Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Sood Etc. on 25 October, 2018
State vs. Rajender Sood etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPINDER SINGH: ACMM01(CENTRAL)/
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State Vs. Rajender Sood etc.
FIR N0. : 36/2015
U/S : 341/323/325/506/34IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. No. of the case : 60/2016
b) Date of institution of the case : 11.1.2016
c) Date of commission of offence : 20.1.2015
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Suman W/o Sh. Rakesh
e) Name & address of the 1.Rajender Sood
accused persons S/o Satpal Sood R/o H.No.
4533 Shora Khoti Dal Mandi
Chowk, Pharganj
2. Lata Sood
W/o Satpal Sood R/o H.No.
4533 Shora Khoti Dal Mandi
Chowk, Pharganj
.
f) Offence charged with : 323/341/325/506/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 18.10.2018
i) Final order : Convicted u/s 323/34 IPC
j) Date of Judgment : 25.10.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused persons Rajender Sood and Lata Sood
FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 1 of 15
State vs. Rajender Sood etc.
have been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 20.1.2015 at
around 8:00 Pm, in front of H.No. 4533 Shora Kothi, Dal Mandi Chowk Paharganj Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Paharganj, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Ashish and Tamana (both children of complainant) and voluntarily caused hurt to them and caused grevious injuries to complainant Smt. Suman. It has further been alleged that accused persons criminally intimidated and threatened to kill the complainant and her children and thereby alleged to have committed the offence U/sec. 341/323/325/34 IPC and section 506 IPC .
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed by IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge for commission of offence U/s 341/323/325/34 IPC and section 506 IPC was framed against the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, (7) seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The relevant and material extract of their testimony is as under:
4. PW1 Smt. Suman ( complainant in the instant case). She deposed that she was residing at H.No. 4533 Shora Khoti Dal Mandi Chowk Paharganj from last 32 years and she repaired her bathroom 34 days ago from 20.1.2015 and waste particles were filled in four kattas and kattas were put in the gali in front of their house , accused Rajender Sood is her FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 2 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. neighbour and her son Ashish told accused Rajender that the abovesaid four katas will be removed very soon, her son Ashish removed two kattas and two were lying in the gali, that on 20.1.2015 at about 8pm, she alongwith her son and daughter Tamanna inside her house and she heard noise from outside her house and found that accused Rajender abusing them, thereafter she alongwith her son and daughter came out from her house , where accused Rajender Sood and coaccused Lata Sood and two other associates started beating her son, she tried to rescue her son but co accused Lata Sood caught hold of her hand and you gave fist and blow on her face, due to which she sustained injuries and her teeth got broken, that her daughter Tamnna called at 100no, after 1015 mins police officials reached the spot, she alongwith her son and daughter went to PS Paharganj from where she alongwith her son and daughter were taken to LHMC hospital, where their MLCs were prepared, that on next day, she alongwith her son and daughter again went to PS , where her statement Ex. PW 1/A was recorded by the police, she also shown spot to the IO and IO prepared site plan at her instance, IO arrested accused Rajender and conducted his personal search and prepared documents Ex. PW 1/ B . IO recorded her supplementary statement. She further deposed that on next day 7.6.2015 IO arrested accused Lata Sod in her presence and prepared relevant documents in this regard Ex. PW 1/ C. IO recorded her statement. She correctly identified both accused persons in the court. During her cross examination, she deposed that she raised the noise at the time of incident but no neighbour came for help, that after some time some neighbours gathered there and accused gave him fist blow on her face, that she had visited the PS on the day of incident, that no FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 3 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. compromise arrived between her and accused persons, that accused persons were not medically examined in her presence. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that she had settled the matter , denied the suggestion that she got prepared her medical report falsely with the connivance of her daughter (who is nurse in Maharaja Agarsen Hospital) ) or that she has not received any injury in the said incident, she futher denied the suggestion that she falsely implicated accused persons and MLC dt. 20.1.2015 is totally manipulated document that is why present case has been registered.
