Delhi District Court
State vs . Amrawati & Anr. on 21 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
(SOUTH DISTRICT) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Amrawati & Anr.
FIR No.928/05
U/s : 325/341/34 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 12.06.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 21.04.2015
Date of judgment : 21.04.2015
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 928/05 2.Date of the Commission : 21.10.2005 of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Amrawati W/o Sh. Brahm Dutt : 2. Sanjeev @ Sonu S/o Sh. Brahm : Dutt, both resident of H. No. 513/B, : Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Smt. Satyawati W/o Sh. Hari Chand
: R/o H. No. 513/B, Chirag Delhi, New
: Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : u/s 325/341/34 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 1/13
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2005 at about 5.30pm at H. No. 513-B, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, both accused persons namely Amrawati and Sanjay in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Smt. Satya Wati and gave beating to her by using danda and voluntarily caused grievous injuries to her and thereby both accused committed offences punishable u/s 325/341/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 928/05 under section 325/341/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 12.06.2005.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 325/341/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons namely Amrawati and Sanjay and read out to the said accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 30.07.2010.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Smt. Satyawati being the complainant was examined on 26.11.2011 and deposed that on 21.10.2005 when she was present at her home, she was called by accused persons present in the court through her Chachia Saas namely Krishna Devi and when she came down, her Jethani FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 2/13 namely Amrawati started fighting with her and then Amrawati called her son namely Sanjeev and they both started beating her badly by closing her in a room and nobody else from her family was present there. She further deposed that Amrawati caught hold of her hand and Sanjeev hit on her mouth with danda due to which her teeth got broken and they both tore her blouse and abused her. She further deposed that she called police and she was taken to AIIMS Hospital and the accused Sanjeev remained absconded for one month as per her knowledge. She further deposed that her statement given to the police from point X to X is Ex. PW-1/A bearing her signature at point A.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein she stated that she was alone at her home when aforesaid incident happened with her at around 4.00 or 5.00pm. She further deposed that she was residing at first floor of the premises which she was locked inside the room which belongs to the accused persons on the ground floor. At that time nobody except the accused persons and her were present. She further deposed that police came there around 7.00pm and she was saved by nobody and the accused persons beaten her up continuously, meanwhile her husband also came from office and he made a call on 100 number and police there and got opened the door. She further deposed that her husband was working with DDA and he used to come at around 6 to 6.30pm at home and her broken tooth was not taken into possession by police as same was removed by the accused persons by throwing it in gutter at about 6.00pm. She had told the said fact to the police but she cannot say whether this fact was recorded by police in her statement or not. She further cannot say whether the danda used by accused persons was taken into possession by police or not. She had told the said fact to the police about the danda used FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 3/13 by accused persons. She further deposed that she does not remember whether this fact was recored by the police in her statement or not as she was unconscious at that time due to severe beating given by accused persons to her. She was unconscious till her husband came at about 6 or 6.30pm. She further deposed that she does not remember how many police persons came to the spot, again said 4 persons. Due to the hitting by danda her whole jaw got dislocated/fractured and her tooth also got broken and her whole mouth got swollen. She denied the suggestion that she had told the doctor that the said incident had happened at 5.30am (confronted with portion A to A on MLC). She further deposed that the blouse piece which was torn by the accused Sanjeev was taken into possession by the police and at the time of seizing said cloth her signatures were also taken on the memo/document (confronted the said document i.e. seizure memo is not in the case file). It was not a danda but it was a bat. She further deposed that her statement was recorded at PS at about 9 to 10 pm after her medical examination. She further deposed that the police reached the spot after the passage of two hours of incident. She further deposed that she remained at hospital for two hours and she was discharged on the very same day from the hospital. It took about one hour to reach the PS from AIIMS hospital and she remained at PS about 2-3 hours and she left the PS at about 10pm. She denied the suggestion that the accused also