Delhi District Court
State vs . Man Singh on 7 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 633/98
P.S. Malviya Nagar
U/s 341/325/34 IPC
State Vs. Man Singh
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 87/02
b. Date of Institution : 19.09.98
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 16.07.98
d. Name of the complainant : Smt. Omvati
W/o Sh. Rohtash
e. Name of the accused and his : 1. Man Singh
parentage and address s/o Sh. Ram Prasad
r/o 118, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Ram Prasad
s/o Sh. Samay Singh
r/o 118, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Shadi Lal
s/o Sh. Samay Singh
r/o 118, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Ramdhan
s/o Sh. Jeet Ram
r/o 116, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 1 of 15
5. Veer Singh
s/o Sh. Sunehri Lal
r/o 115, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
6. Rajender Kumar
s/o Sh. Raghunath
r/o 114, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
7. Mahender Singh
s/o Sh. Raghunath
r/o 114, Begumpur,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
f. Offence complained of : U/s 341/325/34 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 21.12.2010
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 07.01.2011
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that on 16.07.98 at about 7.40 pm when the complainant was standing at the door of her house accused no. 5 Veer Singh came with a stick and inflicted blow on her right hand and accused no. 1 Man Singh caught her from behind and dragged her outside and then accused no. 4 Ramdhan pulled her hair and made her fall down by inflicting blow by hand on her head and FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 2 of 15 as she was crying accused no. 3 Shadi Lal slapped her and accused no. 4 Ramdhan hit her with leg on her abdomen and PW6 Rajender and PW7 Mahender also beaten her.
2. To bring home the charge against the accused ones, the Prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
3. PW1 Ct. Pratap has testified that on 17.07.1998, on the basis of rukka he got registered the FIR of this case which is Ex. PW1/A.
4. PW2 has testified that on 16.07.1998 he alongwith HC Sher Singh went to H.no. 115, Begumpur where he came to know that the injured has shifted to AIIMS hospital. Thereafter he alongwith HC Sher Singh went to AIIMS hospital where injured Omwati found admitted there . IO recorded the statement of Omwati and prepared the rukka and handed over to him for the registration of the case. After registration of case, IO made search of accused in their houses but they were not found.
In his cross examination, PW2 has testified that when they reached at the spot no public person met them including the injured. Further his statement was recorded at about 9 p.m. at the spot on 16.07.1998.
FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 3 of 15
5. PW3 HC Sher Singh has testified that on 16.07.1998 he received a DD No. 64 B which is Mark X. He alongwith Ct. Bharat Lal went to the spot at House no. 115, Begumpur where it was known that injured had already been taken to the hospital AIIMS. In hospital, the injured told him that he would depose her statement on the arrival of her husband. Thereafter on arrival of the husband of injured, PW3 recorded the statement of injured at about 2.30 a.m. On 17..07.98 which is Ex. PW3/A and put his endorsement which is Ex. PW3/B and sent it for registration of case. He has further testified that after registration of case, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW3/C at the pointing of injured Omwati. The statement of injured Omwat prior to appointment to C.M.O AIIMS is Ex. PW3/D. PW3 further testified that on 20.07.1998, he arrested the accused Bir Singh and prepared his personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/E and accused Ramdhan, Ram Parkash, Man Singh, Rajinder, Mahinder and prepared their personal search memo Ex. PW3/F to K respectively.
In his cross examination, PW3 has testified that he did not record the statement of any other person of the locality though there were many persons but nobody was ready for the statement. He has further testified that the SHO has never visited the spot.
