hari Ram, the other danda of wood Ex.P2 which was in the hand of Urmila and broken baseball danda, which is in two pieces as Ex.P3. The witness stated that the baseball danda was broken when accused Jitender hit on the head of his father with this danda. He also correctly identified the accused persons.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 4 of 45
8. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that the accused persons are residing near his house for the last 22 years. There was no quarrel between them prior to this incident. He lodged the missing report about his wife and narrated the fact that his wife had gone with CCL 'B' @ 'A'. He was not having any knowledge if CCL 'B' @ 'A' was juvenile at that time or not. He denied the suggestion that he used to harass and torture his wife or due to that reason, she approached CCL 'B' @ 'A' in order to redress her grievances. He had no knowledge if his wife had lodged any complaint in this regard before the police.
9. He does not remember when his wife returned to the matrimonial home. She came to her parental home and then at about 6:00/7:00 PM on 22.05.2018, she came to his house from her parental home. She was accompanied by her mother, elder sister and father at that time. There was street light in the street. Her parents and elder sister remained at their house till about 8:00/9:00 PM.
10. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith his family members falsely implicated the accused persons. He called the police. Police reached at about 10:00/11:00 PM. He was standing on the side when the accused persons were beating his father. CCL 'B' @ 'A' was laughing while standing in front of their house and when his father objected, the quarrel ensued. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein it is not so recorded.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 5 of 45
11. He admitted that he had not sustained any injury in the quarrel. He denied the suggestion that he has not sustained injuries as they had inflicted injuries on the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that in the quarrel, Mamta, sister of CCL 'B' @ 'A' sustained injuries and her MLC was also prepared.
12. Police visited their house only once. His statement was recorded in the hospital. The statements of Sarita and her elder sister were recorded at her home, but he does not remember the time when the statements were recorded on 23.05.2018. He denied the suggestion that he signed the documents in the PS.
13. Dr. Vipin Dabas was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 29.06.2018, he was posted at SGM Hospital as CMO. One patient namely Shripal Yadav, aged 62 years, was brought by the police for taking blood sample. He took the blood sample on gauze, sealed it with the seal of hospital and handed over to ASI Bhagwan Sahai. He prepared MLC Ex.PW2/A in this regard. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
14. Shripal Yadav was examined as PW3. He also narrated the story that Sarita w/o his son Kamal Kumar had eloped with CCL 'B' @ 'A' and thereafter she returned. He also stated that CCL 'B' @ 'A' used to stand in front of their house and laugh on seeing wife of Kamal. On several occasions, his son asked CCL 'B' @ 'A' not to do so, but he did not pay any heed. On 22.05.2018 at about 9:30 PM, was standing in front of their house. His son asked the CCL 'B' @ 'A' to leave, but he started SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 6 of 45 abusing and threatening him if he came in between CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his wife. He also stated that he will again take away his wife. On hearing these loud noises, he came out and tried to pacify the matter, on which CCL 'B' @ 'A' started quarreling with him. In the meanwhile, Jitender elder brother of CCL 'B' @ 'A' and Hari Ram, father of CCL 'B' @ 'A', came there armed with dandas. They abused him and also gave beatings to him with dandas. In the meanwhile, Urmila Devi w/o of Hari Ram also came there armed with danda. She instigated Hari Ram and both his sons saying "aaj inko jaan se maar do" and also gave beatings to him.
15. Jitender hit on his head, Hari Ram caused injuries on his eyebrows, Urmila hit on his head and hand and CCL 'B' @ 'A' caused injuries on his head and leg with dandas. His son stayed away screaming. On hearing cries of Kamal, his wife Sarita and his sister-in-law Geeta came forward to save him, on which the accused persons also assaulted them. When Kamal came to rescue him, the accused persons slapped him. His son made a call at 100 number. Police removed him to SGM Hospital. His son also accompanied him to the hospital. He could not give his statement due to severe injuries sustained by him. He handed over his yellow colour t-shirt, cream colour paijama and one white colour handkerchief to the IO, which he was wearing at the time of incident. IO kept all these clothes in a parcel, sealed with the seal of BSM and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
16. IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B at their instance. IO also arrested the accused Jitender and Hari Ram vide arrest SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 7 of 45 memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. They both made disclosure statements Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively. The accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H. Both the accused persons got recovered one baseball danda, one wooden danda and one bamboo stick from underneath the bed. All these dandas were put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of BSM and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/J. IO also prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/K of the place of recovery. His blood sample was also taken, which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He also identified the dandas as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. He also identified his t- shirt, paijama and handkerchief as Ex.P4-colly.
17. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he deposed that his daughter-in-law Sarita returned to her parental house on 16.04.2018. She came to their house on 22.05.2018 at about 8:00/8:30 PM. His statement was recorded on 23.05.2018 at about 11:00 AM. He was confronted with his statement Mark DW3/A1, wherein it was not mentioned that his daughter-in-law returned to their house on 22.05.2018. He called the father of Sarita and informed that he has forgiven her and now she can come to their house. He admitted that there is one house in between his house and the house of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that they all in pursuance of the conspiracy visited the house of accused persons and attacked them and mercilessly beaten them. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not cause any injury to them and also did not get recover any weapon of offence. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 8 of 45
18. The incident started at about 9:30 PM. He denied the suggestion that incident started at about 10:15 PM. He denied the suggestion that they waited for arrival of CCL 'B' @ 'A' from his job. He also denied the suggestion that they assaulted Urmila Devi on her head and also CCL 'B' @ 'A' or that Urmila Devi sustained fracture. He denied the suggestion that Hari Ram and Jitender were not present at their home or that they reached there after the quarrel. He denied the suggestion that they all also assaulted Mamta. He denied the suggestion that bamboo stick was brought by him, which was later on planted upon the accused persons.
19. Dr. Munish Wadhawan was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 29.06.2018, he received the application Ex.PW4/A to get the opinion regarding weapons of offence, alongwith three sealed parcels having seals of BSM. He opened the parcel and found parcel was containing two pieces of danda, one bamboo danda and one wooden danda. After going through the injuries as mentioned in the MLC and examining the weapons of offence, he gave the opinion that injuries mentioned in the MLC are possible with the weapons examined by him. After examining the weapons, they were again sealed, signed and handed over to the IO. He proved his opinion as Ex.PW4/B. He also identified the dandas as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the same which he examined.
20. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that he had not mentioned the dimensions of the weapons examined by him in his opinion. He denied the suggestion that SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 9 of 45 he had not examined the weapons and that is why, he had not given their dimensions.