received injury caused by her in her thumb by biting, during the scuffle. She admitted that the MLC of the accused Amrawati was also prepared. Again said, she does not remember whether the medical examination of accused Amrawati was conducted or not. She denied the suggestion that the accused Sanjay was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. She denied the suggestion that she had quarrel with the neighbours only in the morning time of the day of FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 4/13 incident or that her tooth was broken while quarreling with the neighbours. She denied the suggestion that she had asked for Rs. 6 lacs from the accused for compromising the present matter. She denied the suggestion that she had caused hurt to the accused and she had deliberately implicated both the accused persons in the present case to rid herself from the matter. She deposed that she does not remember whether the statement of her husband was recorded by the police. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
8. PW-2 HC Jatinder was examined on 15.07.2013 and deposed that on 21.10.2005 he was posted as HC at PP Sheikh Sarai, PS Malviya Nagar and on that day on receipt of DD no. 16, he along with IO ASI Kulwant Singh went to the spot i.e. 513/D Chirag Delhi where they found that parties had already been taken by the PCR to AIIMS. Thereafter, they returned back to the police chowki. Thereafter, case was got registered and he reached back to the spot after having got the case registered. He further deposed that accused Amrawati was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A bearing her signatures at point A. Thereafter, they went to AIIMS and found the injured namely Amrawati. Her MLC was prepared.
9. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he stated that he reached at the spot at about 6.00pm and he did not know whether any other family member or public persons were present at the spot at that time. He further deposed that he stayed at the spot for about 15-20 minutes and no recovery was effected in his presence on the spot. He further deposed that he went to the hospital for medical of accused Amrawati. He further deposed that he does not know whether any legal process was initiated on the MLC of accused Amrawati. Injured Satyawati was also medically examined. He further deposed that he returned back at FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 5/13 the spot at about 9.00pm to 9.15pm and in his presence statements of injured Satyawati was recorded however, he does not remember if any statement of any other person was recorded. Only accused Amrawati was arrested in his presence at about 9.30pm from the house of the accused. The broken tooth was not recovered in his presence. He further deposed that he had not read DD entry dated 21.10.05 and he does not know the contents of DD entry dated 21.10.05. He further deposed that he had joined the investigation only once and he left the spot finally at about 10.00pm to 10.30pm. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
10. PW-3 Ct. Biju was examined on 23.11.2013 and deposed that on 21.10.2005 he was posted as DD writer at PP Sheikh Sarai and on that day he made entry in DD no. 16 regarding WT message. He had brought the original roznamcha register which is Ex. PW-3/A (OSR).
11. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
12. PW-4 HC Vinod Kumar being Duty Officer was examined on 13.02.2014 and proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-4/A and his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-4/B (OSR).
13. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-5 Record Clerk namely Rajbir Singh was examined on 05.07.2014 and deposed that he had brought the certified copy of MLC bearing no. 140797 of injured Ms Satyawati which has been prepared by Dr. Arif Akhtar on 21.10.2005. He further identified the signature and hand writing of Dr. Arif Akhtar as he worked with him in ordinary course of business. Certified copy of the said MLC was taken on judicial record vide FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 6/13 memo Ex. PW-5/A. The said MLC is Ex. PW-5/B.
15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the certified copy generated from carbon copy of MLC register of AIIMS Hospital (record section). He admitted that said certified copy was not mentioning any nature of injury. He voluntarily stated that as IO collected the original MLC and sought opinion from concerned doctor on the original MLC which is the part of judicial file, he cannot tell exactly how long he worked with Dr. Arif Akhtar. However, he identified his signature and handwriting and he had worked with him. He further deposed that he does not know for how long Dr. Arif Akhtar worked with the hospital. He further deposed that he had seen Dr. Arif Akhtar signing during the course of his duties with the hospital. He admitted that the MLC was not prepared by Dr. Arif Akhtar in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had not worked with Dr. Arif Akhtar or that he had not seen him signing in the course of his duties. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16. PW-6 Dr. Satya Prakash was examined on 05.07.2014 and deposed that he was appearing on behalf of Dr. Arif Akhtar who had prepared the MLC No. 140797 of injured Satyawati on dated 21.10.2005. As per MLC report, patient was vital stable on examination lower one incisor tooth was broken. No other external apparent injury.