6. PW 4 Smt. Omwati testified that on 16.7.98 at about 7.40 pm when she was standing on door of her house, Veer Singh FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 4 of 15 came carrying lathi on his right hand and hit her hand with lathi and then accused Man Singh pulled her out and then accused Ramdhan caught hold her hair and thereafter he gave a fist blow on her head due to which she fell down and when she was shouting accused Shadi Lal slapped her and accused Ram Prasad hit her with leg on her stomach and thereafter Rajender and Mohinder also beaten her badly. PW4 further testified that when she was beaten up by the accused persons, her son Dharmender came and who was also beaten up by the accused persons and thereafter village people helped them and they went into their house and locked it from inside. PW4 further testified that accused persons threw bricks and stones and after sometime police came and took her to hospital where her plaster and xray etc. got done and thereafter she returned back to her house at about 2.00 am in night and at that time police recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A. PW4 was cross examined by Ld. APP as she resiled from the statement given by her to police. During cross PW4 deposed that Ramdhan was also among the accused persons and police prepared site plan Ex.PW3/C and arrested the accused persons in her presence but she cannot tell if personal search of accused persons was conducted or not but Ex.PW3/E to K bears shown her thumb impression at point 'X'.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel PW4 FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 5 of 15 testified that she put her thumb impressions on the papers and whatever is written over them is deposed by her and she does not remember if she had put her thumb impression over the site plan and only police was present when I put thumb impressions on papers and again said she does not where she put her thumb impressions and again said she must have put her thumb impressions in the house and she does not know whether her husband was in the house when she put her thumb impressions and again said when she was inquired by the police her husband was in the house. PW4 further testified that no quarrel took place between Raghunath and Rohitash in her presence nor Raghunath who is grand father of Man Singh was beaten and police recorded her statement twice and that she also told about beating her by Ramdhan to the police. PW4 further testified that no quarrel had taken place between her and her brother in law Pyarel Lal before the present incident. PW4 denied the suggestion to the effect that she has falsely implicated the accused in the present case because a case FIR 634/98 is already registered for quarrel took place between her husband and Raghunath who is grand father of accused Man Singh and in order to save her husband in that case she is deposing against the accused persons.
7. PW5 ASI Rajender Singh testified that on 16.7.98 on receipt of FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 6 of 15 wireless message about quarrel at Begampur he along with PCR staff reached at H.No.115, Begumpur and removed injured Omwati to the AIIMS Hospital and IO recorded his statement to this effect.
8. PW6 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Om Prakash Ahuja on MLC Ex.PW6/A.
9. PW7 Dr. Akshay Kumar Saxena testified that he evaluated the Xray plates of patient Omwati done vide Xray no. 32030 dt. 16.07.98 and reported fracture in lower end of radius bone in the right forearm vide reportEx.CW7/A. During cross examination PW7 testified that Xray was done in his presence and he denied the suggestion to the effect that Xray plates does not pertains to Omwati.
10. Statement of all the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 r/w. 281 Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant because a cross case has already been registered against the husband of complainant and the medical report i.e. xray plates , MLC are false and manipulated and same are not of complainant Omwati and all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they have been falsely implicated by FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 7 of 15 complainant in collusion with the police and no such incident took place. All accused persons prefer to lead evidence and examined one witness i.e. ASI Surender Singh as DW1.
Nothing material came on record in examination of DW1.
11. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the all the accused persons and Ld. APP for the state.
12. Since in a criminal trial duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence on behalf of the prosecution must be clear, cogent and consistent so that it creates a chain which is so complete in itself so as to rule out any possibility of the innocence of the accused. In the present case, the evidence brought forth on record by the Prosecution does not qualify this mark and falls through half the way.
13. Certain facts which have come on record are very relevant to the appreciation of evidence in this case. Firstly, the incident in question which took place on 16.7.98 saw two FIRs by the opposite parties resulting into cross cases. A case against the husband and other relatives of the injured in this case was also FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 8 of 15 registered vide the FIR No. is 634/98. As such the evidence calls for a careful and cautious scrutiny, there being a strong apprehension of the witnesses being partisan and interested. Secondly, the FIR in this case was registered much later on the next day in the morning, i.e. on 17.07.98 at 6.30 am and the delay has remained unexplained which leaves the prosecution case weaker.
14. In this back drop the prosecution evidence is to be examined. The most material evidence is that of the injured, who has been examined as PW4 and her evidence is found to be fragile. She was not prompt to give her statement despite her having been declared fit for statement by the doctor. It is on record by means of the testimony of PW3, IO of the case, that she sought time to have her statement recorded because she wanted to give her statement only in the presence and arrival of her husband who was not present at the relevant time. Due to this reason her statement was recorded after much delay. The incident is stated to have occurred at 7.40 pm on 16.07.98 whereas the statement of PW4 was recorded only at 2.30 am on 17.07.98. Thus an inference can be drawn that the injured gave her statement only after deliberations with her husband. Therefore the possibility of FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 9 of 15 tutoring cannot altogether be ruled out.