21. HC Virender was examined as PW5. On 23.05.2018, he was working as Duty Officer from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM in PS Aman Vihar. On that day, Ct. Amit brought a rukka at about 5:20 AM, on the basis of which, he got registered FIR No. 460/18 U/s 341/506/308/323/34 IPC. He handed over one computer generated copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Amit to hand over the same to ASI Bhupender Singh for investigation. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW5/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka with respect to registration of FIR. He proved the certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW5/B.
22. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed.
23. Smt. Geeta was examined as PW6. She deposed that on 22.05.2018, she went to the house of her sister Sarita residing at Shish Mahal, Agar Nagar, Delhi. At about 9:30 PM, CCL 'B' @ 'A' was standing in the street in front of the house of her sister. Her brother-in-law Kamal Kumar asked CCL 'B' @ 'A' not to stand there and mend his ways, but he continued to stand there and stated that he will again run away with his wife. A scuffle took place between his brother-in-law Kamal and parents-in-law, herself and CCL 'B' @ 'A'. During that time, Jitender, brother of CCL 'B' @ 'A' also came there having danda in his hand. Parents of CCL 'B' @ 'A' also came there. All the accused persons gave danda blows to the father-in-law of her sister. All the accused SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 10 of 45 persons were having dandas. The accused persons were exhorting to kill father-in-law of her sister and others. Father-in- law of her sister sustained injuries on his right hand and right eyebrow. When she and her sister intervened, they were also given beatings by the accused persons with dandas. When her brother-in-law Kamal came to intervene, the accused persons gave kick, leg blows and danda blows to him also. Her sister made a call at 100 number. PCR van came and removed father- in-law of her sister to SGM Hospital. Her sister and husband of her sister also went to the hospital in the same PCR. FIR was got lodged by the husband of her sister. Clothes stained with blood of father-in-law of her sister were also seized by the police. She also identified the accused persons.
24. Next day, the accused Hari Ram and Jitender were arrested. They also got recovered the dandas used in the commission of offence. She correctly identified the accused persons.
25. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that she alongwith her brother Karan went to the house of her sister to meet her and reached there at about 4:00/5:00 PM on 22.05.2018. Sarita was at home at that time with her son. She does not know where Sarita was on 21.05.2018. She denied the suggestion that in-laws of Sarita do not treat her well. She admitted that Sarita had left the house with someone around 20 days prior to the incident. She does not know if Sarita had left the house with CCL 'B' @ 'A'. She went to the hospital after the incident, which happened at around 9:30 PM. She denied the SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 11 of 45 suggestion that they attacked the accused persons after planning. Kamal Kumar came out of the house to make CCL 'B' @ 'A' understand not to laugh. She had heard the conversation between Kamal and CCL 'B' @ 'A' as they were talking loudly. She denied the suggestion that CCL 'B' @ 'A' saved the life of her sister and that is why, they went to the house of CCL 'B' @ 'A' and attacked him and his family members. Her statement was recorded by the police at the house of her sister. No one from the side of accused sustained any injury. She does not know if accused persons were also got medically examined. She denied the suggestion that she was not present on the spot or that no such incident had taken place in her presence.
26. Sarita was examined as PW7. She deposed that she had got divorce from her ex-husband Kamal Kumar. Before divorce, she used to stay with him in his house. About 20 days before 16.04.2018, she left the house with CCL 'B' @ 'A'. She returned home and admitted her mistake. Thereafter, she started living with her husband, who allowed her to live with him. Thereafter, CCL 'B' @ 'A' used to stand in front of the gate of their house and laugh on seeing her. She told him not to stand in front of their gate, but he had not given any heed to it. Her husband also tried to make him understand, but CCL 'B' @ 'A' started shouting and quarreling with her husband. On hearing the voices of quarrel, Shripal, father of her husband came outside the house. In the meantime, Jitender and his father Hari Ram also reached the spot armed with dandas. Both Jitender and Hari Ram started beating her father-in-law. In the meantime, mother of Jitender also came there having danda in her hand. She also SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 12 of 45 came out of her house and tried to save her father-in-law, but all the accused persons gave beatings to her father-in-law and also to her. While giving beatings to them, they were abusing saying "aaj to inko khatam kar denge". Somehow, her ex-husband escaped and made a call at 100 number. PCR van came on the spot and removed her ex-husband and her father-in-law to SGM Hospital. Her father-in-law was not able to give statement on that day due to the injuries, however, next day, he went to the PS and his statement was recorded. His father-in-law was wearing yellow colour t-shirt, cream colour paijama and handkerchief, which were stained with blood. These clothes were handed over to the police, which were seized. The accused persons Hari Ram and Jitender were arrested. The accused persons got recovered the dandas from under the bed from their house, which were sealed and seized by the police. Police also recorded statement of her sister Geeta. She identified the dandas as well as clothes of her father-in-law. She also correctly identified all the accused persons.
27. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that she does not remember the date when she got divorce from her husband. She stated that CCL 'B' @ 'A' has taken her forcibly with him and also threatened her. On the day when CCL 'B' @ 'A' had taken her, only her mother-in-law and son were present at home. She had not informed her husband and mother-in-law about the threat by CCL 'B' @ 'A' at that time of taking her forcibly. She denied the suggestion that she had accompanied CCL 'B' @ 'A' of her own or that is why, she had not informed her parents-in-law about the threat.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 13 of 45
28. She stayed with CCL 'B' @ 'A' for about 22 days. During those 22 days, she tried to contact her in-laws, but CCL 'B' @ 'A' had broken her mobile phone and the SIM and also used to threaten her. She does not remember the date and time when the mobile phone and SIM were broken. She denied the suggestion that no incident of breaking the mobile phone and SIM had taken place. She denied the suggestion that she had not made any complaint to the police because no such incident had taken place. She denied the suggestion that her husband and in- laws used to beat her and that is why she had gone with CCL 'B' @ 'A' of her own. She had not made any complaint against her in-laws at any point of time or after the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had given complaint against her husband and in-laws to SHO and higher police officials regarding the harassment and ill-treatment by them. The defence tried to put the photocopy of the complaint, which was not allowed by the court, as the original was not with them.
29. She was brought by her husband from Aligarh on 16.04.2018. She denied the suggestion that she had gone with CCL 'B' @ 'A' on 16.04.2018 and it is not the day of her return. Medical examination was not conducted when she returned home. The present incident took place on 22.05.2018 in the night. She denied the suggestion that she had gone with CCL 'B' @ 'A' second time and returned on 21.05.2018. She was present at the house of her in-laws from 16.04.2018 onwards. She denied the suggestion that on 22.05.2018, she returned to the house of her in-laws, alongwith sister, brother and father or that she in connivance with her brother, sister and in-laws quarreled SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 14 of 45 with CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his family members. She denied the suggestion that in that quarrel, the hand of CCL 'B' @ 'A' was broken as they had given danda blows to the CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his family members. She also denied the suggestion that the dandas with which they gave beatings to CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his family members were later on planted by the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place.
