Delhi District Court
State vs Omkar Nath Shukla on 21 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05,
SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Twinkle Chawla, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 95416/2016
CNR No.-: DLSE020047182016
FIR No. -: 319/2013
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 323/506 IPC and 23 JJ Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
OMKARNATH SHUKLA
S/o Lt. Sh. M.K. Shukla,
R/o 242 A, First Floor, Ashram,
Opposite LK Pan Bhandar, New Delhi.
...Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Bhupender
2. Name of Accused Person :- Omkarnath
Shukla
3. Offence complained of or :- Section 323/506
proved IPC and 23 JJ Act
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 03.09.2013
6. Date of Filing of case :- 22.01.2016
7. Date of Pronouncement :- 21.02.2024
8. Final Order :- Acquittal
FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 03.09.2013, at about 03.45 PM at Ram Krishan Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, the Accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to Complainant Sh. Bhupender (juvenile), over whom he was having the actual charge as his school principal and he assaulted him in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary mental and physical suffering and he also criminally intimidated the Complainant and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), and Section 23 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, "JJ Act") for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Sarita Vihar.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and challan was presented in the court u/s 323/506 IPC and 23 JJ Act on 22.01.2016. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 28.06.2016.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 2 of 17 prima facie case against the Accused, charge was framed upon the Accused on 25.07.2018 for the offences u/s 323/506 IPC and 23 JJ Act, to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 323/506 IPC and 23 JJ Act, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Sh. Bhupender (Complainant in the present case) PW2 :- Sh. Ombir Singh (Eye Witness in the present case) PW3 :- ASI Sanjay (IO accompanying witness in the present case) PW4 :- Sh. Dulli Chand (Father of the Complainant in the present case) PW5 :- Insp. Ajay Kumar (IO in the present case) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Written complaint of the Complainant.
Ex. PW2/A :- Statement of PW-2 recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
Ex. PW3/A :- Disclosure statement of the Accused.
Ex. PW5/A :- Rukka
Ex. PW5/B :- Site plan.
Ex. PW5/C :- Seizure memo of documents pertaining to
the admission of the Complainant,
attendance of the teachers and attendance
register of class XI-G pertaining to month
of September 2013.
FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 3 of 17
5. PW-1/Mr. Bhupender deposed that in the year 2013-14, he was a student of 11th class in Ram Krishana Sarvodya Bal Vidyalaya, Madanpur Khadar ("RKSBV School"); and on 03.09.2013, at about 03:45 PM, he had left his class room and went to drink water. While he was going to drink water, he saw his principal Mr. O.N. Shukla/Accused coming. Thereafter, PW-1 went inside another class room as he felt afraid of the Accused. However, the Accused came inside that class room and started beating PW-1 with fists and legs blows. PW-1 fell on the floor and the Accused kicked him. Blood started oozing out of the lips and mouth of PW-1. The Accused also slapped PW-1 very hard on his face. Thereafter, PW-1 went to his house and informed his parents; and later to PS Sarita Vihar. Thereafter, PW-1 was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre for medical examination; where he was discharged late at night. On next day, PW-1 alongwith his father went to PS Sarita Vihar and got his statement recorded as Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, PW-1 alongwith the police went to his school. Police prepared the site plan at the instance of PW-1. Police also inquired the then classmate of PW- 1 namely Omveer and class teacher Brijveer. Statement of PW-1 was also recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Thereafter, PW-1 started attending his classes in school. However, the Accused called him in his office and warned him to withdraw his case against him. Thereafter, the Accused abused PW-1 and also threatened to kill him. Accused further continuously threatened PW-1 by saying that "tujhe school se nikal doonga, fail kar doonga, jaan se marwa doonga". Thereafter, PW-1 informed his father. Thereafter, PW-1 alongwith his father went to police station.
FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 4 of 17Police recorded the statement of PW-1 in this regard. PW-1 correctly identified the Accused in court.
In his cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he started studying in the abovesaid school since first class. Further, that the timing of school was from 01:00 to 06:00 PM and time of lunch break was from 03:45 to 04:00 PM. On the day of incident, PW-1 left his class room after the lunch break. At that time, PW-1 was accompanied with his friend namely Nawab who was studying in another section of class 11th. Prior to the lunch break, PW-1had attended his history period but he did not remember the name of teacher. He deposed that during the lunch break, the students were free to come out of their respective class rooms and to move anywhere in the school. The place where they used to go to drink water was situated across the school play- ground and was at a distance of 15-20 yards from the classrooms. At the time of incident, Accused was not accompanied by any other person. The incident had taken place inside another class room adjacent to the class room of PW-1. Prior to this incident, the Accused had never beaten PW-1. At the time of incident, some students were present at the spot. PW-1 voluntarily deposed that only half of the students were present inside the alleged class room as it was lunch time. PW-1 deposed that he left his school after school time only on the day of the incident. Accused did not ask to call his father on the date of incident. Accused had told PW-1 that he will complain to his father. On the next day, PW-1 had not attended the school. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had received injuries in a fight which took place outside the school with some boys who were not students of school and that FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 5 of 17 he had jumped the boundary wall of the school during school working hours and that the Accused had found him fighting with some boys and had warned to rusticate him or to bring his father to apprise him about this and that Accused had not slapped or beaten or threatened him at any point of time.
