Delhi District Court
State vs Sohan Lal on 27 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AVIRAL SHUKLA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST02-000001-1999
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE VS. SOHAN LAL
FIR NO. 310/1997
PS MEHRAULI
U/s 323/341/452/506-II/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 2031301/2016 B) The date of commission of : 08.06.1997 offence
C) The name of the complainant : Kumari Vijaya Laxmi, D/o Late Sh.
Ratan Lal Jain, R/o H. No. 216, Farm House, Maidan Garhi, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi.
D) The name and address of : 1) Sohan Lal, S/o Late Sh. Banwari
accused Lal, R/o Dagar Farm House, Akbarpur
Barota, PS Rai, District Sonepat,
Haryana
2) Ram Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Banwari
Lal, R/o H. no. 180, Village Maidan
Garhi and
3) Sri Chand, S/o Sh. Chandagi Ram
(Abated)
E) Offence complained of : Sections 323/341/452/506-II/34 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Convicted u/S 341/452/ 506(II)/34 IPC
Acquitted u/S 323/34 IPC
H) The date of such Order : 27.02.2024
FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 1 of 23
PS Mehrauli
AVIRAL Digitally signed by
AVIRAL SHUKLA
SHUKLA 16:56:50
Date: 2024.02.27
+0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.07.1999
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 27.01.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27.02.2024
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State against accused persons namely 1) Sohan Lal, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o Dagar Farm House, Akbarpur Barota, PS Rai, District Sonepat, Haryana, 2) Ram Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o H. no. 180, Village Maidan Garhi and 3) Sri Chand, S/o Sh. Chandagi Ram. As per the charge-sheet, on 08.06.1997 at about 10:00 PM at H No. 216, Banwari Farm, Village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli, accused Sohan and Ram Kishan along with accused Sri Chand (expired) in furtherance of their common intention committed house- trespass by entering into the house of complainant Vijay Laxmi Jain which was used as a human dwelling having made preparation to cause death and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 452/34 IPC.
2. It has further been alleged that all accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant and her family members and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341/34 IPC. On the same day, all accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant along with her siblings namely Bhag Jain, Shakuntala and Swaroop Jain with wooden rods and thereby committed an offence u/s 323/34 IPC. Lastly, it has been alleged that all accused persons committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill to complainant and her family members and thereby committed an offence u/s 506- II/34 IPC.
FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 2 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:00 +0530
3. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offence and on the appearance of the accused persons, they were supplied with copy of charge-sheet and documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Court framed the charge against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/452/506-II/34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is a matter of record that proceedings qua accused Srichand stand abated vide order dt. 18.08.2009.
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
5. For the purpose of prosecution evidence in the matter, the following witnesses were examined by the State:
(i) PW-1 Sh. Neelmani Lakra;
(ii) PW-2 HC Balwant Singh;
(iii) PW-3 Kumari Vijaya Laxmi;
(iv) PW-4 W/Ct. Anita;
(v) PW-5 Sh. Ajit Singh;
(vi) PW-6 Ms. Shakuntala Devi;
(vii) PW-7 Ms. Bhag Jain;
(viii) PW-8 Swaroop Jain;
(ix) PW-9 W/HC Shyam Kaur; and
(x) PW-10 SI Ranbir Singh.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. PW 1 Sh. Neelmani Laka deposed that on 09.06.1997, he received a rukka FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 3 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA 16:57:09 Date: 2024.02.27 +0530 from Ct. Balwan which was sent by HC Ranbir. Thereafter, he had registered an FIR no. 310/97 and after registration of case, matter was marked to IO. He brought the original record of FIR no. 310/1997 vide DD no. 12A dt. 09.06.1997 Ex. PW- 1/A. Cross-examination of PW-1 was recorded as nil despite of opportunity given to Ld. counsel for accused.