30. HC Raj Kumar was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 23.05.2018, he was posted at PS Aman Vihar and was working as MHC(M). On that day, ASI Bhagwan Sahai deposited one sealed parcel having seal of BSM in the malkhana and he made entry at serial No. 341/1 in register No. 19. On the same day, IO also deposited three sealed parcels having seal of BSM. He made entries at serial No. 341/2 in register No. 19.
31. On 29.06.2018, ASI Bhagwan Sahai deposited one sealed parcel containing blood gauze having seal of SGH Hospital, Mangol Puri. He made entry at serial No. 432 in register No. 19.
32. On 05.07.2018, on the instructions of IO, he handed over the case property, i.e. sealed parcels to Ct. Pradeep vide RC No. 258/21/18. Ct. Pradeep after depositing the case property returned and handed over the acknowledgment to him. He proved copies of the entries as Ex.PW8/A and copy of RC is proved as Ex.PW8/B and the acknowledgment as Ex.PW8/C.
33. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 15 of 45 admitted that he has deposed after going through the relevant entries in the register. Pulandas given to him were already sealed. He denied the suggestion that pulandas were not sealed when given to him or that the pulandas were sealed later on.
34. Smt. Lata Devi was examined as PW9. She deposed that on 16.04.2018, CCL 'B' @ 'A' S/o Hari Ram Sharma had taken away Smt. Sarita from their house without the consent of her son Kamal. About 20 days later, Smt. Sarita came back and Kamal forgave her for her deeds. Sarita, thereafter, started residing with them assuring that she would not repeat the said act again.
35. House of Hari Ram is situated adjacent to their house. After the above mentioned incident, CCL 'B' @ 'A' used to stand in his balcony and laugh on seeing Smt. Sarita. Kamal objected to it and requested not to do any such activity but he threatened that if he (Kamal) came in his way, he would again take away Sarita with him and also threatened him of dire consequences. CCL 'B' @ 'A' did not mend his ways. Her husband also asked CCL 'B' @ 'A' not to repeat such activities but he did not pay any heed to their requests.
36. On 22.05.2018 at about 9.30 pm a quarrel took place between her husband and Hari Ram Sharma. She correctly identified the accused. Hari Ram Sharma assaulted her husband on his head with a danda. Her husband started bleeding. Hari Ram Sharma also assaulted her husband on his leg with the danda, due to which her husband fell down. Her son Kamal SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 16 of 45 stayed away due to fear. Her husband was removed to SGM Hospital where he was given medical treatment. Police came to the hospital and enquired from her husband. She also got frightened after the incident and was not feeling well. She correctly identified all the accused.
37. During cross-examination by Ld Chief PP for State, she admitted that on hearing the noise from the street, she alongwith her husband reached near Kamal Kumar and tried to pacify CCL 'B' @ 'A' but he started quarreling with her son and husband. She also admitted that in the meantime accused Jitender alongwith Hari Ram reached there having dandas in their hands and they both assaulted her husband with dandas. She admitted that in the meantime, accused Urmila Devi also reached there, who abused and assaulted her husband with a danda. Hari Ram asked his associates to kill her husband and finish the matter.
38. She admitted that accused Jitender assaulted her husband with a danda and accused Hari Ram gave a blow of danda on the right eye of her husband. Accused Urmila gave a blow on the hand and head of her husband. CCL 'B' @ 'A' assaulted with the danda on the head of her husband. Sarita w/o her son also reached at the spot on hearing the noise. Smt. Geeta w/o Sher Kumar also reached there to pacify the matter. CCL 'B' @ 'A' also assaulted them with the dandas and Kamal was slapped by the accused persons. She also admitted that Kamal informed the police at 100 number. PCR van came and removed her husband to the hospital. Sarita and Geeta were also taken to the hospital.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 17 of 45
39. She admitted that due to serious injuries, her husband was not in a position to give statement and, therefore, the case was registered on the complaint of her son Kamal. In the incident, the yellow colour t-shirt and cream colour pajama, which her husband was wearing at the time of incident, was stained with blood, which the police seized. IO prepared the site plan of the place of incident at the instance of her husband and son. The accused persons were arrested from their house at about 8 pm and they got recovered three dandas from their house. Those dandas were wrapped in cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of BSN and seized. She identified the dandas as well as the clothes of her husband.
40. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, she admitted that her daughter in law returned home of her own on 22.05.2018. Thereafter, the parents and sister of her daughter in law came to their house in the evening, may be around 6 or 7 pm. They returned to their home at about 8-9 pm. They reside in the same locality. There was no quarrel between them and accused persons prior to that incident. CCL 'B' @ 'A' and her daughter in law Sarita were forgiven for the activity done by them in the absence of her parents and her sister. CCL 'B' @ 'A' was asked not to repeat such activity and not to stand in front of their house when he was forgiven. She was not present when her son forgave CCL 'B' @ 'A'. She stated that her daughter in law also lodged a complaint against them in PS Aman Vihar. Police did not visit them after the complaint lodged by Smt. Sarita.
41. She denied that they all in furtherance of their common SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 18 of 45 intention attacked CCL 'B' @ 'A' wherein hand of CCL 'B' @ 'A' was broken. She denied the suggestion that she alongwith her husband, parents and sister of Sarita attacked CCL 'B' @ 'A' with dandas and gave fist and leg blows. She also denied the suggestion that when Smt. Urmila, Sh. Hari Ram and Jitender came to pacify the matter, they were also assaulted and beaten by them. She does not know if the accused persons sustained any injury or that they had gone to the hospital or not. She denied the suggestion that her daughter in law Sarita had taken away CCL 'B' @ 'A', who was minor at that time after enticing him. She denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated. She admitted that her daughter in law had again gone with CCL 'B' @ 'A' and returned after about five months.
