Delhi District Court
State vs Maan Singh @ Muchhi Anr on 30 November, 2024
CR Cases 2037075/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANKALP KAPOOR, JMFC-04, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchhi Anr.
FIR No. : 435/2014
U/s : 323/341/427/34 IPC
PS : Sangam Vihar
JUDGMENT
a) CR No. of the case : 480/2/2016 2037075/2016
b) CNR No. : DLST02-003848-2016
c) The date of commission of : 22.08.2014
the offence
d) Name of the complainant : Mohd. Tahir S/o Sh. Sher Mohd. Khan.
e) Name, parentage : Sh. Maan Singh @ Muchhi S/o Sh. Ram Dayal,
of accused and Charan Pal S/o Sh. Channu.
f) Offences complained of : 323/341/427/34 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Both accused persons convicted for the offence
under Section 323/34 IPC and both accused
persons are acquitted for the offences under
Section 341/427 IPC.
i) Date of institution of case : 14.03.2016
k) Date of Judgment : 30.11.2024
State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 1 of 14
CR Cases 2037075/2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 323/341/427/34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter for brevity 'IPC').
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2014 at about 06:30 PM, in front of shop number 16/1990, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had wrongfully restrained the complainant namely Md. Tahir, his brother Mohd. Shahid and his mother Smt. Najesh Begum and voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant's mother Najish Begum with a brick. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons had also damaged the window panel of the car bearing registration number DL-3CBC-3536. Thus, the accused persons are alleged to have committed offence(s) under Section 323/341/427/34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court. Copy of charge-sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter, notice under u/s 323/341/427/34 IPC was served upon the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.03.2022 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused persons in their statement dated 02.04.2024 under Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity 'CrPC') admitted the FIR bearing number 435/2014, PS Sangam Vihar, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD number 34A dated 22.08.2014, MLC of the victim bearing number 445915/2014 dated State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 2 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 22.08.2014 of AIIMS when the said documents were put to them.
In light of the admission of the aforesaid documents by the accused persons following prosecution witnesses were admitted from the list of witnesses and hence their examination was dispensed with:
i. ASI Jawahar Singh (DO who recorded FIR no. 434/2014, PS Sangam Vihar), and ii. Dr. Monika Satayam, Junior Resident, AIIMS (Doctor who conducted the MLC no. 445915/2014 dated 22.08.2014 of the injured).
4. During the course of trial, the summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses as enumerated in the list of witnesses, however, the complainant namely Sh. Mohd. Tahir s/o Sh. Mohd. Khan was dropped from the list of witnesses on 12.09.2022 as he had expired. Similarly, another prosecution witness namely Sh. Mohd. Shahid s/o Sh. Mohd Khan was also dropped from the list of witnesses 05.12.2023 as he had expired during the course of the trial.
5. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e., (1) Smt. Najish Begum w/o Sh. Mohd Khan i.e., the mother of the complainant and injured herein; and (2) SI Malkhan Singh, IO of the case.
i. PW-1 Smt. Najish Begum, the injured in this case stated in her examination in chief that on 22.08.2014 she was present at her home when some unknown persons informed her that her son namely Mohd. Shahid was beaten by the accused persons. She further deposed that thereafter she came out of her house and saw that two State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 3 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 boys namely Charan pal @ Channu and Maan Singh were beating her son Mohd. Shahid. She further deposed that when she tried to intervene, she was also attacked by the accused persons by some sharp object and also hit one brick on her head due to which she sustained injury on her head. She further deposed that around 20-25 people also gathered at the spot and damaged her vehicle and thereafter the accused persons fled away from the spot after giving her a threat to kill. She further deposed that her son made a call at number 100 and that she was brought to the hospital by her brother. PW-1 correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Maan Singh PW-1 deposed that the accused Maan Singh reached the spot after the quarrel and that there were about 100 public persons also present at the spot. She further deposed that the police did not come to the spot in her presence and the time of the incident. She further testified that the police did not conduct any proceedings at the spot but she and her family was called at the PS and their statements were recorded. PW-1 further deposed that the accused persons and her sons were friends but denied the suggestion that no such incident had occurred. She further denied the suggestion that she had not given any complaint to the police regarding the incident as no such incident had occurred.
