Delhi District Court
2. Title Of The Case: : State vs Satish Etc. on 29 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS SANYA DALAL, MM-I, NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
1. New Case No. : R-1357/19
2. Title of the case: : State Vs Satish etc.
3. FIR No. : 678/18, PS Sultan Puri
4. Date of institution : 08.03.2019
5. The date of commission of
alleged offence : 27.08.2018
6. The name of complainant : Ravi Kant S/o Sh. Madan Lal Guglaani
R/o Flat No. 103, Virat Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
7. The name of accused : 1. Satish S/o Sh. Bane Singh
R/o H. No. 25, Village Pooth Kalan,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2. Mahabir S/o Sh. Prithvi Singh
R/o H. No. 65, Pooth Kalan,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
8. The offence complaint of : 323/341/34 IPC
9. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
10. The final order : Acquittal
11. The date of such order : 29.03.2023
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 1 / 13
JUDGMENT
1. The present case arises out of FIR registered upon complaint of Ravi Kant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). The prosecution story, in brief, can be stated as that on 27.08.2018, at about 11.10 AM, in front of Brahm hospital, Plot No. 1512, Pooth Kalan, Main Kanjhawala Road, Sultanpuri, Delhi both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongful restrained complainant namely Ravi Kant and voluntarily caused simple hurt upon the person of the complainant.
2. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Satish and Mahavir for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
3. The cognizance of offence was taken on 22.01.2020 and the accused were summoned. Thereafter, compliance of section 207 Cr.PC was carried out.
4. The material on record prima facie disclosed the commission of offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC. The charge was accordingly framed against the accused persons on 11.04.2022 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence, this Court conducted trial.
5. For proving its case, prosecution examined 06 witnesses.
6. PW1 Dr. Ravi Kant deposed that on 27.08.2018, at around 11.00 AM, he reached at Maruti Service Station on main Kanjhawal Road, for the demarcation of his land bearing no. 48/24/1, main road, Pooth Kalan after order of SDM. He deposed that when he reached at the spot, accused Satish and FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 2 / 13 Mahavir alongwith two other persons threatened him for dire consequences and abused him and his father and started beating him. He deposed that in between his father, tried to save him and calling help for the public. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. Then, he dialled at 100 no. and went to PS Sultanpuri for help. He gave complaint to the police vide Ex. PW1/A. He deposed thereafter, his medical was got conducted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Police officials prepared site plan at his instance. He deposed that accused was arrested on 06.09.2019 vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is running Nursing Home in the name of Nirmal Hospital. A piece of land measuring 1512 sq. yards. He deposed that he knew the accused due to his above said land dispute. He called to PCR and his MLC made in Sanjay Gandhi hospital. He admitted that the accused persons slapped him.
7. PW2 Retd. ASI Subhash Chand deposed that on 27.08.2018 at about 10:27 am, he received a call through intercom that some person had taken possession of the property of the caller near Bhram Shakti Hospital, Puth Kalan, Delhi. He deposed that thereafter, he made the DD No. 31A which is Ex. PW2/A and he informed about the same to HC Rakesh. On the same day, at about 01:10 pm, he received rukka by HC Rakesh and on the basis of which he registered FIR vide Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that he handed over the copy of FIR to HC Rakesh and made an endorsement Ex. PW2/C on the tehreer to this effect. The certificate u/s. 65 B Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW2/D. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had registered the present FIR on the basis of written complaint of the complainant.
8. PW3 Ct. Ashwini deposed that on 27.08.2018, after receiving DD No. 31A he alongwith IO went to the spot where they came to know that the FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 3 / 13 complainant went to the PS. Thereafter, they came to the PS and the complainant informed them that he was injured in the fighting. He deposed that he took the complainant to the SJM Hospital for his medical examination. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant came back to the PS where IO recorded the statement of complainant and registered the present FIR.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity given.
9. PW4 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 06.02.2019, he alongwith IO went to the village Puth Kalan where they met with the complainant and the complainant shown the house of the accused persons and they went there. He deposed that thereafter, IO arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. IO released the accused persons after furnishing their bail bonds.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember whether the complainant had injury on his head when they arrested the accused persons or not.
10. PW5 Sh. Satbir Singh brought the MLC No. 13791/18 of injured Ravikant which was Ex. PW5/A, which was prepared by Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity given.
11. PW6 HC Rakesh deposed that on the same lines as PW3 Ct. Ashwini. Further he prepared the tehrir which is Ex. PW6/A and handed over the same to DO in the PS itself for the registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR to complainant. He deposed that thereafter, he again went to the FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 4 / 13 spot but could not find any public witness or the accused persons. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW6/B. From the public persons, he came to know that the fighting was happened between the accused persons and the complainant due to some property dispute. He deposed that on 06.02.2019, he arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C and release the accused persons on furnishing their bail bonds.