7. PW-2 HC Balwan Singh deposed that on 08.06.1997, he was on emergency duty alongwith HC Ranbir Singh. On receipt of DD no. 33B, he alongwith HC Ranbir Singh reached at the spot at H. No. 216, Banwari Farm House, Maidangarhi where belongings of the tenants were scattered. IO enquired about the matter but none agreed to give statement. IO got the belongings of tenants to reset in the rooms and they both came back to PS. Thereafter, on 09.06.1997, he again went to the spot alongwith IO where IO recorded statement of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Jain. IO prepared rukka and he took rukka to PS for registration of the case. He came back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and rukka in original and handed over the same to IO. They searched for accused persons, arrested them and conducted their personal search memo vide Ex PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. Accused persons were sent to lock up. PW2 HC Balwan Singh took accused Ram Kishan to AIIMS hospital and got conducted his medical examination.
8. PW2 HC Balwan Singh further deposed that on the next day, he along-with IO went to search for accused Srichand. IO arrested accused Srichand and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW-2/C bears his signature at point A. Witness identified accused Srichand before the Court. PW2 was duly cross examined by the defence counsel. During cross examination, he stated that the tenant was so traumatized that she was not in a state to give the statement. He confirmed that no accused was shown to the witnesses / complainant before FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 4 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA 16:57:16 Date: 2024.02.27 +0530 producing the accused in court.
9. PW-3 Kumari Vijaya Laxmi initially refused to depose before the Court on 29.05.2013 and 21.09.2013. However, on 03.09.2014, she finally tendered her statement when the Court deemed it appropriate to ask her about the incident. She stated that on 24.05.1997, a complaint was given by her to the police stating that Ram Kishan and Shivcharan Oberoi had cut the electricity and were running an illegal factory at the place of the complainant. The witness correctly identified accused Ram Kishan who was present in the Court. She stated that the accused persons had forcefully taken possession from them. She stated that the accused persons used to ask the complainant and her family to vacate the portion in her possession. She stated that the accused persons used to forcefully take money from them.
10. PW-3 Kumari Vijaya Laxmi deposed on the incident that occurred on 08.06.1997 by stating that about 11 AM on the said day, accused persons made a life threatening and dangerous attack on her and her family. She stated that she along-with her two brothers Bhav Jain and Swaroop Jain along-with her sister Shakuntala Jain were in the 'behind room' (sic.) together having breakfast. She deposed that Ram Kishan and Ramesh had beaten her on her leg. The names of Sohan Lal and Srichand were disclosed to her subsequently. There were total of 10- 12 people who were present at the spot. They were having lathis and started beating the complainant and her brothers / sister using lathis. Complainants brother Bhav Jain was hit on his leg again and again. She deposed that they were beaten so badly that they were unable to see what was happening with whom. She deposed that they were not able to see as to how much injury each one of them sustained due to the gravity of the beatings.
FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 5 of 23 PS Mehrauli AVIRAL Digitally signed by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:24 +0530
11. PW-3 has further deposed that the accused persons made them captive. Initially, they have beaten them inside her house and then outside the house as well. She stated that her brother Bhav Jain sustained severe injuries that were most severe injuries sustained by complainant. She further stated that accused persons took the belongings of the complainant and her family from the four rooms which were in their possession. She stated that the accused persons broke the locks. She stated that accused persons were doing everything by force. PW-3 further deposed on the arrival of the police officers and the remaining happenings of the day.
12. PW-3 Kumari Vijaya Laxmi was cross-examined in detail by Ld. Counsel for accused. In the cross-examination, she stated that her brother Swaroop Jain had taken the house on rent. She stated that the same house where they all were currently living. She stated that she does not know the name of ' Tai' and does not know any details or whereabouts of Tai. She confirmed that she and her family were paying rent. A question was put by Ld. Counsel for accused to PW-3 asking whether the lady to whom the complainant was paying the rent was the owner or not? PW-3 replied by stating that she does not know whether the lady was owner or not. Another question was put to PW-3 in which Ld. Counsel for accused asked : Is it correct that in the complaint dt. 08.06.1997 to the police, you had alleged that you had taken three rooms on rent on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-? PW-3 answered by stating : I did not give any complaint to the police officials. They themselves wrote everything.
