Delhi District Court
Fir No. 757/07; State vs . Aman Etc. Page 1 Of 15 on 27 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. 14/09
FIR No. 757/07
PS: Uttam Nagar
U/s: 323/308/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) AMAN
s/o Suresh Kumar
r/o H. No. A6, Ph5,
near Indraprastha School,
Navada, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
(2) PAWAN
s/o Pratap Singh
r/o H. No. A6, Om Vihar, Ph5,
near Indraprastha School,
Navada, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
(3) Smt. MEMWATI
w/o Pratap Singh,
r/o H. No. A6, Om Vihar, Ph5,
near Indraprastha School,
Navada, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
Date of Institution: 02072008
Date of arguments: 19082011
Date of judgement: 27082011
FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 1 of 15
J U D G M E N T
1. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03092007 at about 10 pm Sunil and his wife Seema were sitting in front of their house. Complainant Anil was also standing there. Accused Aman came there and asked for a glass and water from Sunil for taking liquor. Sunil and Seema refused to give the glass and water to him. At this, accused Aman gave filthy abuses to Sunil and went back threatening to see him. Thereafter, accused Aman came again with his mother Veena, Memwati and Pawan and started quarelling. Accused Aman hit a brick on the head of Seema, Pawan gave danda blow on the head and foot of Anil, accused Memwati pushed Seema and gave her leg and fist blows and accused Veena hit danda to Sunil as a result of which Anil, his brother Sunil and his sisterinlaw Seema sustained injuries. They were rushed to hospital in a PCR van. Statement of complainant Anil was recorded by the Investigating Officer. FIR u/s 323/308/34 IPC was registered against accused. Accused Aman, Pawan and Memwati were arrested but accused Veena Rani could not be arrested. She was declared PO. On the pointing out of accused FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 2 of 15 Pawan, danda used in the commission of offence was recovered from his house. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 323/308/34 IPC and accused were sent to court for trial.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P. C, case was committed to Sessions court. Charge u/s 308/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW1 is Sunil. He could tell the year but deposed that rd on 3 September he and his wife were sitting outside their house. His younger brother Anil was also standing near to them. Accused Aman and Pawan came and asked for a glass and water for drinking liquor. He refused to give them glass and water. Both accused then left saying that they would see him. After some time, both accused along with accused Veena Rani (not arrested) mother of accused Aman and Memwati, mother of accused Pawan came with dandas in their hands. Accused Aman hit a brick on the head of Seema, accused Pawan hit danda on the head and foot of Anil and accused Memwati and accused Veena Rani also FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 3 of 15 gave danda blow to him and his wife. As a result of the beatings given by the accused, his wife Seema and brother Anil sustained injuries. PCR van came at the spot and rushed them to the DDU hospital. He deposed that he had received stitches on his head. He further stated that he and Anil were discharged from the hospital on the same day but his wife was shifted to Safdurjung hospital where she remained admitted for 8 days because of head injury and had undergone surgery. In response to the leading question put by Ld. APP, he admitted that incident is of the year 2007 and also admitted that when his mother intervened, she was also pushed by accused due to which she also sustained injuries and was rushed to hospital.
PW2 is Marium. She deposed that on 03092007 at about 10 pm on hearing the noise, she came out of the house and saw that her son Sunil in pool of blood. Her younger son Anil was having head injury and her daughter in law Seema was lying on the floor. All the three accused along with mother of accused Aman were throwing bricks and stones on her sons and daughter in law Seema and when she tried to save her sons and daughter inlaw, accused Aman twisted her fingers and all the accused gave FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 4 of 15 her beatings. PCR van then came at the spot and rushed them to DDU hospital.
PW3 is HC Om Prakash. He is the Investigating Officer. On receipt of DD no. 37A, he along with Ct. Sher Singh reached at H. No. A15, Roop Vihar, PhaseV, Uttam Nagar where he came to know that injured had been rushed to hospital by the PCR. From there, he went to DDU hospital where he found injured Seema lying admitted in the hospital. The other injured were not found in the hospital. He collected the MLC of Sunil and Anil and came back at the spot where he recorded statement of complainant Anil and prepared the rukka Ex. PW3/B and sent the same at PS through Ct. Sher Singh.
PW4 is Anil. He is the complainant. He proved the statement given to the police as Ex. PW1/A. He identified the danda Ex. P1.