5. PW 2 Sh. Ashish Kathuria that they got repaired their bathroom on 1718.1.2015 and waste particles were filled in four kattas and kattas were put in the gali in front of their house, accused Rajender was the neighbour and he told accused that four kattas were removed very soon, that he removed two kattas from the place and two were lying in the gali, that on 20.1.2015 at about 8:00pm he alongwith his mother and sister Tammna were inside their house, he heard a noise from the outside of his house and found that accused Rajender was abusing him and his family, that he came out with his mother and sister from the house, where Rajender Sood and his wife (coaccused Lata Sood) and two associates starting beating him, Accused Rajender slapped on his face and when his mother came to rescue him, accused Lata Sood caught hold her and accused Rajender gave fist and low on her face, due to which his mother sustained injuries and her teeth got broken. He further deposed that his sister Tamanna called at 100no and police reached at the spot, he alongwith his mother and sister went to PS Paharganj from there he alongwith his mother were FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 4 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. taken to LHMC hospital where their MLCs were prepared, that on next day he alongwith his mother and sister again went to police station where IO recorded statement of his mother and FIR was got registered, that IO also inquired him and recorded his statement in this regard. He correctly identified you and other accused in the court. He correctly identified both accused persons.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he had good relations with the accused persons prior to the incident being a neighbour, that his sister Tamanna is nurse in Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, that accused persons were not medically examined in his present, that he had not received any injuries. He denied the suggestion that he got prepared medical report falsely with the connivance of her sister, who is nurse. He further denied the suggestion that MLC dt. 20.1.15 is totally manipulated documents that is why present case has been registered. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons never advanced any threat to him and his mother .
6. PW3 Ms. Tamanna deposed that both accused Rajender Lata are their neighbours and on on 20.1.2015 at around 8:00Pm, she alongwith her brother were present at their shop at ground floor and at that time, accused Rajender came at their shop and told them to remove malba which was lying near the shop, that her brother was present at the shop, that they told accused Rajender that they get malba removed as the labour would not be available in late evening, that her brother removed two bags of malba from the spot and put the same in the house and when he was picking up the third bag , that accused Rajender caught hold of his brother and punched him on his face, that two other relatives of accused were also FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 5 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. accompanying at that time, that on seeing this her mother intervened and tried to rescue her brother but coaccused Lata caught hold of her, that accused Rajender also punched on face of her mother because of which she sustained injury and blood started oozing out from the face, that she immediately called at 100no. , PCR arrived at the spot and took her brother and her mother to LHC hospital and she accompanied to them to the hospital, that MLCs were prepared, that on 21.1.2015 she alongwith her mother and brother went to the PS where their statements were recorded by the police. She correctly identified both accused. During her cross examination by ld defence counsel , she deposed that he was nurse at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and renovation work was carried out in her house in the month of January 2015, that the malba was lying in front of the toilet of accused Rajender Sood, that when quarrel took place nobody from the locality was present at the spot. She denied the suggestion that malba was lying in front of toilet of accused and accused were requesting since long to remove the malba, She further denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that on the same day, they have compromised the matter and after comprising the matter, the family members went to PS and falsely got FIR registered . She further denied the suggestion that being a staff at Maharaja Agrasen hospital, she managed to get prepared the MLCs falsely.
7. PW 4 ASI Jaswant that on 21.1.2015 he received rukka brought by HC Nihal Singh and on the basis of same, he registered case FIR Ex. PW 4/ A. he also made endorsement on rukka ExPW 4/ B . He also issued certificate section 65 Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW 4/ C. He was not cross FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 6 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
8. PW 5 WCt Kamlesh that on 7.6.2015 he alongwith IO and complainant went to Shora Kothi Paharganj and IO arrested Lata Sood on the pointing out of complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/ C . She correctly identified accused.
During her cross examination by ld defence counsel, she denied the suggestion that accused was not lifted from her house and accused Lata was not arrested in her presence.
9. PW 6 IO/HC Nihal deposed that on 20.1.2015 he was posted at PS Paharganj as HC and on that day, on obtaining DD no. 47 B regarding the incident , he alongwith Ct. Prahlad reached at the spot i.e in front of house no. 4533 Sora Kothi, Dal Mandi Chowk , wherein they came to know injured persons were taken to the LMHC hospital, that they reached at the hospital, where they met with the complainant Smt. Suman and Ashish , both were fit for statement but they refused to give their statement and stated to him that they do not want to made the complaint against the accused persons, that he collected the MLC of the injured, that on the next day Smt. Suman and Ashish came at the PS and made the complaint against the accused persons and stated that on the last night their health was not in proper condition that is why they did not made the complaint , he recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW 1/ A, that he prepared the rukka Ex. PW 1/ Aand FIR got registered, that accused was called at PS .
FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 7 of 15
State vs. Rajender Sood etc.
He was arrested acccused Rajender vide memo Ex. PW 1/ B and accused Lata Sood was also arrested vide memo Ex. PW 1/ C , that personal search of accused Rajener Ex. PW 6/ A, that disclosure statement of both accused was recorded vide memos Ex. PW 6/ B & Ex. PW 5/ A , that he recorded the statement of witnesses, that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW 6/ C , that he collected the medical documents of the victims and placed the same in the file . He correctly identified both accused persons.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he is not eye witness of the incident, he received the call at 8:34Pm and same was made by the complainant. He further deposed that some public persons were present at the spot when they reached over there, however they did not disclose their name and addresses, that public persons were disclosed the fact that injured persons were taken to the hospital,that he reached at the hospital at about 9:30pm. He denied the suggestion that accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case in collusion with the complainant / victim. It further denied the suggestion that he has not explained the delay in registration of FIR properly and no such quarrel was taken place with the accused persons on the day of incident. He further denied the suggestion that false MLC was prepared at the daughter of complainant namely Tammna was nursing staff in the hospital in question and the false MLC was prepared in collusion with her and with the help of doctors.
10. PW 7 Dr Vidhur Garg, Senior Reident LHMC Hosapita, he identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Dhurb Jyoti who prepared MLCs Ex. A1 and A2 .
FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 8 of 15
State vs. Rajender Sood etc.
During his cross examination by ld defence counsel, he deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the present case or he was not present when the MLC was prepared by Dr. Dhrub Jyoti.
11. Record transpires that during the course of trial, vide separate statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC, accused Rajender Sood and Lata Sood admitted the genuineness of MLC of victim Suman Ex. A1 , MLC of victim Ashish Ex.A2 and X Ray report of MLC no. A 3. Therefore the above said documents were directed to be read into the evidence without its formal proof in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C.
12. PE was closed by order of this court on 29.8.2018. Statements of accused persons U/sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused persons chose to lead DE .
13. In their defence, the accused persons examined Ms. Neeru Sharma who deposed that on hearing some noise she came out and found hot arguments going on between Ashish and accused Lata Sood over malba that was lying in the gali. She deposed that on calling of the police by Tammna , sister of Ashish, police came and took them to PS . She deposed that on the next day , on inquiry from accused Lata she came to know that the matter has been compromised between the parties. She was cross examined by ld APP for State. In her crossexamination , she deposed that she did not got to the PS for recording of her statement . She denied the suggestion that she is not the eye witness and is deposing in favour of accused persons as she has estranged relations with the FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 9 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. complainant. She admitted that smell was coming in her house and she also felt bad regarding the same.
14. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and perused the record.
15. It has been argued by the Ld. APP that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is contended that in the light of testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3 there remains no doubt about the guilt of the accused persons. It is argued that the accused persons deserves to be convicted for the offences with which they have been charged.
16. Per contra, it is contended by Ld. defence counsel that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further argued that there are material contradiction in the testimonies of PWs. It is argued that no independent witnesses in the present case have been examined and thus a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution case.
17. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully retrained the complainant Smt Suman and her children Sh. Ashsih and Ms. Tammna and also caused injuries to them. Further that the accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant and her children.
18. In order to substantiate the allegations , the complainant and her FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 10 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. children have been examined as PW 1 to PW 3. Trio of them have deposed about the factum of them being beaten up by the accused persons and two of their coassociates on 20.1.2015 . The issue over which the quarrel begun has also been highlighted by them , being over removal of malba that has been left over after repairing of their bathroom from the gali. It has been deposed by PWs that initially Sh. Ashish / PW 2 was beaten up by the accused persons and when PW 1 /complainant tried to rescue him , accused Lata Sood caught hold of her hand and accused Rajender Sood gave fist blow on her face, due to which she sustained injuries and her teeth got broken. The factum of the injuries as alleged by PWs has been corroborate by MLCs Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 of the complainant Smt Suman and her son Sh. Ashish respectively.
