Delhi District Court
State vs Chhavi Lal Etc on 7 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 11(CENTRAL), ROOM NO. 266,
TIZ HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
CHHAVI LAL ETC
FIR No. 22/2008
P.S.: SUBZI MANDI
U/S: 325/34 IPC
1.Serial No. of the case : 02401R13891482008
2. Date of commission of offence : 04.11.2007
3. Name of the Complainant : Shyam Badan, S/o Late Gopi Chand, R/o H.No 5800, Gali No.6, New Chandrawal, Delhi.
Also at Village Bharpura Tola, Peperrahiya, PS Bijenderpur, Dist Gopalganj, Bihar.
4. Name of the accused, and (1) Chhavi Lal, his parentage and residence : S/o Late Gopi Chand, R/o Main Market, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
(2) Jitender, S/o Late Gopi Chand, R/o Main Market, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
(3) Girish @ Dinesh, S/o Late Gopi Chand, R/o Main Market, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 13.08.2013 was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 07.10.2013 was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : 341/325/34 IPC or proved
8. Plea of accused : All pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : All Acquitted for offence U/s 341/325 r/w Section 34 IPC.
FIR No. 22/08
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 1/9
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2007 at about 06.20 pm behind Main Market, in a factory within the jurisdiction of PS Subzi Mandi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Shyam Badan and voluntarily assaulted him with stick and iron rod and caused grievous injuries to him. Accordingly, FIR No. 22/08, PS Subzi Mandi was registered. The challan was filed on 02.09.2008.
2. On appearance of accused persons, a charge for offence under Section 341/325/34 IPC was framed against them to which all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined.
3. In support of their case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses namely PW1 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, PW2 Shyam Badan, PW3 HC Udai Bhan, PW4 ASI Bachan Prakash, PW5 Constable Anuj Kumar, PW6 SI Prabhat Sharma and PW7 Dinesh Kumar to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and all the incriminating evidence were put to them which all claimed they are innocent and their elder brother Shyam Badan wants to grab all the paternal property and the present case is filed on fabricated evidence FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 2/9 for pressurizing them to transfer the rights of property to Shyam Badan. All the accused further stated that they wish to lead evidence in their defence.
5. Accused persons have examined one witness DW1 Smt Bunia Devi in their defence. After defence evidence was closed, final arguments were heard.
6. Ld APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the accused persons were correctly identified by the complainant as well as other witnesses as the persons who wrongfully restrained and beaten the complainant and the case has been proved beyond doubt against all the accused persons and prays for conviction of all the accused persons.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that accused are innocent and their elder brother Shyam Badan wants to grab all the paternal property and the present case is filed on fabricated evidence for pressurizing them to transfer the of property to the complainant Shyam Badan. He prays for acquittal of the accused persons.
8. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 8.1 PW2 is the complainant. He stated that on 04.11.2007 he called his brother Chhavi Lal for returning his small grinding machine and bicycle who called him to his factory for the same. He further stated that at 6.20pm he reached the factory where Chhavi Lal was present and Girish and Jitender followed him. He further told FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 3/9 that Chhavi Lal scolded him that why did he came after fighting with his mother to which he replied that he did not fight with mother and thereafter Jitender caught hold of him over his waist and Chhavi Lal beaten him with iron rod and Girish beaten him with danda due to which he sustained injuries on right hand and waist and himself went to Hindu Rao Hospital. He also stated that police came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and prepared site plan at his instance. He also stated that accused were arrested and personally searched in his presence vide Ex. PW2/B to Ex. PW2/G. The weapon of offence was never recovered. During cross examination he stated that when he reached the factory, all the accused persons severely beaten him and accused Chhavi Lal inflicted injuries with iron rod and Girish with danda. He admitted that he reached the hospital on his own where one police official came and recorded his statement. He also admitted that there was family dispute between him and Chhavi Lal for which complaint was also made to the police.
8.2 PW1 is the doctor who opined about the nature of injuries. He stated that on 04.11.2007, injured Shyam Badan was brought to him having injuries and he opined the nature of injuries from Orthopedic side as grievous in nature vide MLC Ex. PW1/A. During cross examination he admitted that no weapon of offence was produced by the IO to obtain his opinion and he has not mentioned the type of weapon in his opinion. He admitted that the injuries mentioned in the MLC could also occur due to fall. He also admitted that patient FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 4/9 did not disclosed the name of assailants to him. 8.3 PW4 is the DO on 04.11.2007. He stated that at about 9.30pm he received telephonic call from duty Constable at Hindu Rao Hospital about one Shyam Badan admitted vide MLC No. 11907/07 with the history of quarrel and same was reduced into writing vide DD No. 32A and marked to SI Prabhat Sharma. He proved the said DD entry i.e DD No. 32A vide Ex. PW4/A. 8.4 PW3 is the DO who recorded the FIR. He stated that on 06.02.2008, he received rukka from SI Prabhat Sharma and accordingly registered the FIR U/s 325/34 IPC vide Ex. PW3/A and rukka Ex. PW3/B. 8.5 PW5 is the Constable who accompanied the IO to the hospital during investigation. He stated that on 04.07.2007 on receipt of DD No. 32A, he went with SI Prabhat Sharma at Hindu Rao Hospital where patient Shyam Badan was found and whose statement was recorded by the IO. He further stated that the call was kept pending as there was no opinion about the nature of injuries and on 06.02.2008, FIR was registered after opinion was received. During cross examination he admitted that he went with SI Prabhat to Hindu Rao hospital.