13. During the cross-examination, PW-3 was further shown the complaint dt. 08.06.1997 upon which she admitted her signature at point A. The complaint was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. The complainant stated voluntarily that it is not a proper complaint given by her or the brother as the police officers have not written the FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 6 of 23 PS Mehrauli AVIRAL Digitally signed by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:33 +0530 actual complaint given by them. She further stated that she was not in a condition to read the complaint or understand the same due to injury on her head. She stated that she signed wherever the police officials asked her to sign.
14. In further cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the incident is of 08.06.1997 at about 11 AM. She stated that the police did not arrive at the spot. She stated that she stopped the police only at 02.00 PM with accused persons in connivance with them. She confirmed that at the time of the incident, her sister Shakuntala Devi, brothers Swaroop Jain and Bhag Jain were present. She denied the suggestion that she and her family had trespassed into the property of accused Ram Kishan and Sohan Lal without any lawful permission. She denied the remaining suggestions put to her by Ld. Counsel for accused.
15. PW-4 W/Ct. Anita has deposed that on 09.06.1997, she joined the investigation of the present case. On the instructions of IO Ranbir Singh, complaint Vijay Laxmi and Shakuntala were got medically examined in AIIMS hospital. After medical examination, she alongwith Shakuntala and Vijay Laxmi returned back to the spot. IO recorded her statement. PW-4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
16. PW-5 Sh. Ajit Singh has deposed that he has brought a letter regarding destroying of records of MLC and X ray report pertaining December 1997. As per record, the records of MLC and X ray had been destroyed by the department vide order dt. 24.10.1998 which is Ex. PW-5/A. Cross-examination of PW5 was recorded as nil despite opportunity given to Ld. defence counsel.
17. PW-6 Shakuntala Devi has deposed that on 24.01.1997, her younger brother Swaroop Jain took the house of approximately 2000-3000 square yards on rent of FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 7 of 23 PS Mehrauli AVIRAL Digitally signed by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:42 +0530 Rs. 150/- per month from the lady namely Tai. Accused persons were running unauthorized factory. She stated that accused persons have encroached in their premises and have taken the possession over the same. She deposed that on 08.06.1997, accused persons had attacked her, her brothers Bhag Jain and Swaroop Jain and her sister Vijay Laxmi with lathi. Swaroop Jain had sustained head injury. 10-12 people came with lathi in their hands and attacked them. Her sister Vijay Laxmi sustained injury on her legs.
18. PW-6 further stated that accused persons also beat her brother Swaroop Jain with fists and blows. She also sustained injury on most of her body. In the month of June, accused persons kept 'lying them' (sic.) as captives and also wrongfully detained them. Accused persons also took out their belongings and kept them as captives under the Sun and did not let them even have water for three days.
19. PW-6 Shakuntala Devi has further deposed that some of the police officials were also part of the group who had attacked on them. She stated that police did not get identified anything from her. Police arrived at the spot to record the statement of her sister. She stated that her two brothers escaped to the jungle in order to save their life. Her two brothers were not residing at their home since 10.06.1997. They asked for the police security because accused persons have extended threats to their life. Police had recorded their statement. Accused Sohan Lal and Ram Kishan were correctly identified by PW-6. She further stated that on the date of incident, her brother had called at 100 number. Accused persons removed all their belongings from their premises. She does not remember when she alongwith police officials went for medical examination at AIIMS.
20. PW-6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. She stated that she FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 8 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:51 +0530 and her family taken four rooms on rent. She stated that Vijaya Laxmi gave her statement to the police in her presence. She confirmed that the incident took place on 08.06.1997 but statement of Vijaya Laxmi was taken on 09.06.1997 at about 03.00-04.00 PM. She stated that police had taken them for medical on the next day of the incident. She stated that she and her sister and brothers had given the names of accused persons they knew to the police. She stated that names of the accused persons were Ram Kishan, Rohtash, Srichand and Ramesh. She stated that admitted that the FIR has not been registred properly. She stated that she does not know the name and details of 'Tai' who had given the premises on rent. She stated that Tai used to collect rent from them and accused persons used to extort rent from her brother Swaroop Jain.