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that as per MLC, the time of incident was 5.30am on dated 21.10.2005. He further deposed that the patient history was recorded as information provided by patient. It cannot be opined after observing the MLC how old injury received by the patient. The such injury (breaking of tooth) could be received by falling also. He further deposed that FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 7/13 he had joined the AIIMS Hospital in August, 2013.
18. Apart from these six witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities given. Hence, PE was ordered to be closed on 27.10.2014. The statement of accused persons under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 17.11.2014 in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they do not want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, an application u/s 315 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of accused persons on 26.11.2014 and same was allowed on 12.01.2015 and matter was listed for DE.
19. DW-1 Smt. Amrawati was examined on 12.01.2015 and deposed that on 21.10.2005 at about 5.30am her Devrani namely Smt. Satyawati was quarelling with some neighbours and tenants and on hearing the noise she came outside the house and she tried to sort out the quarrel but Smt. Satyawati became angry and bite on her thumb and after that she came into her house leaving them outside the house. She further deposed that she and her son Sanjeev never raised any quarrel with Smt. Satyawati and in the evening she came to know that Smt. Satyawati had lodged a false complaint against them and falsely implicated in the present case.
20. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein she stated that on 21.10.2005 Satyawati bite on her right thumb of hand and she got treatment from AIIMS Trauma Center. She further deposed that she had not collected any documentary proof regarding the treatment. However, she visited only once in AIIMS Trauma Center for the treatment. She further deposed that police had never inquired about the incident. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely in order to save herself and co- accused.
FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 8/13
21. DW-2 Sh. Sanjya was examined on 12.01.2015 and deposed that on 21.10.2005 at about 5.30am his aunty namely Smt. Satyawati was quarelling with some neighbours and tenants and hearing the noise he came outside the house and he was sent back by his mother Smt. Amrawati that it is a matter between some ladies and he had nothing to do so he returned back into his home and after that he went to see his Mausi/mother's sister who was seriously ill at her house in Village Samalkha and on the next day he came to know through his father that Smt. Satyawati had lodged a false complaint against them and he returned back at his home at about 12.30pm and thereafter, he went to PS Malviya Nagar for inquiry about the case, where police had taken his signatures on some papers and assured that police is taken legal action and he returned back at his home. He further deposed that he had neither raised any quarrel with his Aunty Smt. Satyawati nor he beaten her as she falsely alleged against them in the present case. Even he was not present after 9.00am of 21.10.2005 till next day 12.30pm of 22.10.2005.
22. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that on 21.10.2005 at about 5.30pm he was present at Mausi'house i.e. Village Samalkha, New Delhi to meet with Mausi ji who was unwell and on that day at about 5.30am he was present his address i.e. 513- B, Chirag Delhi and he heard some noise and came out from his room and saw that his aunty quarreling with neighbour on some issue. He voluntarily stated that he does not know the issue between them. However, they used to quarrel because of water supply. He further deposed that police had never inquired him about the incident. He further deposed that he was 12th pass and he had signed some documents before the police. However, he does not know the contents of those documents. He denied the suggestion that FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 9/13 he had not seen the incident and deposing falsely in order to save himself and co-accused.
23. DW-3 Jitender Kumar @ Jeet Ram was examined on 20.02.2015 and deposed that he was running his jeweller shop in the name of Sachin Abhushan Bhandar in shop no. 836, Chirag Delhi since 2003. He further deposed that on 21.10.2005 at about 5.45am he saw some quarrel was going on between wife of Harish namely Sayawati with some neighbours and tenants on the issue of water of latrine and Smt Amrawati was trying to sort out the dispute and after that he returned back to his home and came at his shop at about 9.00am and remained there at about 9.00pm on that day. He further deposed that there was no quarrel in the evening on 21.10.2005 only two police official came at the house of accused persons and Satyawati and took both parties to the hospital.
24. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that on 20.10.2005 he was present at his home in the night. He further deposed that he used to get up at about 3.00 am in the morning and on 21.10.2005 he got up at about 4.00am and reached to his shop at about 4.30am and started making of jewellery in his shop. He further deposed that he heard noise of male persons and saw that tenant (he does not remember the name) were quarreling on issue of draining water. Police had never inquired about the incident. He voluntarily stated that he personally told the fact to the police official in the evening 21.10.2005. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons and he was not present at the spot at the time in question.
25. DW-4 Smt. Menka Sharma was examined on 20.02.2015 and deposed that she was residing in house no. 610, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi which was adjacent to the house of Smt. Amrawati and Satyawati and on FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 10/13 21.10.2005 at about 5.30-5.45am she saw that persons gathered in front of house of Smt. Amrawati and Satyawati and Smt. Satyawati was quarreling with some neighbour and tenants on the issue of water of latrine and Amrawati after hearing the noise came out side and trying to sort out the quarrel and after that Smt Amrawati returned back into her house. There was no quarrel in the evening of 21.10.2005. However, two police official visited at the spot in the evening at about 7.15pm.
26. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein she stated that she used to get up at about 5.00am. However, on the date in question she got up at 5.10am. She further deposed that her residence was on the ground floor of above said address and Amrawati was her first friend and she used to met her. She further deposed that she saw that Satyawati fell down on the ground in the quarrel and on the date in question i.e. 21.10.2005 police reached in the evening at about 7.00pm and police had never inquired her. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons as accused was her best friend.
27. Thereafter, no other defence witness was examined by the accused persons. DE stands closed on 20.02.2015.
28. No arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state as he was not present and substitute APP had not been appearing in the court.
Reasons for Decision
29. Prosecution has examined six witnesses in the present matter including complainant. A complaint was filed by the complainant namely Smt. Satyawati who has been examined as PW-1. In her complaint Ex. PW-1/A, she deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 21.10.2005 when she FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 11/13 was present at her home, she was called by accused persons present in the court through her Chachia Saas namely Krishna Devi and when she came down, her Jethani namely Amrawati started fighting with her and then Amrawati called her son namely Sanjeev and they both started beating her badly by closing her in a room and nobody else from her family was present there. She further deposed that Amrawati caught hold of her hand and Sanjeev hit on her mouth with danda due to which her teeth got broken and they both tore her blouse and abused her. She further deposed that she called police and she was taken to AIIMS Hospital and the accused Sanjeev remained absconded for one month as per her knowledge. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he stated that the blouse piece which was torn by the accused Sanjeev was taken into possession by the police and at the time of seizing said clothe her signatures were also taken on the memo/document. However, no seizure memo of the said blouse piece is on record and no material points have come on record.
30. Apart from this witness, prosecution has examined formal witnesses who deposed as per the version of the prosecution. Other witnesses are the witness as regards DD entry, registration of FIR and MLC.
31. Apart from these six witnesses, prosecution has not examined any other witnesses. None of public witness including the IO have been examined in the present matter. It is settled law that non examination of IO can be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
32. Considering the testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear that the offences u/s 325/341/34 of IPC do not stand proved. It is necessary that there were other public witnesses to support the version of the prosecution. No public persons have joined the investigation for the reasons best known to the IO. At the same time, MLC as regards injury which has been placed FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 12/13 on record has also not been properly proved as the doctor who has been examined was not the doctor who prepared the MLC. Thus, it is clear that it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons present in the court were the person who voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Smt. Satyawati and had committed offences u/s 325/341/34 of IPC and there are no other witnesses to support the version of the prosecution. Thus, both accused are required to be given benefit of doubt. The accused persons namely Amrawati and Sanjeev are hereby acquitted of the offences charged u/s 325/341/34 of IPC.
Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court (CHETNA SINGH) on 21.04.2015 MM-02(SD)/ 21.04.2015
Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/ 21.04.2015
FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 13/13