6. PW-2/Sh. Ombir Singh has deposed that in the year 2013, he was studying in RKSBV School, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. PW-2 was studying in class 11th (G). Admission number of PW-2 was 3005. PW-2 identified the Accused as his then Principal in court. However, PW-2 deposed that he did not remember anything about the incident.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, PW-2 deposed that he did not remember any boy namely Bhupender who was studying in his school in class 11 th. PW-2 denied the suggestion that police examined him regarding the incident or recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. Upon confronting the statement of PW-2 u/s 161 CrPC, PW-2 denied the same.
7. PW-3/ASI Sanjay deposed that on 04.09.2013, PW- 3 was posted as HC at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, PW-3 joined the investigation of the present case and accompanied IO/SI Ajay Kumar to RKSBV School Mandanpur Khadar, New Delhi. IO met with the Complainant Bhupender and Sh. Bijender Singh (class teacher of victim / Complainant) and recorded their statements u/s 161 CrPC. IO moved an application to obtain attested copy of the admission form of the Complainant, attendance register of class 11th (G) for the month September 2013 and attendance register of teachers for the month September FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 6 of 17 2013. The aforesaid copies were not provided by school administration as their photocopy machine was out of order. Thereafter, IO met the Accused and IO informed him regarding the facts and circumstances of the present case. IO interrogated him and thereafter, he was arrested, personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO vide memo admitted as A3, A4 and Ex.PW3/A. IO recorded statement of PW-3. PW-3 correctly identified the Accused in court.
In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for Accused, PW-3 deposed that he had accompanied the IO from the PS at around 5/ 5.30 p.m. They went there in the personal car of IO. The victim met them in front of the school premises. He was alone. They went inside the school along with the Complainant. Statement of victim was not recorded in the presence of PW-3. They remained at the school till 7p.m. He also stated that no statement of Accused was recorded in the presence of PW-3. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation and that he is deposing falsely at the behest of the IO and that he had not accompanied the IO or visited the school premises.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, upon questioning that PW-3 in his examination in chief, had stated that disclosure statement of Accused was recorded in his presence but in his cross-examination he had stated otherwise; PW-3 replied that his statement with respect to recording of disclosure statement mentioned in the cross-examination is correct and IO obtained signatures of PW-3 on the disclosure FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 7 of 17 statement of Accused later on in the PS. Upon questioning that in his examination in chief, he had stated that IO recorded statement/supplementary statement of the Complainant and his class teacher namely Bijender in the presence of PW-3 but in his cross-examination he had denied the aforesaid fact, PW-3 did not reply and remained silent and denied the suggestion that that he deposed wrongly in his cross-examination to benefit the Accused as he had been bribed or won over by the Accused.
8. PW-4/Sh. Duli Chand deposed that he is a labourer and the father of the Complainant. In the year 2013-2014, his son namely Bhupender was studying in class 11 th in RKSBV, Madanpur Khadar. On 03.09.2013, the Complainant was badly beaten by his principal/Accused. The present FIR was lodged against the Accused regarding that incident. On 19.02.2014 in the evening, when PW-4 returned back from his work, and reached his house, he found his son Bhupender was abnormally silent as if he was afraid of something. PW-4 noticed that he had not taken his meal properly and he enquired him regarding his condition. Son of PW-4 revealed that the Accused had threatened him by saying that if he did not withdraw aforesaid case against him, he would fail PW-4 in the examination and expel him from the school. He further told that the Accused abused him and also threatened him to get killed. Thereafter, PW-4 went to the PS and informed the police regarding the same. PW-4 correctly identified the Accused in court.
In his cross examination, PW-4 deposed that his son took admission in the aforesaid school in class 6 th. No incident had taken place before 03.09.2013. Son of PW-4 continued his FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 8 of 17 studies in the aforesaid school till class 12th. Son of PW-4 passed Class 12th with minimum marks. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that his son remained under treatment after the incident as his mental health was affected by the beatings given by the Accused on 03.09.2013. Son of PW-4 is still under treatment. PW-4 denied the suggestion that the treatment was pertaining to some other disease/ailment or the said treatment was not because of the incident in question. PW-4 admitted that he had not witnessed the incident of 03.09.2013 or of 19.02.2014. PW-4 deposed that he had visited the school on 03.09.2013 after the incident and he was telephonically informed by his son regarding the incident of 03.09.2013 and he did not remember the time when he reached the aforesaid school. PW-4 denied the suggestion that he and his son had falsely implicated the Accused as his son was warned by the principal to rusticate him for his bad behaviour and that no incident had taken place on 03.09.2013 and that PW-4 deposed a concocted story and that he is deposing falsely.