21. PW-6 further stated in her cross-examination that the land belonged to them only and therefore, they were not giving any rent to anyone presently. She again clarified that they did not purchase the land from anyone but the land was taken on rent from Tai. She stated that she has no documentary proof for tenancy or receipt of payment of rent as Tai never gave any such receipts to them. The witness merely stated that her brothers are currently staying at different place. She stated voluntarily that she is not disclosing the address as they were in constant threat of life from the accused persons. The witness denied the suggestion that in order to save the possession, the accused persons were being falsely implicated. She denied the suggestion that she had grabbed the land of the accused persons. She denied the remaining suggestions put to her by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
22. PW-7 Ms. Bhag Jain has not deposed anything before the Court.
23. PW-8 Sh. Swaroop Jain has deposed that on 24.01.1996, he took two rooms FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 9 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:57:58 +0530 in the Farm House bearing no. 216, Maidangarhi, New Delhi on rent of Rs. 150/- per room from one lady to whom they used to call "Tai'. He alongwith his two sisters namely Shakuntla Devi and Vijay Laxmi and his younger brother namely Bhag Jain used to reside at the abovesaid address. After one or two months, he took two other rooms on rent from the abovesaid lady. In total, they had four rooms for rent of Rs. 600/- p.m. in total. "Tai' had asked him to give the rent till she comes and as and when he stopped coming, the property will be vested on him. He further stated that the aforesaid Tai came to take rent for about six months and thereafter, she did not turn up. After four or five months, one person namely Ram Kishan came to them and told them that he had come from Sonepat and asked him to vacate the rooms. After few days, Ram Kishan, Charanbir Singh S/o Sh. Shiv Charan Oberoi, brother in law of Sh. Shiv Charan Oberoi and Shiv Charan alongwith 15 - 20 labourers came to the house & started the factory of iron, etc. he has stated that the accused persons disconnected their water and electricity connection.
24. PW-8 Swaroop Jain has further deposed that he filed a complaint in Electricity Department in this regard. The Department did not take any action in this regard and copy of his complaint was given to Shiv Charan etc. The factory was opened in one of his room and open space area. His sister filed complaint in this regard and also filed complaint regarding harassment committed by accused persons. The complaint was given on 24.05.1996 and 02.06.1997. On 03.06.1997, accused persons came to his house to vacate his house. He denied to the same. Accused persons took him to the open space in front of his front room. Kuldeep tried to beat him with danda and he ran after him as he was running to save himself. There was another person who said that he was posted in Haryana Police and also FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 10 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:10 +0530 threatened him and used abusive and filthy language. He also threatened to kill them. Thereafter, his brother called at 100 number and local police came at the spot. HC Rakesh Bhatti and Ct. Prem Chand came at the spot.
25. PW-8 Sh. Swaroop Jain has further deposed that Tai never issued any rent receipt to him. He stated that Tai never asked him to vacate the plot nor she made any complaint in this regard. He stated that Tai never filed any case against him nor filed a case for eviction till today. His sister namely Vijay Laxmi had filed complaint dated 24.05.1997 and 02.06.1997 regarding harassment and throwing of his household articles and threat of dire consequences against Ram Kishan & others. The witness deposed that if the accused persons were the owner of the property, they should have filed eviction suit against them.