8.6 PW6 is the IO. He also stated that on receipt of DD No.32A, he alongwith Constable Anuj reached at Hindu Rao Hospital where patient Shyam Badan was found admitted and on being declared fit, he recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A. He further stated that since opinion about the nature of injuries was not given, therefore, FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 5/9 DD No. 32A was kept pending and on 06.02.2008 after receipt of opinion about nature of injuries, on 06.02.2008 he endorsed the complaint vide Ex. PW6/A and the FIR was registered. He further stated that on 06.02.2008 the complainant came to police station and was taken to spot for preparation of site plan vide Ex. PW6/B. He also stated that he arrested and personally searched the accused persons on same day on the identification of the complainant. During cross examination he admitted that he has not obtained the opinion regarding weapon of offence and complainant Shyam Badan has not disclosed the name of the accused persons before the doctor. He stated that place of occurrence was thickly populated area and admitted that no independent witness was joined during investigation nor name of any independent witness was disclosed by the complainant. He stated that he has not mentioned the reasons of delay in registration of FIR. He admitted that accused persons are real brothers of complainant and there was some litigation between them which he came to know during investigation. He denied the suggestion that he has not fairly investigated the matter and accused persons were falsely implicated.
9. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
9.1 DW1 is the mother of the complainant as well as the accused persons and stated that complainant has not paid due salaries to the accused persons and has also not given her maintenance. She also stated that complainant came to village and beaten her and also wife of accused Chavilal. During cross examination she failed to state the FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 6/9 date when complainant beaten him but stated that it was month of Kartik and admitted that she was not present at the time of incident about the present case as he was in Bihar and could not say anything about the present incident.
10. APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE: PW2 i.e the complainant has made material improvements from his initial complaint while deposing before the Court. In the complaint Ex. PW2/A he has alleged that accused Girish attacked him with small danda on his right hand and Jitender after restraining him attacked him with a small iron rod on the right hand. But during his testimony before the Court he claimed that accused Chavilal started beating him with iron rod and also during cross examination he reiterated the same. In his complaint he stated that accused Girish and Jitender followed him in the factory whereas in his testimony before the Court, he admitted that Girish and Jitender were already present in the factory. It appears that complainant has exaggerated and improved the sequence of events in order to implicate Chavilal as initially there were no allegations against Chavilal except that he called him in the factory. This makes it difficult to place implicit reliance on the statement of complainant. Apart from the injury on the right hand, the complainant has not alleged that he was also attacked and suffered injury on other part of his body. But this is highly improbable as when three persons i.e accused persons intended to cause injuries on the person of complainant, they would not have left him after attacking only his right hand. The claim of the complainant that he FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 7/9 was restrained by Jitender and thereafter other accused persons attacked him also does not go with the story of prosecution as in such circumstances the accused persons would have beaten him badly and he should have suffered injuries all other the body parts also. The complainant has also admitted that there is previous enmity between the parties which also give credibility to the motive of falsely implicating the as accused as they claimed that complainant want to grab all the paternal property. Even the doctor has admitted during cross examination that injuries suffered by complainant could occur due to fall also.
11. Complainant has not alleged that after causing injuries, the accused persons further restrained him and he claimed that he himself went to the hospital. Had accused persons beaten him, they would not have allowed him to leave the place immediately. There is no other eye witness to the incident despite the fact locality is hugely populated area. Had such a fight occurred the onlookers must have gathered. But complainant not stated anything about it. He also did not stated that he share the beating with any other friend or relative which would be the natural reaction of any human being. The defence put fort by the accused person appears probable that they were falsely implicated due to property dispute as complainant himself admitted litigation between them.
12. Accordingly, I am satisfied that keeping in view the material improvement made by the complainant and other infirmities noted in the version of the complainant. Accused persons deserves to be given FIR No. 22/08 PS- Subzi Mandi State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 8/9 the benefit of doubt.
13. On the basis of evidence and discussion above, I am satisfied that prosecution has failed in proving the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Chavilal, Jitender and Girish are acquitted for the offence U/s 341/325/34 IPC with full honors.
Bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Documents, if any be released.
Accused persons seeks time to furnish bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Hence, put up for 08.10.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 07.10.2013 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE11(C) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 22/08
PS- Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Chavi Lal Etc page 9/9