PW5 is Dr. Mukesh Mittal, CMO, DDU hospital. He proved the MLC of injured Anil, Sunil and Seema as Ex. PW5/A to PW5/C. PW6 is Seema. She could not tell the date, month or year. She deposed that about four years ago at about 7--8 pm FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 5 of 15 she and her husband Sunil were sitting outside their house and taking food. Accused Aman came and asked for glass and water for taking liquor. She refused to give him glass and water as he was not known to her. Accused Aman then went away and thereafter came back with Pawan and Memwati who is the mother of accused Pawan and started beating her husband. When she tried to save her husband, accused Aman hit a brick on her head and accused Memwati gave a danda blow to her due to which she became unconscious and therefore does not know as to what happened thereafter. She stated that her neighbour Bittoo was also present at the time of incident and accused Pawan had given danda blow on the foot of her Devar. On being shown the danda, she stated that it is not the same danda with which she was given blow by accused Pawan as the said danda was wider then this danda. PW6 was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. APP. She admitted that date of incident was 03092007. She admitted that Aman abused her husband in filthy language. She admitted that after some time all the three accused came together and started quarrelling with them. She admitted that accused Pawan gave danda blow on the hand and leg of her brother in alw FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 6 of 15 Anil. She admitted that accused Memwati pushed her and gave danda blow on her head. She admitted that accused had given fist and kick blows to her motherinlaw when she came there to save them.
PW7 is ASI Prasilla, Duty Officer. She proved the FIR as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 is Dr. Uday Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, DDU hospital. He proved the MLC of Marium as Ex. PW8/A. PW9 is HC Sher Singh. He is the witness of investigation. He had assisted HC Om Prakash in the investigation of this case. He had taken the rukka to PS for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR to ASI Jai Prakash.
PW10 is Ct. Shishu Pal. He is the witness of arrest of accused Aman who had surrendered in the court. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Aman as Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B respectively.
PW11 is SI Jai Prakash. He is the Second IO of this case. During investigation, he prepared site plan Ex. PW11/A at the instance of Anil. He arrested accused Aman after he FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 7 of 15 surrendered in the court. On 14112007 he arrested accused Pawan who had also surrendered in the court. He deposed that during PC remand accused Pawan pointed out the place of occurrence and got recovered a danda which he had concealed inside the bed near the wall and the danda was converted into a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of JP and seized vide memo Ex. PW11/C. He had also arrested accused Memwati vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/D. He stated that accused Veena Rani was declared PO by the Court.
PW12 is SI Zile Singh. He was on PCR duty on 03092007. He had rushed the injured to DDU hospital in his PCR van.
PW13 is Dr. Punit Chibbar from DDU hospital. He stated that as per opinion given by Dr. Ashish, the injuries sustained by Seema were dangerous to life.
4. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Aman refused to lead any evidence in his defence. Accused Memwati, in her FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 8 of 15 defence, produced DW1 Smt. Gulshan who deposed that at about 9--10 pm while she was sitting in her room, she heard the noise from the neighbourhood. She came out and came to know that a quarrel had taken place in the neighbourhood. Next day, she asked accused Memwati, who is residing opposite her house, as to whether she knows about the quarrel that took place last night, but she told that she was unwell and therefore does not know as to what quarrel had taken place. She further stated that police came in the morning and took Seema, who was having head injury, to the hospital and arrested accused Memwati.
Accused Pawan examined Sh. Amit Arora as DW2 in his defence. He is the restaurant manager at Pizza Hut, TDI Mall, Rajouri Garden. He deposed that one Pawan was working in Pizza Hut on 03092007 and his duty hours on that day were from 1 pm to 10 pm. He stated that did not produce the original attendance register of September 2007 but produced computerized copy of attendance sheet of all employees of Pizza Hut as on 03092007 which is Ex. DW2/A.
5. Arguments have been heard from Ld. APP as also FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 9 of 15 from Ld. Defence counsel. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that all the injured are hostile and there are material contradictions in their testimonies and each of them have given different account of the incident and therefore Prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond doubt. Ld. APP has argued that all the four eyewitnesses are injured themselves and they are only partly hostile and therefore their entire testimonies cannot be wash off the record. It is also submitted that contradictions pointed out by the Defence are only minor contradictions not affecting the core of the Prosecution case and therefore the charge against the accused is proved beyond doubt.