26. PW-8 further deposed that wife of accused Ram Kishan had come to him and asked them to vacate the plot, otherwise, she would throw out their articles. He failed to remember the date on which she came. He further deposed that on 03.06.1997, Ram Kishan and Shiv Charan alongwith 5 -6 persons came on the premises and asked them to vacate the house/plot and threatened them to face dire consequences and also said that they would throw their household articles, if they do not vacate the plot. He denied to their demands. They took him near the well located near his room in open space. Kuldeep ran after him with the lathi/danda and tried to cause beatings to him. At that time, Ram Kishan and Shiv Charan Singh were present at the spot and sitting on the chairs. Kuldeep, Ram Kishan, Shiv Charan Singh and two other persons i.e. one from Haryana Police were having a party and eating Samosa, Barfi, Rasgullas and drinking cold drinks. At the same time, Kuldeep and one more person started beating him and aforesaid Haryana constable started abusing and threatened him by saying that he would face dire FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 11 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:18 +0530 consequences and also said that "Tumhara Samaan Bahar Phek Dunga".
27. PW-8 further stated that in the meanwhile, HC Rakesh Bhatt stated that he should have beaten by the Lathis earlier in the point of time. Kuldeep and other persons were removed from the spot and he was taken to PS Mehrauli alongwith Shiv Charan and Ram Kishan. He stated that one Muslim family used to reside in between their room lanes in centre.
28. PW-9 W/HC Shyam Kaur has deposed that on 08.06.1997, she had written the DD entry no. 33B. The record of the said DD entry is already destroyed vide order dt. 08.04.2019 by the ACP/ HQ/ SD which is Ex. PW-9/A. Witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
29. PW-10 SI Ranbir Singh deposed that on 08.06.1997, he received the DD No. 33B regarding quarrel at Maidangarhi area. He alongwith Ct. Balwan went to Maidangarhi Gaon and met with two ladies namely Smt. Vijay Lakshmi and Smt. Shakuntala Devi and found that their articles were lying outside their rooms and the rooms were locked. They requested Ct. Balwan and him to put their articles in the rooms after getting opened the rooms by landlords. He called the landlords and got the articles placed in the rooms. The said ladies did not give any complaint at that time. On the next day, they gave a complaint regarding dispossession of the rooms and throwing out of their articles. He alongwith Ct. Balwan went to the spot and found that the articles were lying outside the rooms.
30. PW-10 SI Ranbir Singh deposed that he prepared the rukka on the basis of the complaint and the rukka is exhibited as Ex. PW10/A. He called the photographer and got obtained the photographs. He prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW10/B. He sent the aforesaid ladies for medical examination. He arrested and conducted the personal FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 12 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:27 +0530 search of accused persons vide memos Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. He arrested and conducted personal search of accused Shri Chand vide memo Ex. PW2/C. He obtained the MLC of injured persons and placed the same on record. Thereafter, the charge sheet was transferred to the District Cell for further investigation. Accused Ram Kishan was correctly identified by the witness. Accused Sohan Lal had undertaken to not dispute his identity as he moved an exemption before the Court.
31. PW-10 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. He stated that he did not make any inquiries regarding the lady who had allegedly given the property on rent to the complainant. He stated that no documents were furnished by the complainant to prove her tenancy. He stated that he along-with his police companion moved the articles of the complainant back to the room at the instance of the complainant. He stated that he called the landlord Sohanlal to put back the articles into the room of the complainant. He stated that no articles were seized by him during the investigation.
32. PW-10 further stated that in his cross-examination that the complainant was sent for medical examination in his private vehicle. He stated that the complainant refused to give her statement to him as she was waiting for her brother. He stated that the complaint that was given by name and therefore, no application for the purpose of TIP was moved. He stated that the place where he was conducting the investigation was an isolated area and therefore, no public person was present at the spot. The witness denied the remaining suggestions put to him by Ld. counsel for accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & FINAL ARGUMENTS
33. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, a joint statement of accused persons namely Sohan Lal and Ram Kishan was recorded under Section 313 FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 13 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA 16:58:34 Date: 2024.02.27 +0530 Cr.P.C. for the first time on 14.10.2019. Thereafter, the final arguments were heard and judgment was pronounced by Ld. Predecessor Court on 23.10.2019. However, a criminal appeal bearing no. 71/2020 was filed before Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-06, South District, Saket Courts and the same was disposed of being allowed. The judgment dt. 14.10.2019 passed by Ld. Predecessor Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh recording of Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC.
