Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/155/1994 on 27 August, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI
DD No.79B dt. 26.10.94
P.S. Hauz Khas
U/s 92/93/97 D.P. Act and
U/s. 452/504/506/34 I.P.C.
(cognizance taken on 29.10.1994)
State v. Naresh Kumar & Anr.
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 155/2
b. Date of Institution : 29.10.94
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 26.10.94
d. Name of the complainant : H.C. Sahib Singh
e. Name of the accused and his : (1) Naresh Kumar
parentage and address S/o Sh. Madan Lal Gupta
R/o Ground Floor, F107
Old 55, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
(2) Chander Pal
S/o Babu Ram
R/o Ground Floor, F107
Old 55, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi (since PO)
f. Offence complained of : U/s. 92/93/97 D.P. Act.
and U/s. 452/504/506/34 I.P.C.
(cognizance taken on 29.10.94)
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 27.08.09
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 28.08.09
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1 25.10.94 on receipt of DD No. 23 A regarding quarrel, Ct. Meghraj Singh along with H.C. Sahib Singh reached at the spot where both the accused persons were found quarreling and abusing Gopal Singh whose statement was recorded. H.C. Sahib Singh prepared Kalandara U/s. 92/93/97 D.P. Act and filed against both the accused persons. Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 29.10.94 took cognizance on the kalandara filed by the police U/s. 452/504/506/34 I.P.C.
Complainant Gopal Singh was not satisfied by the action taken by the police hence he also filed a complaint case against both the accused persons U/s. 323/342/452/427/34 I.P.C. wherein he alleged that on 25.10.94 accused Naresh Kumar Gupta along with Chander Pal and other 2025 persons armed with deadly weapons entered into his premises and abused him in filthy language and they not only damaged his house but also broken his three wheeler scooter no. DIR 7918. He was rescued by the villagers. On request of complainant, complaint case was clubbed with the Kalandara file by the Ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 17.12.94.
2. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie offence under section 452 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. Charge was framed accordingly against both the accused persons on 13.01.2000. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has produced and examined as many 2 as two witnesses namely Ct. Meghraj Singh as PW 1 and Gopal Singh as PW 2.
3A. PW 1 Ct. Meghraj Singh testified that on 23.10.94 on receipt of DD 23A he along with H.C. Sahib Singh reached F55, Katwaria Sarai where both the accused persons found quarreling and abusing complainant Gopal Singh. PW 1 further testified that both accused were under influence of liquor and he took them for medical examination in AIIMS Hospital where both the accused persons declared smelling liquor. PW 1 further testified that I.O. arrested both the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/A, B on 26.10.94.
During cross examination PW 1 denied the suggestion to the effect that Gopal Singh was abusing Naresh Gupta as Gopal Singh wanted Naresh Gupta to vacate his house. PW 1 further admitted that accused persons were not abusing. PW 1 denied the suggestion to the effect that he falsely implicated the accused persons as complainant is a retired police official.
3B. PW 2 Gopal Singh/complainant testified that on 25.10.94 at about 8.10 PM accused Naresh Kumar who was his tenant along with one Chander Pal and other associates came to his house under the influence of liquor and started abusing him. PW 2 further testified that all of them were having lathis and sarias they had broken his rickshaw. PW 2 further testified that his statement was recorded by I.O. Ex.
3PW 2/A and his complaint is Ex. PW 2/B.
4. Accused Chander Pal failed to appear before the court during trial so he was declared PO by the court vide oder dated 10.08.04.
5. Statement of accused Naresh Kumar Gupta was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and ld counsel for the accused Naresh Kumar Gupta and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
7. To prove its case prosecution must establish that:
(i) The accused person committed house trespass
(ii) The same was committed after making preparation for causing hurt, or for assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining, some persons; or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restrain.
8. The material witnesses of prosecution are PW 1 and PW 2. PW 2 in his complaint Ex. PW 2/A vide Para 5 stated as under:
"...That on 25101994, the accused No. 1alongwith Chander Pal and about 2025 persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the premises of the complainant abused 4 in filty language the complainant and his family members, the doors were bolted from outside, seeing this,the villagers came out and snatched the lathies and other weapons from their hands. Shri Ratan Singh,Shri Y.P. Singh, came alongwith Satyadev Singh and opened the door of the complainant from outside and when the complainant and his family members came outside, they saw that the whole house had been stoned and the three wheeler scooter no. DIR 7918, had been broken by the accused No. 1 & 2 and their group. All the scene has been recorded in the Video film showing that the window panes and other household goods have been broken and smashed by the accused no. 1 and 2 and their associates..."
PW 2 in his examinationinchief testified as under:
"...On 25.10.94 while I was residing at abovesaid address, accused namely Naresh Kumar, accused present in the court was my tenant. He did not pay rent for the last 8 months from the day of occurrence. Even though he did not pay the electric bill. On demanding electric bill and rent he tried to fight with me. At about 810 pm when I was watching the TV after taking the food, he came with his associates. He was under the influence of liquor and he was abusing. When he came with his associates they were having lathi and sarias. At that time, chanderpal was also with him. I can also identiify the accused Chanderpal, if shown to me. He broken my rickshaw. I.O. recorded my statement Ex. PW 2/A and my complaint is Ex. PW 2/B, which bears my signatures at point A. He had entered my premises, where I reside and abusing me...."
9. PW 2 in his statement given to police Ex. PW 2/A states that at about 7.30 AM accused persons came to his house along with 56 persons and started abusing and quarreling with him. He called the police. PW 2 neither in 5 statement recorded police Ex. PW 2/A nor in the court has stated a single word about entry of accused persons along with their associates in his house with deadly weapons. It is also pertinent that PW 2 testified that accused had broken his rickshaw but he had not deposed about breaking of articles in his house. Further, in his complaint Ex. PW 2/B he stated that accused persons pelted stones in his house and also broken three wheeler scooter bearing no. DIR 7918. The averments made in complaint Ex. PW 2/B are in material contradiction not only with Ex. PW 2/A but also with his own testimony.
10. Further it is also pertinent that PW 2 stated that he was saved by Ratan Singh, Y.P. Singh and Satyadev Singh but none among these persons has been examined in the court. Further PW 2 testified that accused persons were under influence of liquor but that has not been proved on record as doctor concerned who prepared the M.L.C. has not been examined.
11. PW 1 is the witness who reacahed on spot along with H.C. Sahib Singh (not examined) on receipt of DD No. 23A. PW 1 has not deposed anything about the enterance of accused persons in the house of PW 2. Even he has not testified a single word about the accused armed with deadly weapons. The testimony of PW 1 is not corroborated with the testimony of PW 2 who is the complainant.
12. In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has 6 failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Naresh Kumar Gupta. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 452/34 I.P.C.
Announced in the Open Court On 28.08.09 (RAVINDER SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate:
New Delhi.
7DD No.79B dt. 26.10.94 P.S. Hauz Khas U/s 92/93/97 D.P. Act and U/s. 452/504/506/34 I.P.C.
27.08.09 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Naresh Kumar Gupta on bail.
Final arguments heard.
Put up for orders on 28.08.09.
(Ravinder Singh)
MM//ND/ 27.08.09
28.08.09
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Naresh Kumar Gupta on bail.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court accused Naresh Kumar Gupta acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 452/504/506/34 I.P.C.
Bail bond of accused cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Document, if any of the accused and surety be returned after cancellation of endorsements. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Ravinder Singh) MM/ND/ 28.08.09 8