42. Dr. Bina was examined as PW10. She proved the MLC of Shripal Yadav, who was examined by Dr. Rajesh Dalal and prepared MLC. She identified handwriting and signature of Dr. Rajesh Dalal. The MLC of Shripal Yadav is proved as Ex.PW10/A. She also proved the MLC of Sarita brought to the hospital on 23.05.2018 examined by Dr. Vikash vide MLC No. 8375/18. She identified handwriting and signature of Dr. Vikash and proved the MLC as Ex.PW10/B. She also proved the MLC of Geeta, who was examined by Dr. Vikash and Rajesh Dalal. She proved the MLC as Ex.PW10/C. She also proved the MLC of CCL 'B' @ 'A' examined by Dr. Vikash and Dr. Rajesh Dalal and proved the MLC as Ex.PW10/D. She also proved the MLC of Urmila as Ex.PW10/E. She also proved the MLC of Mamta as Ex.PW10/F. SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 19 of 45
43. SI Attar Singh (Retd.) was examined as PW11. He deposed that on 29.06.2018, as per the instructions of ASI Bhagwan Sahai, he had collected the exhibits in sealed condition having seal of BSM from MHC(M) vide RC No. 256/21/18 and went to Forensic Department, SGM Hospital. IO ASI Bhagwan Sahai also reached there and he handed over the exhibits in sealed condition alongwith road certificate to the IO. Thereafter, he was discharged.
44. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, he deposed that he does not recollect the exact time of collecting the exhibits. He reached SGM Hospital at about 12 Noon and handed over all the exhibits to the IO. He admitted that the exhibits were not sealed in his presence.
45. HC Pardeep Malik was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 05.07.2018, on the directions of the IO, he collected the parcels alongwith sample seal from the MHC(M) vide RC No. 258/21/18 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini. After depositing the parcels with FSL, he collected the copy of acknowledgment. He returned to the Police Station and handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M). He proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW12/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
46. HC Amit Kumar was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 22.05.2018, on receipt of DD No. 66PP, he alongwith ASI Bhagwan Sahai reached H.No. 143/18, Chandan Vihar, Shish Mahal Enclave, Prem Nagar-III. At the spot, they came to know SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 20 of 45 that injured was taken to SGM Hospital by the PCR. No eye witness met them at the spot. He alongwith ASI Bhagwan Sahai reached SGM Hospital. In the hospital, injured Shripal Yadav, Sarita and Geeta were found under treatment. Shripal Yadav refused to make statement due to severe pain. IO recorded statement of Kamal Kumar S/o Shripal Yadav, prepared Rukka at about 5 AM and handed over to him for getting the case registered. He got the case registered and at about 6 AM, he reached the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Bhagwan Sahai. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B on the pointing out of the complainant. Injured Shripal handed over his blood stained clothes i.e. one yellow colour t-shirt and one cream and grey colour pyjama, which were put in a polythene, thereafter, in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of BSM and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. On the identification of Kamal Kumar and Shripal Yadav, accused Hari Ram and his son Jitender were arrested from their house at about 8 PM. Accused Hari Ram was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/A. Hari Ram made disclosure statement as Ex.PW1/E. Accused Jitender was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/B. He made disclosure statement as Ex.PW1/F. Accused persons got recovered dandas from under their bed. The baseball danda (danda) in two pieces, one wooden danda and one bamboo danda were recovered. These were put in separate cloth parcels, sealed with the seal of BSM and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/J. Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared, which is Ex.PW1/K. They also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW1/G and SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 21 of 45 Ex.PW1/H. Accused persons were got medically examined and thereafter, they returned to the Police Station. IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. The witness correctly identified the accused persons and also the case property.
47. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that the information of the incident was received at about 11 PM. They reached the spot at around 11:15 PM on motorcycle of the IO. He does not remember the exact time of reaching the hospital, perhaps it was 11:30 PM or so. He met Shripal, Sarita, Geeta and Kamal Kumar in the hospital. No other person from the side of the injured met them there. They also did not meet any person from the side of accused. IO recorded statement of Kamal. He does not remember if the accused persons were present in the hospital or not or their MLCs were prepared or not. One of the injured refused to give statement as he was under pain. He does not remember the reason why the other two injured did not make any statement. The statement of Kamal was recorded in Emergency and rukka was also prepared there.
48. He went to the Police Station alongwith rukka at about 5:15 AM and thereafter reached the spot at around 6 AM. He went to the Police Station by e-rickshaw and reached the spot in e-rickshaw. Kamal was present at the spot alongwith the IO when he reached there. He is not able to recollect the names of other persons, who were present there at that time.
49. When the accused persons were arrested, some other SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 22 of 45 persons were also present in their house. He does not remember if those persons were male or female.
50. The incident took place in the street but he does not remember its width. He does not remember if the place of incident was in front of the house of accused persons. No independent public witness was with them at the time of recovery of dandas. Public persons from the street were asked to join the recovery proceedings, but no one agreed. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was affected at the instance of accused persons or that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement
51. Ct. Parvesh was examined as PW14. He deposed that on 22.05.2018 at 10:57 PM, Duty Officer informed him telephonically about the present incident, on which he recorded DD No. 66PP and conveyed the information to ASI Bhagwan Sahai and Ct. Amit for necessary action. He proved the copy of DD No. 66PP as Ex.PW14/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
52. W/Ct. Sonu was examined as PW15. She deposed that on 15.10.2018, she alongwith ASI Bhagwan Sahay reached Court No. 113, Rohini Courts. Accused Urmila Devi was present in the court as she had moved an application for surrender-cum-bail. IO interrogated the accused with permission of the court. Accused Urmila Devi was arrested vide memo Ex.PW15/A and she conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW15/B. She was interrogated and the detail of the same is Ex.PW1/C. SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 23 of 45 Accused Urmila Devi was released on bail by the order of court.
53. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that the interrogation report was prepared by the IO while sitting in the court itself. She does not remember the time of the interrogation. She denied the suggestion that no interrogation was carried out.
54. SI Bhagwan Sahai was examined as PW16. He corroborated the testimony of PW13 as well as PW15. He also proved the rukka Ex.PW16/A. He also served notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the injured, which is Ex.PW16/B and pursuant to that notice, injured Shripal produced his blood stained clothes i.e. one t-shirt, one lower and one handkerchief, which he seized. He also deposed about the arrest of the accused persons and recoveries. He proved the RC No. 258/21/18 as Mark PW16/C. He identified the accused persons and also the case property.
55. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that they reached the spot on his motorcycle, bearing registration number DL1SQ-4534 at around 11:15 PM. From the spot, they reached SGM Hospital at around 11:30 PM. MLCs of Urmila, Mamta and CCL 'B' @ 'A' were already prepared when he reached the hospital, but he did not meet them. He cannot say as to how Urmila, Mamta and CCL 'B' @ 'A' reached the hospital. He also cannot say as to how Sarita and Geeta reached the hospital. He cannot say if accused Hari Ram and Jitender @ Jitu and CCL 'B' @ 'A' were present in the hospital or not. He is not aware if the MLCs of accused Hari Ram and Jitender @ Jitu SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 24 of 45 were already prepared or not. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the hospital. MLCs of CCL 'B' @ 'A', Urmila, Jitender @ Jitu and Hari Ram were shown to the witness and he stated that he does not remember whether these MLCs were placed by him on record.