34. Accordingly, separate statements of the accused persons were recorded afresh u/s 313 CrPC on 29.11.2023 and all incriminating material was put to them, to which the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Vide separate statement of accused persons, they chose not to lead any defence evidence.
35. Final arguments were heard at length from Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State. In the final arguments, it has been vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that there is no information or evidence regarding the identity of 'Tai' from whom the complainants had allegedly taken the property on rent. Ld. Counsel has further raised questions on the case of the prosecution by stating that the complainant never gave any formal written complaint to the police herself. He has further pinpointed that one of the brothers of the complainant i.e. Bhag Jain has not tendered any testimony. He has further vehemently argued that the complainant or her family were never in possession of the property on which the offence of house-trespass u/s 452 has been alleged. Ld. Counsel for accused has prayed that there is insufficient material available on record for convicting the accused persons, hence, they be acquitted.
FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 14 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:41 +0530
36. Ld. APP for the State on the other hand has vehemently argued that testimony of PW complainant is self-sufficient and is further corroborated by the testimonies of independent witnesses i.e. PW-6 Shakuntala Devi and PW-8 Swaroop Jain. Ld. APP has also submitted that the police witnesses have also rendered consistent testimonies. Ld. APP has accordingly prayed that the accused persons be convicted and punished accordingly.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
37. Before appreciating the evidence, the Court deems it fit to reproduce and discuss the relevant provisions under the IPC which have been attracted in the present case as per the chargesheet:
(a) Section 323 IPC prescribes the punishment for the offence of 'voluntarily causing hurt'. The offence of 'voluntarily causing hurt' has been actually defined u/s 321 IPC which reads as below:
"321. Voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said voluntarily to cause hurt."
(b) Additionally, the accused has been charged with section 341 IPC which prescribes the punishment for wrongful restraint. The offence of 'wrongful restraint' is actually defined u/s 339 IPC which reads as below:
"339. Wrongful restraint.- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person."
(c) The third offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence of 'house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint'. A person is said to have committed house-trespass when he commits criminal trespass FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 15 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:48 +0530 by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or in any building which is used as a place for custody of property (Section 442 IPC). This offence is in turn defined in terms of the offence of 'Criminal trespass' that is provided for under Section 441 IPC. Section 441 IPC is reproduced hereunder for the ease of reference :
"441. Criminal trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent therby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
38. At the outset, an offence under Section 323 IPC is invoked when a person voluntarily causes hurt to another, i.e. he does any such act with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt. The other person is said to have been 'hurt' when the act of the first person causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the other person. Hence, it is required to be proved in the present case that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and her family members.
39. In the present case, the primary witness is the complainant / PW-3 Kumari Vijaya Laxmi herself. It is noted that Kumari Vijaya Laxmi initially declined to render her testimony on 29.05.2013 and 21.09.2013. It was only upon questioning by the Court itself that she finally tendered her testimony. PW-3 / complainant has mentioned about the incident of 08.06.1997 in detail. She has stated that she along- with her two brothers and sisters were beaten up by lathis by the accused persons and they received injuries. She has stated that her brother Bhag Jain sustained severe injuries that were worse than hers.
FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 16 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:58:59 +0530
40. Whilst, sister of the complainant i.e. PW-6 Shakuntala Devi and brother of the complainant i.e. PW-8 Swaroop Jain have also deposed on similar lines, it is noted that no evidence has been led on the actual injuries received by any of them. Certain MLCs were placed on record by the IO but the same were never exhibited before the Court. The doctors who prepared the MLCs were never called by the prosecution for examination. Even the MLCs have not been duly proved by calling the concerned record clerk. Conclusive evidence must be led by the prosecution about injuries caused to the victim(s) for bringing the case within the purview of Sections 321/323 IPC. In the present circumstances, this Court cannot assess the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant or her family. Accordingly, in the absence of duly proven evidence on record, the offence under Section 323 IPC is not made out. The accused persons are acquitted of the offence u/s 323/34 IPC.