15. Moreover, there are a number of improvements and omissions in the testimony of PW4 before the court. It is first time divulged by her that her son Dharmender also sustained injuries in the scuffle in an attempt to rescue her. But he has not been examined as a witness, nor is there any MLC showing injury to him. She has further added that some of the villagers saved herself and her son from the accused persons and certain enquiries were made by the police from them before taking her to hospital, the facts which do not find any place in her statement before the police. She has also enlarged the role of accused Ram Dhan in her statement before the court. It is stated by her that accused Ram Dhan pulled her hair and also gave her a fist blow and she was thrown on the ground. Earlier before the police she had stated that accused Ram Dhan only called her names. Also, the factum of the accused persons having pelted stones and brickbats on her house resulting into the damage to windows and doors was not told to the police. Nor is there anything on record which may show that any kind of damage was caused to the widows and doors of the house of the complainant.
FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 10 of 15
16. Besides, there are certain contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses which render the prosecution story quite frayed. The statements of PW3 and PW4 differ on a number of points. PW3 has testified that he recorded the statement of PW4 at the hospital, but PW4 has deposed that her statement was recorded at her home. PW3 has disclosed that police recorded her statement on two occasions, but PW4 has made no such statement. PW4 has stated that the SHO concerned had visited the place of incident at about 3.00 pm which fact had been denied by PW3 who has stated that the SHO never visited the scene of occurrence. Further, as per the statement of PW4, all the accused persons were arrested by the IO in her presence, but PW3 has stated no such thing. The personal search memos of the accused persons bear the signatures of PW4, but she has stated that she does not remember anything about this. Again, PW4 has admitted in her statement that she is an illiterate lady and cannot sign, but the complaint and search memos bear her signatures. PW2 Const. Bharat Lal in his evidence before the court has only added confusion to the prosecution story. Both PW3 and PW4 has admitted in their respective statements that PW3 did not visit the scene of occurrence on 17.07.98, but PW2 has stated that after FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 11 of 15 registration of FIR he went back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to PW3. In other words, PW3 was present at the spot. PW2 had further stated that no public person was available at the time when he along with PW3 reached the spot whereas PW3 has stated otherwise.
17. It is also very significant to note that both the witnesses have admitted the presence of public persons at the time of incident, but no public witness other than PW3 has been produced before the court. Thus there was a clear apathy on the part of the IO to join the public witnesses.
18. It is also interesting to note that PW2 and PW3 on receiving the information reached the House no. 115, Begum Pur which is the house of accused Veer Singh. The Ld. Counsel for accused has demystified this fact in his final arguments revealing that it was so because after the incident, the call was made by the accused to police himself giving his address, there being a group conflict.
19. The medical evidence does provide some corroboration to the version of PW3, but the same is also not free FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 12 of 15 from circumstances giving rise to doubts. The alleged history as mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW6/A supports the version of PW3 that she sustained injuries in a fight due to an assault with stick. However, the MLC shows that nature of injury was first mentioned as simple, but subsequently the word 'simple' was struck with pen and in its place the word 'grievous' has been written. No explanation has come forth for this alteration. The doctor preparing the MLC has not been examined. The Xray report which is exhibited as Ex.PW7/A shows fracture in the lower end of radius bone in the right arm of the injured. The doctor preparing the said report has been examined as PW7. PW4 has stated in her testimony that accused Om Vir hit her with stick on her right arm which fact finds affirmation in the deposition of PW7 who has proved the Xray report. But it is worth mentioning that MLC does not contain any advice referring the injured for Xray. What is more, the Xray report is shown to have been prepared at 9.00 pm on 16.07.98, whereas PW4 gave her statement much later at 2.30 am on 17.07.98 and that too after discussion with her husband.
20. Another thing which is very important is the absence of motive on the part of the accused persons to assault the complainant PW4. It is the case of the prosecution that accused FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 13 of 15 persons came to the house of PW4 and started beating her. It does not appear to be natural and convincing that accused persons would beat the complainant without any reason or motive. No motive whatever has been imputed for the assault.
21. All these facts such as contradictions in testimonies of the injured persons, the medical evidence being inconsistent with the whole testimonies of the injured, coupled with the fact that there was a group rivalry and previous enmity between the complainant and the accused persons are sufficient to cast doubt over the prosecution case .
22. In view of above, all accused persons are acquitted accordingly for the offence punishable u/s 341/325/34 IPC for which they stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
On 07.01.2011 (DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
South District, New Delhi.
FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 14 of 15
FIR No. 633/98
P.S. Malviya Nagar
U/s 341/325/34 IPC
07.01.2011
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All the accused are on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and
announced in the open court, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 341/325/34 IPC for which they all stand charged.
Bail bonds of accused persons are cancelled, sureties stand discharged. documents, if any, be returned to the concerned person after cancellation of endorsements.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
MM/SD/07.01.2011
FIR no. 633/98 Page no. 15 of 15