56. They again reached the spot on 23.05.2018 at around 5:30 AM. He prepared the site plan in front of house of accused persons and there was an electric pole near the house no. 513- 43/1-10-2. He denied the suggestion that there was no such pole. He admitted that place of incident is situated in a thickly populated area. He asked the public persons to join the investigation but nobody came forward to join the investigation. No notice was served upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. The statements of other witnesses were recorded at around 6:30 PM after arrest of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the dandas were planted upon the accused persons at the instance of complainant. He admitted that FIR No. 342/18, PS Aman Vihar, U/s 363 IPC dated 23.04.2018 is part of the judicial record. He volunteered that accused Hari Ram got lodged this FIR to save himself. He admitted that FIR No. 342/18 was lodged prior to this present case. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not enquired into the incident of missing CCL 'B' @ 'A'.
57. He denied the suggestion that Shripal sustained injuries from his son Kamal, when he was attacking CCL 'B' @ 'A' and fell down on the floor thereafter. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation fairly.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 25 of 45
58. HC Amit Kumar was examined as PW17. He deposed that on 22.05.2018, he was posted at CPCR and received PCR call regarding quarrel. He recorded the information and filled Form No.1 Ex.PW17/A. The call was made by Kamal Kumar. The data has been deleted from their system as per order Mark PW17/B.
59. During cross-examination by Ld defence counsel, He denied the suggestion that call at 100 number was made by Mamta and Urmila and not by Kamal.
60. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated.
61. Accused Hari Ram stated that on the day of incident, he returned to his house at about 9.30 PM from his duty. When he reached near his house, he found that complainant, his family members and relatives were beating his son CCL 'B' @ 'A', his daughter Mamta and wife. He intervened to protect them. In the incident, his daughter, his son CCL 'B' @ 'A' and wife sustained injuries from the dandas, which the complainant were carrying. He wished to lead evidence in defence.
62. Accused Jitender stated that he also returned to his house at about 9.30 PM from duty and noticed that complainant, his family members and relatives were beating his brother CCL 'B' @ 'A', his sister Mamta and mother. He intervened to protect SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 26 of 45 them. In the incident, his sister, his brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' and mother sustained injuries from the dandas, which were carried by the complainants. He wished to lead evidence in defence.
63. Accused Urmila Devi stated that on the day of incident, witness Kamal Kumar came to his home in the evening and enquired about the whereabouts of her son CCL 'B' @ 'A'. She informed him that she has gone for his duty. Kamal threatened that they will teach him a lesson and show him the consequences of taking away his wife. At about 9.30 AM, her son CCL 'B' @ 'A' returned from duty. Kamal, his father Shripal and other members of his family stopped him in the street near their house and started beating him with dandas. On hearing the noise, she alongwith her daughter Mamta came out of the house to save CCL 'B' @ 'A' but the complainant and his family members were inclined to kill him. In the meantime, her husband Hari Ram and Jitender also reached the spot and tried to pacify the matter but the complainant and his family members gave beatings to them also with dandas, which they were carrying. Thereafter, false case was lodged against them. She also wished to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence.
64. Smt. Mamta was examined as DW1. She deposed that on 22.05.2018, she alongwith her mother was present in their house i.e. A-145, Shish Mahal Enclave, Prem Nagar-3. On the day of incident at about 9 PM, Kamal came to their house and threatened to kill her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' and left. Thereafter, she telephonically called her brother and father and informed them about the threats extended by Kamal. At about SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 27 of 45 9:30 or 10 PM, her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' reached home from the workplace. As soon as CCL 'B' @ 'A' reached near the house, complainant Kamal alongwith his brother and other members of the family caught hold of him and started beating him. On hearing noise, she alongwith her mother came out of their house to save her brother. She noticed that Kamal was having one danda in his hand and he alongwith other family members was giving beatings to her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A'. They also gave beatings to her and her mother. During the incident, her father and elder brother Jitender also reached there. They tried to save them. During the incident, Shripal Yadav, father of the complainant, sustained injuries on his head by the blow of danda carried by Kamal. Thereafter, Shripal Yadav fell down in the sewer and sustained injuries. They also sustained injuries in the process. They tried to give a complaint to the police but no action was taken by the police. Police officials took her father and brother Jitender and other party for medical examination. She was asked to reach the hospital of her own. Her younger brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' sustained fracture of his hand. Her brother and father were detained by the police. IO also obtained arrest warrants against her mother. Though whenever the IO called her and her mother, they reached the Police Station. Despite request, the IO did not produce her mother before the court. She also produced the copy of the FIR on 15.09.2018 registered at PS Aman Vihar as Ex.DW1/A and copy of complaint dated 26.09.2018 given to the DCP as Ex.DW1/B.
65. She deposed that one day wife of complainant namely SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 28 of 45 Sarita met her in the street and handed over her some written papers with instructions that if anything happens to her, she shall hand over the papers to the police station or the court. Copy of the said document is Ex.DW1/C. She stated that her parents and brothers have been falsely implicated. She has also lodged a complaint with the police on 01.11.2018, copy of which is Ex.DW1/D.
66. During cross-examination by Ld Chief Public Prosecutor, she deposed that on the day of incident when Kamal threatened them, she made a call to her father from the mobile phone of her mother. She made 3 to 4 calls at 100 number, but police did not come. She denied the suggestion that she did not make any call at 100 number. She also made complaints to the senior officers with respect to the incident but does not have the copy of any such complaint. She made call at 100 number from mobile no. 9213041270 and another call was made using another mobile number, number of which she does not remember. She made these calls when her brother and father were being beaten. She denied the suggestion that she did not make any call and that is why there is no such record.
67. She is not confirm on which hand her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' sustained injury. She denied the suggestion that she was not present on the spot at that time of incident and that is why she does not know on which hand her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' sustained injury. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at home at 9 PM on 22.05.2018 or that Kamal had not extended any threat or that is why she did not make any call at SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 29 of 45 100 number. She admitted that the anticipatory bail application of her mother was dismissed by the court on 30.05.2018 and again on 30.07.2018. She admitted that proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the court on 09.08.2018 and on 15.10.2018 her mother moved application for surrender before the court. She was also present with her mother at that time. She admitted that in the surrender application, her mother mentioned that her son CCL 'B' @ 'A' and Sarita had fled away from home and returned after 20 days. She admitted that in the complaint Ex.DW1/B, it is nowhere mentioned that her mother used to go to the Police Station and also meet the IO, but she did not deliberately produce her mother before the court and that is why her father and brother were not getting bail.