41. The second offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence u/s 452 IPC that has been defined in terms of offence under Section 442 IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 452 IPC, it needs to be necessarily determined whether: (i) the property in question was in the possession of the complainant/victim; (ii) whether such property in possession was a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or a place used for the custody of property; (iii) whether the accused persons entered into such property or remained in such property; (iv) whether the accused persons did so with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant/victim or to commit any offence; (v) whether the accused persons did so having made preparation for causing hurt to any person / assaulting any person / wrongfully restraining any person /putting any person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. All of the aforesaid ingredients must be met for constituting the offence under Section 452 FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 17 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:59:09 +0530 IPC.
42. Upon the bare perusal of the testimonies of PW-3 / complainant, PW-6/ Shakuntala Devi and PW-8 / Swaroop Jain, it is noted that all the witnesses have consistently deposed that they were residing at the property bearing house no. 216, Farm House, Maidangarhi, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi upon taking the property on rent. All the three witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 have individually confirmed that the family was residing at the aforesaid property on rent.
43. Even the police witnesses i.e. PW-2 HC Balwan Singh and PW-10 SI Ranbir Singh have confirmed in their testimonies that when they reached at the place of incident, they found the tenants i.e. the complainant and her family with their articles lying outside their rooms. Both PW-2 and PW-10 have confirmed that belongings of the tenants i.e. the complainant and her family was scattered outside and the same was taken back to their rooms. PW-10 has stated that he contacted 'landlord Sohanlal' for putting back the articles into the rooms of the tenants. The police witnesses have duly proved the rukka (Ex. PW-10/A) and site plan (Ex. PW- 10/B).
44. The aforesaid consistent testimonies of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 readwith the testimonies of police officers i.e. PW-2 and PW-10 confirms the factum of possession of the property bearing no. H. No. 216, Farm House, Maidangarhi, PS Mehrauli, New Delhi by the complainant and her family. As can be noted from the testimonies of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8, the present accused persons along-with some other people forcefully entered into the aforesaid premises on 08.06.1997. As per the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-10, the inquiry was made on that day itself and accused persons were arrested by the police. PW-2 has clearly stated in his FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 18 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:59:19 +0530 testimony that doors of the house of the tenants were in an open condition when they reached at the spot.
45. It is lastly noted from the testimony of PW3/complainant that accused persons made a life threatening and dangerous attack on the complainant and her family. The accused persons had lathies and they started beating the victims with them. The same is corroborated with the unrebutted testimonies of PW3 and PW8. This clearly shows that accused persons did so after making preparation of causing hurt / assaulting / intimidating the complainant and her family.
46. Upon a conjoint reading of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it can be noted that the version of the prosecution in relation to offence of house-trespass remains unrebutted and uncontroverted. There is nothing in the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses which point towards the contrary. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to duly prove the offence u/s 452 IPC against both the accused persons. Accused persons Sohan Lal and Ram Kishan are accordingly convicted of the offence u/s 452/34 IPC.
47. The third offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence of 'wrongful restraint' under Section 341 IPC. PW3/ complainant has clearly and unequivocally stated in her testimony (regarding the events of 08.06.1997) that: "They made us captive. First they had beaten us inside and then outside at our place. We were not given water and not allowed to go to the toilet. "
PW6/ Shakunatala Devi has also desposed on the same lines and confirmed the factum of the family being kept 'captive' by the accused persons and being not allowed to have water for three days. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 19 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:59:28 +0530 remains unrebutted and it can be gauged from the deposition that the complainant and her siblings were wrongfully restrained by the accused persons. Hence, the prosecution has been able to sufficiently prove the offence of wrongful restraint. The accused persons are hereby convicted of the offence under Section 341/34 IPC.