In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Charanpal @ Channu PW-1 testified that the incident had taken place at about 05:00-06:00 PM and that there is no prior enmity between her sons and the accused persons. She further deposed that State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 4 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 her sons used to consume alcohol during the said period. She further deposed that her son had hanged himself due to some matrimonial dispute. She further deposed that she had taken the names of around 10-15 people who were present at the spot damaging her vehicle but the IO had not mentioned the same in the charge-sheet. She further deposed that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of her husband. She further deposed that the accused persons also beat her but the same was not mentioned by the IO. She further deposed that the FIR was got registered on the complaint of her son. She further deposed that her statement was only recorded once by the IO and that she was present at the PS when her son's statement was recorded by the IO. She lastly denied the suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
ii. PW-2, Sub-Inspector Malkhan Singh, deposed that on 22.08.2014 while he was posted as ASI at PS Sangam Vihar, he was marked the DD number 34A, upon receiving the same he went to the spot i.e., infront of H-16/1927, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi along-with Ct. Gopal and there they met the complainant Mohd. Tahir. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant and then came to know that the mother of the complainant is admitted in AIIMS trauma center, whereupon he proceeded to AIIMS trauma center but the MLC of the injured was not ready. He further deposed that thereafter at the instance of the complainant he seized the brick used in the commission of the offence. He further deposed that the complainant also pointed out towards one WagonR car bearing number DL-3CBC-3536 allegedly damaged by the accused persons and the window panel of the car was broken. He further deposed that State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 5 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 he also took photographs of the car and prepared rukka. He further deposed that he handed over the rukka to Ct. Gopal and sent him to the PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he also prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and thereafter tried to trace the accused persons but they were not traceable. He further deposed that on 04.10.2014 he along-with the complainant went to the house of accused Maan Singh and then arrested him thereafter releasing him on police bail. He further deposed that later on accused Charan Pal was also arrested. He further deposed regarding the other aspects of investigation. PW-2 correctly identified the accused persons, brick used in the commission of offence and the damaged vehicle in the Court.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons PW-2 deposed that on the day of the incident he reached the spot along-with Ct. Gopal at about 07:25 PM. He further deposed that he met the complainant near his house and recorded the statement of the complainant near the house itself. He further deposed that the incident had taken place at House number 1900, H block, Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that the place of incident is a residential area and he had asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but they all refused citing their personal difficulties. He further deposed that he did not serve any notice upon the said persons. He further deposed that the seized case property was recovered at the instance of the complainant from the place of the incident only. He further deposed that the accused namely Maan Singh @ Mucchi was arrested from his house on 04.10.2014. He further deposed that he did not know as to the number of rooms which were in the house of the State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 6 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 accused Maan Singh. He further deposed that he made the arrival entry in the PS upon return. He further deposed that the distance between the PS and the spot was about 2 kms. He further deposed that he reached the PS at around 1 AM but he did not remember the arrival entry upon his return. He further deposed that on 06.10.2014 the other accused namely Charanpal @ Channi was arrested from his house. He further deposed that the identification of the accused persons was conducted before the arrest of the accused and both of the accused persons were identified by the mother of the complainant. He further deposed that the arrest memos of the accused persons were not signed by any public persons. He further deposed that he along-with the accused Charan reached the PS at around 1 PM. He further deposed that he made the arrival entry at the PS but was unable to recollect the same. PW-2 lastly denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of the accused persons or that the brick is planted upon the accused. He lastly denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS.
6. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 21.05.2024 and statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 02.07.2024, wherein the accused denied all the allegations, pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons further stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the submissions addressed by Ms. Priyanka, Ld. APP for State and Mr. Swarn Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 7 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to convicted.
9. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of this case.
"Hurt" has been defined under Section 319 IPC. Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
Section 319 IPC-"whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
Section 323 IPC is stated as under: "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 339 defines wrongful restraint as under "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.
(i) Voluntary obstruction of a person;
(ii) The obstruction must be such as prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed."
Section 341 IPC defines as under "Punishment for wrongful restraint Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 8 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016Section 427 IPC enumerates punishment for mischief as under:
"Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine or with both."
10. After going through the material on record including the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
a. In the case at hand, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 i.e., the injured Najesh Begum. This witness has fully corroborated the prosecution story. She has narrated the entire incident in a clear and a lucid manner. No material discrepancy could be found in the testimony of this witness. The defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of this witness in cross examination or to shake the veracity of her statement.
b. The aspect of non-recording of testimony of the complainant and his brother does not cast an aspersion on the case of the prosecution as it is not the case that the said witnesses have not been examined due to the fault of the prosecution or that they have not supported the case of the prosecution, it is just that the said witnesses had expired during the course of trial and were not able to enter appearance before the Court.
c. The ocular testimony of PW-1 is further corroborated by the medical evidence i.e., MLC of the injured Smt. Najesh Begum, which is Ex.AD-
3. As per the MLC, the injury of the complainant is referred to as simple injury for the purpose of law. The nature of the injury is opined to be simple in nature. Thus, it can be clearly seen that the complainant/ injured had suffered a simple injury.State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 9 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016
d. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has in final arguments submitted that the injury received by the complainant is self-inflicted. However, no such suggestion was put either to PW-1 or to any other witness during their cross-examination. Furthermore, no suggestion to the effect has given to her in cross-examination.
e. Ld. defence counsel has also stated that the IO has not cited any public persons as witnesses of the case despite it being an admitted fact that the incident happened in a residential area around 06.30 PM in the evening. In the case in hand, the accused persons have been duly identified by the complainant. In order to prove the said fact on the part of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined, PW-1 who being the sole injured and a material witness to the case.