6. I have considered the submissions made before me and have carefully gone through the record. As per statement of Anil Ex. PW4/A which formed the basis of registration of FIR, only accused Aman had asked for glass and water for drinking liquor while PW4 Anil gives the names of three persons i.e. Accused Aman, Pawan and one Kaku. The name of Kaku is not mentioned in the statement Ex. PW4/A and is an improvement over the previous statement of Anil. As per Ex. PW4/A, later on accused FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 10 of 15 Aman, Pawan, Veena and Memwati came there and quarrelled with complainant and his brother and sisterinlaw but in his testimony in court, Anil deposed that Aman, Pawan and Memwati came there along with Kaku. He does not state about accused Veena Rani while statement Ex. PW4/A does not speak about arrival of Kaku with accused persons at the spot. In Ex. PW4/A, Anil stated that Aman hit a brick on the head of his Bhabhi, Pawan hit him with a danda on his head and foot, Memwati pushed and gave leg and fist blows to his Bhabhi and Veena gave danda blow to his brother Sunil but PW1 Sunil deposed that accused Memwati and Veena had given danda blow to him and his wife. PW4 Anil stated that Aman had given brick blow on the shoulder of his sisterinlaw although in the FIR he stated that brick was hit on the head of his sisterinlaw. He stated that accused Pawan gave danda blow to him on his foot. He does not speak about the giving of danda blow on his head. According to him, accused Memwati gave a danda blow on the head of his sisterinlaw. He does not depose that his brother Sunil was also caused injuries. Anil was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. APP. He denied that only accused Aman had demanded glass and FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 11 of 15 water. He denied that Kaku did not accompany the accused Aman, Pawan, Veena Rani and Memwati in the quarrel. He stated that he cannot say that his sisterinlaw was hit with a brick on her head or shoulder. In reply to a leading question, he admitted that accused Veena had given danda blow to his brother. It is significant to note that nowhere in his examination in chief, PW4 deposed that Veena had also come at the spot with accused persons. PW6 Seema deposed that accused Anil hit a brick on her head and accused Memwati gave a danda blow to her which is in contradiction with the averment in FIR wherein it is mentioned that Memwati had only given a push and leg and fist blows to Seema. She admitted that her Devar was also present at the time of incident and the only injury caused to him was a danda blow on his foot by accused Pawan. In her crossexamination, Seema stated that she had told the police in her statement that Memwati gave a danda blow on her head. She was confronted with her previous statement Mark PW6/X where it has been recorded that Memwati had pushed her. PW2 Marium stated that on hearing the noise, when she came out of the house, she saw her son Sunil in pool of blood, her younger son Anil was having head injury and FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 12 of 15 her daughter in law Seema was lying on the floor and all the accused persons along with mother of accused Aman, were throwing bricks and stones on her son and daughter in law. However, she does not tell about the use of danda. According to her, when she had tried to intervene to save her sons and daughterinlaw, accused Aman twisted her fingers and all the accused beat her. The name of PW2 Marium is not mentioned in the statement of Anil Ex. PW4/A. In the said statement, he does not state that his mother had also reached at the spot on hearing the noise. In their examinationinchief, PW1 Sunil, PW4 Anil, and PW6 Seema are totally silent about the arrival of PW2 Marium at the spot. Her MLC Ex. PW8/A also does not show any fresh external injury over her body. Thus, the presence of PW2 Marium at the spot is doubtful and she appears to be a planted witness. In crossexamination, PW1 stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and the incident took place at about 10 pm. PW4 deposed that incident took place at 9 am while PW6 Seema deposed that incident took place between 7--8 pm. Thus, it is evident that there are discrepancies and contradictions in respect of a vitally relevant aspects of the facts deposed. The witnesses FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 13 of 15 have not only contradicted each other but the facts deposed are also in contradiction with the facts narrated in the FIR. Thus, there are material contradictions which affect the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses.
7. Prosecution is also relying on the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. danda. There is no public witness of recovery of danda. Moreover, PW6 Seema denied that danda Ex. P1 is the same danda with which she was given blow by accused Pawan. According to her, the said danda was wider then the danda Ex. P1. That being so, the recovery of danda on the pointing out of accused Pawan is of no help to the Prosecution.
8. In crossexamination, PW6 has deposed that her bloodstained clothes were seized by the police but there is no seizure memo of the clothes on record and the clothes of injured were not produced for identification. PW4 Anil stated that police came at his house and took him to PS and recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A but HC Om Prakash stated that he had recorded the statement of Anil at the spot.
FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 14 of 15
9. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that although three persons had sustained injuries but the testimonies of witnesses suffers from serious inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to details of incident and therefore it appears that incident had not taken place in the manner as alleged and truth has been concealed from the Court and thus a doubt is created, benefit of which goes to the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond doubt. Accused Aman, Pawan and Memwati are acquitted. Accused Aman be released, if not wanted in any other criminal case. Bail bonds of accused Pawan and Memwati are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Documents of sureties, if any, be released after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to Record Room with directions to preserve the case file with liberty to Prosecution to get the case revived on the arrest of accused Veena Rani.
(RAVINDER DUDEJA) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27082011 FIR No. 757/07; State Vs. Aman Etc. Page 15 of 15