9. PW-5/Insp. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 04.09.2013, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as SI. On that day, Complainant Bhupender came to the PS. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, PW-5 prepared rukka which is Ex. PW5/A and thereafter handed over the rukka to duty officer and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, PW-5 alongwith the Complainant went to the spot of the incident, i.e., RKSBV primary School, Sarita Vihar. Thereafter, PW-5 prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of the Complainant which is Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, the Accused ON Shukla, the principal of the said school was interrogated and FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 9 of 17 thereafter he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. A3 and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. A4. PW-5 also recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, on the next day, PW-5 got the statement of the Complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC. During the investigation, PW-5 collected the documents pertaining to the admission of the Complainant, attendance of the teachers, and attendance register of Class XI-G pertaining to month of September 2013. the aforesaid documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. During the investigation, PW-5 produced the victim/Complainant before CWC and further proceedings were done. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter filed the chargesheet before the Court.
In his cross examination, PW-5 deposed that the Complainant came to the PS alongwith his father and he did not remember the exact time when they had come to the PS and he reached the school at around 04.45/05.00 PM. HC Sanjay assisted PW-5 when he went to the school. The Complainant met PW-5 at the school after leaving the PS. PW-5 returned to the PS at around 07.00-08.00 PM. PW-5 had recorded the statement of two witnesses namely Omveer (friend of the victim) and class teacher of the victim. The school was in operation at the time when PW-5 went for the investigation. The school might have gotten over at around 06.00 PM. Upon confronting the site plan, Ex. PW5/B and questioning PW-5 admitted that as per the site plan, the spot of incident is shown to be inside the class room; PW-5 deposed that he had prepared the site plan by calling the victim outside the class as he did not want to disturb the class FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 10 of 17 that was in session. PW-5 admitted that the site plan did not cite any other child as a witness and that apart from Omveer, he had not recorded the statement of any other student. PW-5 denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statement of any other student as the incident never took place and that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and thoroughly by PW-5 and that the victim had quarrelled with some outside students and for that he was scolded by the principal and threatened of rustication from the school, and hence the victim has falsely the Accused and that he is deposing falsely and that he had not conducted the investigation as stated in his examination in chief. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of Accused was recorded without oath on 30.11.2023 under Section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He opted to lead Defence Evidence and examined one Sh. Jugal Kishore as DW-1 in his defence evidence.
11. DW-1/Sh. Jugal Kishore deposed that on 03.09.2013, he was posted as TGT, GBSSS, No. 1, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. At the time of lunch break, he was in the principal office alongwith Principal Sh. Omkar Nath Shukla (Accused). At that time, one watchman told them that one student was trying to come inside the school after quarrelling outside the school. Thereafter, DW-1 alongwith Principal Omkar Nath Shukla went at the gate of the school and met with student FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 11 of 17 namely Bhupender who is the Complainant in the present case. The principal told him that 'ab aap apne parents k sath hi school mein aayenge, jab tak parents nahi aate aap school nahi aayenge'. Thereafter, the student namely Bhupender went to his home. Principal/Accused Omkar Nath Shukla did not beat Bhupender as DW-1 was present at that time.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, DW-1 deposed that he did not know with whom the student/Complainant had quarreled outside the school and he did not know the name of the watchman who informed DW-1 regarding the same. DW-1 denied the suggestion that he is giving the statement under the undue influence of the Accused as he was his senior at that time and that he is deposing falsely. ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
14. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there are several contradictions in the case of the prosecution.
15. The Accused has been charged with the offences u/s 323/506 IPC and Section 23 JJ Act. For the offence u/s 323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 12 of 17 (i) the Accused voluntarily; and
(ii) caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the
victim.
16. Further, for the offence u/s 506 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
(i) The Accused threatened the victim;
(ii) with injury to his person, reputation or
property;
(iii) with an intent to cause alarm to the said person or cause him to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or omit an act which he is legally entitled to do.
17. For the offence u/s 23 JJ Act, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
(i) The Accused had actual control/charge over the victim;
(ii) Such victim was a child/juvenile;
(iii) The Accused assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile;
(iv) And such an act is likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.