19. The incident stated to have happened on 20.1.2015 at about 8 pm and the MLCs having been prepared at about 9:20 PM on the same day , corroborates the versions of the PWs and rules out any possibility of the same being tampered with. The contentions of ld defence counsel that the MLCs have been prepared on the directions of PW 3 Ms Tamanna , daughter of complainant does not inspire confidence. Just because Ms. Tamanna happened to be a nurse by profession does not mean that she can manage the things at all levels, that too when she is not employed in that particular hospital where the MLCs have been prepared. No evidence has been led, rather no avernments have been made by the accused persons if Ms. Tamanna was even remotely connected with the officials/ doctors posted at LHMC hospital, where the complainant and her children were taken for their medical examination.
FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 11 of 15
State vs. Rajender Sood etc.
20. The factum of their being an altercation between the parties has not been disputed. The accused persons in their statements u/s 313 CrPC have admitted that on 20.1.15 they had requested the complainants to clear the malba when the son of the complainant came out and misbehaved with them. Further that thereafter the complainant and her daughter came out, thus corroborating the versions of PWs regarding PW2 / Sh. Ashish having beaten up first and the complainant later on. Suggestions were given by ld defence counsels to the PWs that the matter was settled between the parties and that they did not want any action against the accused persons thereby admitting the incident . The only line of defence that has been taken up by the accused persons is that the MLCs have been prepared falsely, at the instance of PW 3 / Ms Tamanna. The said contention/ defence has already been discussed above. The suggestion of ld defence counsel to PW 1 that she had stated to the police that she did not want any action against the accused persons reflects that the complainant was at the receiving end/victims at the hands of the accused persons.
21. As per MLC Ex. A1 the injuries upon the person of complainant Ms Suman has been opined to be grevious on the basis of the dental and oral surgery . However the concerned doctor has not been examined as to on what basis the injury was opined to be grevious. More over it has been mentioned that " injury seems to be grevious" . As such no specific opinion about the injury on the person of Ms. Suman to be grevious have been given . As per the testimonies of PW 1 and PW2 , the teeth of the complainant got broken . However PW 3 has not deposed about the same FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 12 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. but only that blood started oozing out from the injury on the face of the complainant because of the punch given by accused Rajender Sood. PW 1 and PW 2 have not deposed as to the specific teeth that was broken . The said fact also is not mentioned on the report given by dental and oral surgery department which also reflects only 'bleeding socket' . Thus in view of the above, in particular the fact that the accused persons were not given opportunity to cross examine the concerned doctor who had opined the nature of injury received by PW 1 / complainant as grevious , the injuries cannot be termed as grevious. However the same are held to be simple in nature.
22. As per complaint Ex. Pw 1/ A , the accused persons forcefully retrained the complainants in the gali and were continuously threatening the complainant. However, there is nothing in the testimony of complainant or PW 2 / PW 3 to suggest if they were actually alarmed/frightened with the alleged threats of accused persons. Therefore, in such a scenario, no offence for criminal intimidation (part II) can said to be made out in the present case. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in "Noble Mohandas Vs. State, 1988" where it has been observed that "...........further for being an offence U/s 506 (2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. In fact PW1 when she filed the complaint to the police officer, did not express any fear for her life nor asked for any FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 13 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. protection. Therefore, the offence U/s 506(2) is not made out......."
23. The motive of the accused persons and the reasons of the incident has already been mentioned in the complaint and have been rather not in dispute . There is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons and her sole testimony is sufficient , if otherwise reliable to hold the conviction of the accused persons. It has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2004 CRI. L.J. 4205 "The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is wellsettled in a catena of judgments in as much as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eyewitness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it. In the case on hand, the testimony of the solitary eyewitness stands corroborated by other circumstances and evidences and more particularly."
24. In the instant case, the PWs have corroborated each other in all material particulars and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The evidences of the PWs is also supported by the MLCs on record.
25. In view of the abovesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has duly proved its case and both accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC. Ordered accordingly. Let FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 14 of 15 State vs. Rajender Sood etc. they be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.10.31
16:36:21 +0530
Announced in the open court
on 25.10.2018 (Bhupinder Singh)
ACMM01(Central)/Tis Hazari
court 25.10.2018
FIR No. 36/15 PS Paharganj 15 of 15