68. She admitted that she had not mentioned in the FIR Ex.DW1/A that Sarita had taken away her minor brother with her. She stated that she had told this fact to the IO. She admitted that after receiving the copy of FIR Ex.DW1/A, she did not make any complaint to the senior police officials that correct facts are not mentioned in the FIR. She denied the suggestion that her brother ran away with Sarita and not that Sarita took away her brother. She also denied the suggestion that Sarita did not hand over Ex.DW1/C or that Ex.DW1/C did not bear signature of Sarita.
69. She admitted that she did not mention in the complaint Ex.DW1/B that Kamal came to their house and extended threats and that she, her brother, her mother and her father sustained injuries. She denied the suggestion that complainant Kamal SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 30 of 45 Kumar and his family members did not cause any injury to them and that is why this fact is not mentioned in Ex.DW1/B.
70. Her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' was working with one Dharmender. She denied the suggestion that her brother CCL 'B' @ 'A' was not working with Dharmender or that on 22.05.2018, he was standing in the street.
71. ASI Devender was examined as DW2. He deposed that as per record, on 04.10.2018 one complaint of Ms. Sarita was received as mentioned at sl.no.982. It was received through post and was sent to SHO Aman Vihar. The address of Ms. Sarita is mentioned as A-143, Gali No. 8, Shish Mahal Enclave, Prem Nagar-III. It is also mentioned that it was a family dispute. He proved the copy of relevant entry as Ex.DW2/A. The police is not having the record of the application as the same has been destroyed vide report Ex.DW2/B.
72. During cross-examination by Ld Chief Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he cannot say anything about the contents of the application and that if the contents of the complaint revealed any cognizable offence or any proof of truthfulness, the same could not be destroyed.
73. Sh. Amit @ Bhupender (CCL 'B' @ 'A') was examined as DW3. He deposed that on 22.05.2018, he was on duty at Mubarakpur. At about 9 or 9:30 PM, he received telephonic call from Sarita w/o Kamal, who informed him that her in-laws are beating her and are planning to beat her. She was scared due to SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 31 of 45 the information received from Sarita. He asked his owner Dharmender to relieve him from duty at 10 PM. At about 10:10 PM when he reached the street near his house, his neighbours were sitting in the street. Devar of Sarita came to him and caught hold of his hand by obstructing his way. His mother also came out of the house and tried to save him from the clutches of Mukesh, devar of Sarita. Thereafter, he called other members of the family shouting, "Bhupender aa gaya hai". Kamal and his father namely Shripal came with the dandas. Shripal tried to hit his mother on her head. In order to save her mother, he put his hand and the danda blow fell on his right hand, due to which he sustained fractur. Sister of Sarita namely Geeta, Sher Kumar, Karan, her mother in law and Vinod also reached the spot. They gave beatings to him. He sustained injuries on his right eyebrow and on the backside of his head. Then his elder brother and father called by someone, who were on their duty. They also reached at the spot and tried to pacify the matter. Kamal gave a danda blow on back of his head. In this scuffle, father of Kamal fell down in the drain and sustained injury. Police was called. Police removed the complainant and others to the Police Station and asked them to come to the Police Station. The police also sent them to SGM Hospital for medical examination. The firm, where he was working, is Jai Shree Ram firm and he produced the copy of the attendance card of the firm, which is Mark DW3/A.
74. During cross-examination by Ld Addl. PP, he admitted that he had not filed any complaint to any authority till date about the incident as deposed by him in is examination in chief. He SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 32 of 45 denied the suggestion that as no such incident had taken place, that is why he did not make any complaint or that he alongwith his other family members caused injuries to Shripal Yadav, Kamal Kumar, Sarita and Geeta. He also admitted that he did not make any call at 100 number at the time of incident or thereafter. He admitted that he and Sarita left their houses together for the second time also. He volunteered that it happened after the present incident. He denied the suggestion that he was not working in the firm, as deposed by him, on 22.05.2018 or that he was present near his house at around 9 or 9:30 PM or that he alongwith his mother, father and brother caused injuries to Shripal Yadav, Kamal Kumar, Sarita and Geeta.
75. He denied the suggestion that attendance card Mark DW3/A is forged and fabricated as the name of the firm on Mark DW3/A is Shruti Engineering Works, whereas in his examination in chief, he deposed that he used to work in Jai Shree Ram Firm. He volunteered that earlier name was Shruti Engineering Works, but now it is known as Jai Shree Ram Engineering. He stated that he is not in possession of any document to show that Shruti Engineering Works has changed its name to Jai Shree Ram Engineering. He stated that it is nowhere mentioned in Mark DW3/A as to which year it belonged. He admitted that as per Mark DW3/A, he joined his duty at 9 AM on 22 nd May and worked only for four and half hours. He volunteered that four and half hours are overtime. He admitted that in Mark DW3/A, there is no mention that it is over time, however, it is mentioned that it is total working hours. He admitted that he is facing trial before JJB with respect to the present incident. He denied the SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 33 of 45 suggestion that he has deposed falsely just to create defence in his favour and in favour of his parents and brother.
76. Thereafter, the accused persons closed their evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
77. I have heard the Ld Chief Public Prosecutor for State, Ld defence counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
78. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and the accused persons have also examined 3 witnesses in defence to prove their innocence. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant of this case namely Kamal has been examined as PW1. He has fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated the complaint. The injured Shripal Yadav has also been examined as PW3. He has also supported the prosecution case and the testimony of PW1. The other witnesses Geeta PW6, who is sister of Sarita/PW7, they both have also supported the prosecution case and Lata Devi w/o Shripal Yadav is examined as PW9. She initially was not able to remember everything, but it is also to be kept in mind that she is illiterate and about 60 years of age, but when she was cross examined by prosecutor, then she remembered everything and supported the prosecution case. All these witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons. Even otherwise, their identity is not in dispute as they are all neighbours.
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 34 of 45
79. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons also got recovered the weapons of offence from their house from underneath the bed and witnesses also corroborated this fact that the accused persons, i.e. Hari Ram and Jitender got recovered three weapons, i.e. the wooden danda Ex.P1, the bamboo stick Ex.P2 and the baseball bat Ex.P3, which is in two pieces. According to PW1, the baseball bat broke into two pieces when Jitender hit with this bat on the head of Shripal Yadav/PW3.
80. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that these weapons of offence were sent to the doctor for opinion. Dr. Munish Wadhawan examined the weapons on the application Ex.PW4/A and gave his opinion as Ex.PW4/B that the injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW10/A are possible with the weapons examined. He has also identified these weapons correctly.