18. In the present case, the star witness is the victim, i.e., Master Bhupender. A perusal of the testimony of FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 13 of 17 Bhupender/PW1 shows that he has stated that the incident took place on 03.09.2013, at around 03.45 PM when he left his classroom and went to drink water and at that time, he saw the Accused who was his principal coming and out of fear, he went inside another classroom and then the said Accused came inside that classroom and had beaten the victim with fist and leg blows. Further, the victim was made to fall on the floor and Accused kicked him, because of which blood started coming out from the lips and mouth of PW1. Thereafter, the present complaint was made. He has also stated that at the said time he was accompanied by one classmate, namely Nawab who was studying in another section of class 11 th; and that one Brijesh and one Ombir were also interrogated by the police officials as they were witnesses to the incident. At the outset, it is seen that in his initial complaint Ex. PW1/A, the victim had only stated that the Accused had beaten him and he had not made any allegations as to the fact that he was made to fall down on the floor and then beaten up with fist and leg blows. Further, it is seen that PW1 has deposed differently as to the time of incident at different points in his testimony. In his complaint, Ex. PW1/A and in his examination in chief, the Complainant had deposed the time of incident to be at 03.45 p.m. In his cross-examination, he stated that the time of the lunch break used to be between 03.45 PM to 4 PM and he had left the classroom only after the lunch break. This means that in his cross-examination he has stated that he left his classroom after the lunch break. However, thereafter in his cross-examination, he has again stated that only half of the students were present inside the classroom at the time of the FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 14 of 17 incident since it was lunchtime. Hence, he has not deposed clearly as to the time of the alleged incident, that is, whether it happened during the lunchtime or after lunchtime. Further, in his cross-examination, he has stated that during the lunchtime, the students were free to come out of their classes and move anywhere in school. If that is the case and the Complainant had in fact moved out of his class only during the lunch break, the same is not consistent with his examination in chief in which he stated that since he had gone to drink water, he felt scared after seeing the principal. This is for the reason that if he had moved out during the lunch break and in lunch break, students are allowed to move freely; there would be no reason to be scared of the Accused by merely seeing him. Especially because the Complainant in his cross-examination has also stated that prior to this incident, the Accused had never beaten him. Hence, it appears that if the Complainant had moved out during the lunch break, there would be no reason for him to fear the principal, i.e., the Accused. Hence, his testimony as to the time and place of commission of offence is inconsistent with his own previous statements. Further, the Complainant/PW-1 had stated that he was accompanied by one classmate Nawab, at the time of incident. However, the said witness has neither been cited by the IO in the list of witnesses nor has he been examined by the prosecution. Apart from the Complainant, the prosecution had cited two other eye-witnesses. One was Ombir Singh and second was Bijender Singh. PW2/Ombir Singh turned hostile and has stated that he does not remember anything about the incident and does not know any student in the name of Bhupender, i.e., the FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 15 of 17 Complainant. No incriminating evidence has also come out during the cross-examination of PW2 by Ld. APP for the State. Further, PW Bijender Singh, who was a teacher and an eye witness, was also dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 18.07.2023 as he remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Hence, even despite availability of several public witnesses to the alleged incident, only two witnesses were cited by the prosecution. Further, the said witnesses have also not supported the version of the Complainant. On the other hand, the statement of PW1 has not only been improved from his initial complaint Ex. PW1/A but is also riddled with inconsistencies as to the time of commission of offence and the reason why the Complainant got scared upon seeing the principal/Accused. In these circumstances, since the testimony of the Complainant in itself is not consistent and witnesses despite being available, have not been examined or cited and the eye witness Ombir Singh has turned hostile and the remaining witnesses Nawab being not even listed as a witness and the witness Brijesh being dropped from the list of witnesses being untraceable, the exact details of the incident have not been established. While the MLC shows the infliction of injury upon the Complainant, the case set by the Accused in cross-examination is that the Complainant had got into a fight with some students outside the school, and was caught by the principal/Accused in the said act and had warned him of rustication and for this reason, the Complainant has filed a false case against the principal/Accused. Further, while PW1/Complainant has stated that the principal was alone at the time of the incident, DW-1 Sh. Jugal Kishore has stated that he FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 16 of 17 was posted as TGT in the school and he was along with the Accused when they were informed by one watchman that a student namely the Complainant was trying to enter the school after having quarrel outside the school. It is also to be seen PW3/ASI Sanjay, in whose presence the Accused was interrogated and supplementary statement of Complainant and statement of Bijender were recorded, has stated that no such statements were recorded in his presence and that the IO only obtained his signatures, later on in the PS. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offences, beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Accused namely, Omkar Nath Shukla is hereby found not guilty of commission of offences u/s 323/506 IPC and Section 23 JJ Act.
Announced in open court on 21.02.2024 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 17 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
(TWINKLE CHAWLA) MM-05, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi,21.02.2024 FIR No. 319/2013 State v. Omkarnath Shukla Page 17 of 17