During cross-examination, he deposed that there was no injury seen on the head of the complainant on the day of incident.
12. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined in accordance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to them and they denied the same and stated to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated. The accused persons opted to lead DE.
13. DW1 Dalbir Singh deposed that he did not remember the date of incident. He deposed that he had cordial relations with the accused and he treated him as a brother. He deposed that accused was not kind of quarrelsome nature and the alleged incident happened on some small dispute. He deposed that no incident as alleged in the present case was happened.
During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not remember the date of incident as he was not present at the spot on the day of incident. He deposed that he did not remember the name of the complainant in the present case. The incident was happened at the main road Kanjhawala, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he never present at the spot and that is why he did not know the complete place of incident. He deposed that he did not know the complete address with house no. of the accused persons.
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 5 / 13
14. Final arguments were heard.
15. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused be convicted. He further argued that the testimony of the complainant holds credibility and there is no delay in the registration of present FIR. He argued that prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons hence, they be convicted for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Also there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. It was argued that the sole testimony of the complainant is not sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Applicable Law and its application to present facts
17. Before embarking to determine the innocence/guilt of the accused, it would be prudent to reproduce the relevant sections for which the accused persons have been charged:
323. 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.
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 6 / 13
341. 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.
18. In the present case through the MLC bearing no. 13791, which is Ex. PW5/A as well as from the testimony of PW5, it is established that as per the said MLC, no fresh external injury could be seen at the time of the examination. However, it is the case of the prosecution that on 27.08.2018 at 11.10 AM, in front of Brahm Shakti Hospital wrongfully restrained the complainant and voluntarily caused simple hurt upon the person of the complainant. Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution is successfully able to establish its case against the accused.
19. The present FIR was registered on 27.08.2018 and the information was received in the PS at 1.05 PM. A PCR call was made by the complainant and the same was recorded in the form of GD no. 31A at 10.27 AM. PW3 Ct. Ashwani alongwith IO HC Rakesh reached on the spot after receiving the call. However, there is still a delay of more than 02 hours in the registration of the present case. Surprisingly, the DD entry was recorded at 10.27 AM while as per the complainant, the offence occurred at around 11.00 AM.
20. There is only one independent witness i.e. PW1 who is the complainant in the present case. PW1 categorically deposed that on 27.08.2018 at about 11.00 AM, when he reached at Maruti Service Station on main Kanjhawala Road, Opposite Braham Shakti Hospital, there accused Satish and Mahavir alongwith two other persons threatened him of dire consequences as well as abused him and his father. He has further deposed that both of them FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 7 / 13 started beating him and accused persons ran away from the spot thereafter. He has deposed that the dialled at no. 100 and went to PS for help. He deposed that thereafter police officials took him for the medical treatment.
21. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint/original tehrir Ex. PW1/A, the alleged fact of the complainant being threatened or abused by the accused is nowhere mentioned. The case of the prosecution (as revealed from charge) suggests that the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant on the alleged date of incident. However, the testimony of the complainant is completely silent on the same.
22. Also, as per the MLC of the complainant, there is no injury upon the person of the complainant. Further, there is a delay of almost two hours in the registration of the present case and while the initial DD entry was made at 10.27 AM despite the offence alleged being of at about 11.00 AM, the MLC of the complainant was prepared at 12.25 PM while the case of the prosecution is that the police officials reached on the spot after the receiving of the PCR call. The said delay is also unexplained by the prosecution.
23. Apart from PW1, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were the police witnesses who had deposed in regard to the investigation carried out by them.
24. So far as DW1 is concerned then DW1 could not specify the date of the alleged incident and he has stated that he has familiar terms with the accused.
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 8 / 13
25. Further it has been held in Judgment tilted as Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl Appeal no. 2486/2009 decided on 07.08.2012 that:-
"the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulnesses of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end namely, at the time when the witness make the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever, strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness."
26. Also it is a settled principle of law as enshrined in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 9 / 13
27. However, it is always prudent to look for a corroboration by any independent witness or any independent material. In the instant case though it has been stated by the complainant that his father was also present on the spot however, he has not been cited as a witness nor his statement has been recorded. Apart from PW1, there is no other independent witness who could have corroborated somewhere the version of the complainant and even otherwise there are various contradictions in the testimony of the complainant which suggests that the same cannot be relied on without any independent corroboration.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
28. In view of the above, the accused persons namely Satish and Mahavir stand acquitted of the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
29. The bonds furnished in compliance of section 437A Cr.PC shall remain in force from today till six months. Documents of surety, apart from that of section 437A Cr.PC if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement against due acknowledgement.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA
DALAL
Announced, dictated and signed in the open Court DALAL Date: 2023.03.29
12:50:32 -1000
on 29th March, 2023
(SANYA DALAL)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-1
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI DELHI
29.03.2023
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 10 / 13
FIR No. 678/18 State vs. Satish & Ors. 11 / 13