81. The injury on the person of Shripal Yadav is shown to be simple, however, there are four injuries, i.e. CLW over right eyebrow 2X.25 cm, CLW over left middle finger 0.5X0.25 cm, CLW over left tempo-parietal region 6X0.25X0.25 cm and CLW on right foot little toe 0.5X0.25 cm. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that out of these four injuries, two injuries are on the vital parts. All four accused persons assaulted him with dandas, though there are certain contradictions, but those are bound to occur because it is an old matter and all the witnesses are not expected to remember everything and reproduce in the same manner, rather these contradictions show that they are natural SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 35 of 45 witnesses and not tutored. Ld Chief Public Prosecutor submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged and prayed that all the accused persons be held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable U/s 308/34 IPC for causing injury on the person of Shripal Yadav and also U/s 323/34 for assaulting Kamal Kumar, Sarita and Geeta and for obstructing the way of Shripal Yadav U/s 341/34 IPC.
82. Ld defence counsel submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged. Witnesses are interested and they have not been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They have contradicted each other not only on the point as to when Sarita returned, but also how the incident had taken place. Ld defence counsel submitted that according to PW9, it was only Hari Ram with whom the quarrel took place and also assaulted her husband Shripal Yadav. But the other witnesses deposed that all the accused persons assulted Shripal Yadav.
83. There is also contradiction as to whether Kamal was assaulted or not, though Kamal stated that he was slapped when he interfered, but according to PW6 when Kamal intervened the accused persons surrounded him, caught hold of him and gave danda blows and also leg and fists blows, whereas according to Kamal, he stayed away from the fight and he specifically stated that he did not sustain any injury in the incident. He was only slapped.
84. Ld defence counsel submitted that infact, the story is SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 36 of 45 that Sarita/PW7 was married with PW1, who was harassed and tortured and that is why, she approached CCL 'B' @ 'A' and enticed her away. Kamal and his family members were having grudge with CCL 'B' @ 'A' and his family members and that is why they planned to teach CCL 'B' @ 'A' a lesson. Kamal had even gone to the house of accused persons herein and extended threats. On that day when CCL 'B' @ 'A' was coming home as he was informed that the injured persons are planning to beat him and the moment he reached in front of the house of the injured persons, he was stopped by Mukesh, younger brother of Kamal. He called the other persons and they started beating him. On hearing the noises, his mother Urmila and sister Mamta also came there. The injured persons also attacked them. The hand of CCL 'B' @ 'A' was fractured as Shripal Yadav wanted to gave a blow on the head of Urmila, but CCL 'B' @ 'A' prevented the blow on the head as he put his right hand in between. The blow landed on his arm and it was broken. Ld defence counsel submitted that in the meanwhile, father Hari Rami and elder brother of CCL 'B' @ 'A' also arrived there, they were also beaten.
85. Ld defence counsel submitted that police has not listened to them and even did not register the case. The case property had also been planted. It was only due to the blow given by Kamal that Shripal Yadav sustained injury as it landed on his head. Shripal Yadav also fell down in the drain and sustained injury. It is further submitted by Ld defence counsel that no independent witness has been joined in the investigation or even at the time of affecting recovery. No CCTV footage has SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 37 of 45 been placed on record covering the place of incident. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, giving benefit of doubt, the accused persons be acquitted.
86. Ld defence counsel further submitted that even the injury on the person of Shripal Yadav is simple. There is only one blow on the vital part as per the MLC and from this fact, it cannot be inferred that they had any intention of causing any such injury, which may cause death. It is prayed that all these facts clearly show that no offence U/s 308 IPC is made out. It is prayed that accused persons be acquitted.
87. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case, there are five public witnesses and three of them have sustained injuries and one was slapped. Therefore, their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. All the witnesses have corroborated on the point of incident that the accused persons armed with dandas assaulted them. There is only one contradiction in this regard. According to PW6, all were having dandas in their hands, whereas according to the other witnesses, Hari Ram, Jitender and Urmila were having dandas and during the quarrel, CCL 'B' @ 'A' took danda from his mother and hit Shripal Yadav. Therefore, to some extent, even PW6 is also right that all the four accused persons gave beatings with danda.
88. There is another contradiction as to whether Kamal SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 38 of 45 was slapped or he was given danda blows as well as kick and fists blows. According to PW7, all the accused persons surrounded Kamal when he intervened and all the accused persons gave him danda and kick and fists blows, but according to all the other witnesses, he was slapped when he intervened and due to fear, he kept himself away and made a call at 100 number. In my opinion, these are only minor contradictions and bound to occur as every person has his own perception and also how he reproduces whatever he has seen/perceived. It is settled law that the contradictions, which are not going to the root and are only minor, does not affect the merits of the case. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment cited as Sandeep Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 771 wherein it was held that:
"15. Though the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain deficiencies/inconsistencies/contradictions in the evidence let in by the prosecution, they being minor in nature, cannot be considered as remissness in the investigation enabling the appellant's acquittal, particularly, when the appellant was present with a gun in the scene of occurrence, when the gun and empty cartridge were recovered based on the information given by the appellant, when the firing was witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2, and when the fact that the victim died due to wounds inflicted by gunshot, stood proved by the evidence of P.W.7, Doctor, who performed the autopsy. The law on minor discrepancies which does not affect the basic case of the prosecution, is well settled. This Court in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402 : 2010 SCC On Line SC 946 at page 596 has stated as under:
"85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 39 of 45 basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P.[(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819 : AIR 1972 SC 2020], State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105], Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753], State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411], Prithu v. State of H.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 588 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1502], State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar[(2009) 9 SCC 626 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 88] and State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580].)""
89. The other issue raised is non-examination of independent witnesses. It is important to note that during the evidence of prosecution, no such evidence has come on record that there were other persons present on the spot, who witnessed the incident. In the absence of any such evidence that incident was witnessed by some independent witnesses, this argument is of no help to the accused persons. It is important to note here that according to DW3, Mukesh was also present on the spot. Mukesh is younger brother of Kamal. But surprisingly there is no cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses on this aspect. Hence, in my opinion, this argument is of no help. Even otherwise, non-examination of independent witnesses would not give rise to adverse-inference against prosecution when otherwise the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment cited as Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 779 wherein it was held that:
"14. The thrust of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that non-examination of the owner of the tea stall located near the scene of crime; non- examination of the ward boy of Savkar hospital; non-
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 40 of 45 examination of independent witnesses who had assembled near the scene of crime on hue and cry being raised by PW- 2; was fatal to the prosecution case. Though at first blush, said arguments looks attractive, on deeper examination it has to be answered against the appellant as it is settled principle of law that non-examination of independent witnesses by itself would not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. It would only assume importance when the evidence of eyewitness raises a serious doubt about their presence at the time of actual occurrence."