The accused persons in their examination under Section 313 CrPC stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case, and their defence during cross-examination of PW-1 was that the injury has not been caused to the complainant by the accused persons. However, the only defence witness who stated that the complainant was not given the said injuries by the accused persons. Furthermore, the accused persons had merely given a bald statement that the injured had falsely implicated him but had not lead any evidence to show motive for the said false implication.
f. Ld. Counsel for accused has also stated that the IO has failed to join any other public witness despite availability. However, law is well settled in this regard.
In "Namdeo vs State of Maharashtra", Crl Appeal No .914/2006 State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 10 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 decided on 13.03.2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its earlier judgment in "Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras"
1957 SER 981 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a witness of analogue character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness is required to be decided with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as fact wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony.
In case titled as "Shadab @ Shamshad vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi", Criminal Appeal 1377/2012 decided on 11.03.2014 it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "There is no hard and fast rule that the testimony of injured requires corroboration before conviction. However, the rule of prudence has to be kept in mind. If the testimony of injured is trustworthy, categorically free of bias, and if there is nothing on record to suggest that the injured has any motive to falsely implicate the accused and allow his real assailants go scot free, the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of injured."
State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 11 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016Regarding non-joining of other public witnesses/the local neighborhood, suffice would it to say that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact and it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity/number of witnesses (Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC 81).
g. In the case at hand, the testimony of the injured has remained intact on all the material points and defence has not been able to demolish it in the cross-examination. The court fails to see any reason as to why the complainant would depose against the accused persons or falsely implicate them. There is no reason to discredit the testimony of PW-1. The injured has clearly stated in her testimony and identified the accused persons. The cross-examination of PW-1 by ld. defence counsel was not able to discredit her on any material points and no prior enmity could be shown by the accused persons which could have made the complainant falsely implicate the accused other than a few uncorroborated allegations. Furthermore, the accused persons had also not denied their presence at the place of incident as is crystal clear from their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In light of the above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has clearly established that the accused persons had voluntarily caused simply injury to the complainant by beating her with a brick on her head, beyond reasonable doubt and thus Section 323 IPC stands proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
h. With regard to the aspect of Section 341 IPC, the injured in her testimonial examination only stated that the accused came at the time of State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 12 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 incident gave her beatings. It is pertinent to note that an important ingredient of Section 341 IPC is obstruction in order to prevent the victim from proceeding in any direction in which he or she has a right to proceed. However, the victim did not enumerate in her testimony as to how she was stopped by the accused from proceeding in any direction and as to in which direction she was proceeding.
In light of the above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 341 IPC.
i. Lastly, with regard to Section 427 IPC this court is of the view that for the purpose of Section 427 IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons had caused loss to the vehicle of the complainant beyond the amount of fifty rupees or upwards. However, it needs to be appreciated that the vehicle in question was never put to the injured for identification by the prosecution. Even though the vehicle was identified by the IO who is examined as PW-2 but the same is not sufficient to establish that the said vehicle belonged to the complainant or the injured. Furthermore, no document has been brought or proved on record by the prosecution to show that the accused persons had caused wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. No bills or invoices etc. has been brought on record or proved by the prosecution to establish that the loss or damage caused to the vehicle was of fifty rupees or upwards.
In light of the above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubts the ingredients of Section 427 IPC.
11.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 13 of 14 CR Cases 2037075/2016 has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua Section 323 IPC and accordingly the accused persons namely Maan Singh @ Muchi and Charanpal @ Channi are convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC. However, as discussed above this Court is of the view that the offences under Section 341/427 IPC have not been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and accordingly the accused persons stand acquitted for the offences under Section 341/427 IPC.
12.Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused against persons acknowledgement. Digitally signed by SANKALP KAPOOR SANKALP Date:
KAPOOR 2024.11.30
17:27:42
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Sankalp Kapoor)
today i.e., on 30th November, 2024 JMFC-04, South District,
Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs Maan Singh @ Muchi & Anr. FIR no. 435/2014 Page 14 of 14