48. The last offence with which the accused persons have been charged is the offence u/s 506-II of IPC i.e. the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation'. Section 503 IPC defines the offence of 'Criminal Intimidation' and Section 506 IPC provides the punishment for the offence in the following manner -
503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim- idation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
49. Upon considering the bare provisions of IPC, it is also pertinent to give due regard to the judicial pronouncements covering the offence in question. In the FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 20 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed AVIRAL by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:59:37 +0530 judgment rendered in 'Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. C. Pushpraj , 1988', the Hon. Madras High Court has delineated the essential ingredient of 'criminal intimidation' in the following manner-
"Part II of Sec. 506, IPC is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506, IPC. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there are no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act in pursuance of his alleged expression. So also, the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner is not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. Regarding criminal intimidation to whom it was intended, whether alarm was caused, it so, what are the actual words employed are not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these averments touching the ingredients, mere mentioning of sections and putting a person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court." (emphasis supplied) Thus, causing of an alarm is an essential ingredient in constitution of an offence of criminal intimidation and the same must be seen in the light of the actual words that are employed. Such words must be stated by the complainant in the complaint and in the depositions. A mere use of words or a mere threat would not constitute an offence under the purview of Section 506, IPC. The aforesaid view has been supported by judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi in 'Kanshi Ram v. State, 2000 (86) DLT 609.
50. In the present case, PW3/ complainant had stated in her written complaint i.e. original tehrir Ex. PW3/A that the accused persons threatened her and her sibling with death if they dared to inform the police. The factum of criminal threats is also mentioned in her testimony dated 03.09.2014. PW6/ Shakuntala also confirmed in her testimony that : "We asked for police security because the accused persons have extended threat to our life." PW8/ Swaroop Jain again reiterated in his FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 21 of 23 PS Mehrauli Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA 16:59:52 Date: 2024.02.27 +0530 testimony that he was threatened with abusive and filthy language and the accused persons also threatened to kill them. Hence, versions of all eye witnesses are consistent and corroborative.
51. The factum of 'alarm' resulting as a consequence of criminal intimidation can be gauged from the testimony of the police witness who reached the spot in a short time span of the threats and beatings given to the victim family. PW2/ HC Balwan Singh has clearly deposed: "The tenant was show traumatized that she was not in a state to give statement" (sic.). It becomes evident that PW3/ complainant was able to give her statement to the police on the day following the date of incident i.e. on 09.06.1997 only.
52. The extent of alarm caused to the complainant and her family can also be gauged from the testimony of PW6 / Shakuntala Devi when she stated: " My two brothers got escaped from the jungle way in order to save their life " (sic.). PW8 has confirmed that once the threat to life was given, his brother called at 100 number and local police came at the spot. These actions of the family members are clearly indicative of the extent of alarm caused in the minds of the victims on the day of the attack.
53. In view of the documentary and testimonial evidence tendered in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to duly prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 (Part II) of the IPC against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons are hereby convicted of the offence under Section 506 (Part II)/34 IPC.
54. In view of the appreciation of evidence and findings reached by this Court in the preceding paragraphs, accused Sohan Lal and Ram Kishan are hereby FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 22 of 23 PS Mehrauli AVIRAL Digitally signed by AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 16:59:59 +0530 acquitted of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and convicted of the offences under Sections 341/452/506-II/34 IPC.
Digitally signed
AVIRAL by AVIRAL
SHUKLA
SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27
17:00:03 +0530
Announced in Open Court (AVIRAL SHUKLA)
on 27.02.2024 MM-05,South District/27.02.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 23 pages and bears my signatures at each page. Digitally signed by AVIRAL AVIRAL SHUKLA SHUKLA Date: 2024.02.27 17:00:07 +0530 (AVIRAL SHUKLA) MM-05,South District/27.02.2024 FIR No.310/1997 State Vs. Sohan Lal Page No. 23 of 23 PS Mehrauli