90. The defence has also taken a plea that Mamta has deposed that he also made a call at 100 number as Kamal came to their house and threatened, but no such call detail was found and even when she made the complaint, she did not mention that Kamal came to their house and extended threat. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this defence that Kamal went to the house of the accused persons and extended threat.
91. The accused persons had also taken a defence that Shripal Yadav was not attacked by them, rather he sustained injuries due to the danda blow given by Shripal Yadav later on when the defence witnesses appeared, i.e. DW1 Mamta and DW3 CCL 'B' @ 'A'. DW1 stated that Shripal Yadav fell down in the sewer due to which he sustained head injury and according to DW3 Shripal Yadav fell down in the drain and sustained injury, but surprisingly, when Shripal Yadav was cross examined, they did not put it to him that he sustained injuries due to fall in the drain or the sewer or due to the blow given by his own son Kamal. In fact when Kamal Kumar was under cross examination, it was suggested to him that he was carrying a danda and when he was giving beatings to the accused persons, his danda hit Shripal Yadav. Even, if it is believed to be true, SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 41 of 45 then there should have been only one injury on the person of Shripal Yadav, but there are four injuries. It is also important to note that when PW10 was examined, there was no such cross examination of doctor as to whether injuries on the person of Shripal Yadav are possible due to fall in a drain or in the sewer. When PW16 was examined, it was suggested that Shripal Yadav sustained injury due to fall on floor. Even when the clothes of the injured were produced in the court, there is no such observation that any spot of mud was found on the clothes of the injured, if he would have fallen in the drain/sewer. There must have been some spot of the filth from the drain/sewer on his clothes. Therefore, in my opinion, it is only an afterthought, though which is no help to the accused persons.
92. Defence has also taken a plea that the injured persons stopped CCL 'B' @ 'A' in front of their house and attacked him and on hearing his shouts, firstly the mother and sister of CCL 'B' @ 'A' came there and thereafter, his father Hari Ram and brother reached there, but when PW1 was examined, there is no such cross examination to him and when PW3 was under cross examination, it was suggested to him that infact all the injured persons in this case had conspired and entered the house of the accused persons and attacked them, whereas the incident has taken place in the street in front of the house of injured persons. There is no such suggestion given to PW6 and even to PW7, it is suggested that they had gone to the house of accused persons and also assaulted them. This itself shows that they are not certain as to whether injured persons came to their house and assaulted them or whether it was CCL 'B' @ 'A', who was stopped by SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 42 of 45 Mukesh and the quarrel ensued. Infact all the witnesses are consistent on the point that CCL 'B' @ 'A' with whom PW7 had gone and thereafter returned home used to stand in front of the house of Kamal. He also used to laugh on seeing PW7. He was repeatedly asked not to do so, but he did not give any heed to their requests. On that day when he was again doing this, he was again asked to kindly leave and not to do so, but he started shouting and threatened Kamal that he will again take away PW7. On hearing this, PW3 came out, but CCL 'B' @ 'A' started quarreling with PW3. He was joined by other co-accused armed with dandas and they all assaulted. It is important to note here that all these witnesses have stood through the test of cross examination and I found no reason to disbelieve them on this point. So far as the fracture on the hand of CCL 'B' @ 'A' is concerned, there is no such evidence brought on record that CCL 'B' @ 'A' sustained any fracture on his hand. In MLC Ex.PW10/D also, there is no mention that he has sustained fracture.
93. The accused persons have also taken the defence that when CCL 'B' @ 'A' was coming back from the place of job, he was attacked. It is important to note that DW3 has placed on record one document Ex.DW3/A, which is claimed to be the attendance card, but he himself stated that he is working with a firm known as Jai Shree Ram, but on this attendance card, the name given is of Shruti Engineering Works. The defence claimed that earlier, it was Shruti Engineering Works, which is now known as Jai Shree Ram Engineering, but there is no such document on record. There is no signature of any person on this SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 43 of 45 card from the employer side or even seal. According to this card, he joined the duty at 9:00 AM and he worked only for four and half hours, though his claim that it is only overtime, but there is no such mention on the document. There is nothing to ascertain that at what time, he left his place of work. It is also important to note that according to DW3, he reached outside the house of the injured, it was already 10:10 PM, but the incident had taken place at 9:30 PM and not at 10 or 10:10 PM. Firstly, the document produced by DW3 does not inspire confidence as the name of the employer is wrongly mentioned. Secondly, the time mentioned is 9:30 PM, whereas the time of quarrel itself is 9:30 PM and there is no such plea taken by the defence that he was not present on the spot outside the house and was given beatings. In view of all these facts in my opinion, the defence taken is of no help to the accused persons. Record shows that the call was made by Kamal about quarrel and the PCR form also shows that the quarrel is between the neighbours and is outside H. No. 143/8, Chandni Park, Shish Mahal, Prem Nagar, that is the address of the victims. Under the circumstances and keeping in view all these facts, particularly that the public witnesses are consistent, reliable and trustworthy, they have stood through the test of cross examination, I found that reliance can be placed on their testimony and in my opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its onus.
94. So far as the offence is concerned, there are four injuries on the person of Shripal Yadav as per MLC, one is on the left tempo-parietal reason, the other is on the eyebrow, two other injuries are on the middle finger left hand and the little toe of the SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 44 of 45 right foot. The injuries have been sustained in a fight, where there were 7-8 persons involved. Dandas were being used and in that process, he had sustained four injuries. Other persons have also sustained injuries, but from these facts, it cannot be said that they had any such intention to cause death. It was in that heat as to why their son has been asked not to stand there, during which the family members came, though they were already armed with the dandas, but from that also, it cannot be inferred that they had any such intention or knowledge to inflict injury on the person of Shripal Yadav to cause death. In the absence of any evidence from which it cannot be inferred that they had the intention or knowledge to cause any such injury on the person of Shripal Yadav to cause death. In my opinion, only offence U/s 323 IPC is made out. There is no evidence on record that they obstructed the way of Shripal Yadav or that they did not allow him to move in the direction, in which he was having right to move. Shripal Yadav also does not say so in this regard. Therefore, so far as the offence punishable U/s 341 is concerned, all the accused persons are acquitted from the said charge.
95. In view of the above discussion and the evidence brought on record, all the accused persons are held guilty for assaulting Shripal Yadav, Sarita, Geeta and Kamal and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 323/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
today i.e. 20th December, 2024 KUMAR BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2024.12.20
17:14:47 +0530
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/20.12.2024
SC No. 539/18 State Vs. Hari Ram & Ors. Page No. 45 of 45