Delhi District Court
State vs . Chaman Singh Etc. on 9 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR III, CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA
COURTS:DELHI
State Vs. Chaman Singh etc.
FIR No. 404/01
Sections 451/323/506/34 IPC
PS Gokalpuri
Unique I D. No. 02402RO022412002
JUDGMENT
Serial no. of the case 342/14 Date of commission of offence 04.11.2001 Date of institution of the case 01.03.2002 Name of the complainant Smt. Bhagwati Aggarwal
Name of accused, parentage & 1. Chaman Singh S/o Raghuvar Singh R/o A 28, Rama Garden, Karawal address Nagar, Delhi
2. Jagroop Singh S/o : Lakhpat Singh R/o:A 19, Mahalaxmi Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi
3. Mahender S/o Bheem Singh R/o:
Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi (Proceedings stand abated against him since 25.05.2011) Offence complained of or proved U/S: 451/323/506/34 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 1 of 8 pages
Case reserved for order 08.07.2014
Final order Acquitted
Date of judgment 09.07.2014
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
The present case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Bhagwati Aggarwal In brief the prosecution case against the accused persons are that on
04.11.2001 at about 9 am accused persons namely Chaman Singh, Jagroop Singh and Mahendra in furtherance of their common intention committed trespass in plot of complainant Smt. Bhagwati Aggarwal, situated at Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar Delhi and had voluntarily caused simple injury on the person of complainant and her husband Ved Parkash Goel and had committed the offence punishable under section 451/323/34 IPC. On these allegations, the accused have been sent up to face trial.
2 Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons free of costs and Ld. Predecessor of this court after considering the material available on record framed the charge for the offences under section 451/323/34 IPC vide order dtd. 11.01.2007 to which all the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial accused Mahender had expired and proceedings stand abated against him vide order dated 25.05.2011.
Separate amended charge has been framed against the accused persons FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 2 of 8 pages namely Chaman Singh and Jagrup Singh on dated 08.07.2014 as in the charge sheet the alleged offence has been reported to be committed on 4.11.2001 instead of 5.11.2001.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined four witnesses in toto.
PW1 Smt. Bhagwati Aggarwal is the complainant who deposed that the incident had occurred on 5.11.2001 and she was having a plot of 400 sq. yards at Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Gali no. 2 and had constructed a room on the said plot in the year 1988. She further deposed that his plot was surrounded with a boundary wall and on the day of incident, she was present inside the room along with her husband. She further deposed that at about 910 am when she was cleaning the room, in the meantime, three accused persons namely Chaman Singh, Mahender Singh and Jagroop Singh entered into their plot and had also entered into their room at the plot and started to beat her husband. All the accused persons started slapping her husband and pulled him outside the room and had threatened to kill them and stated that not to visit her plot. Thereafter all accused persons went away. Thereafter she had locked the room and also the gate of the plot and went to Dr. Vivek Gogia, Dy. Commissioner but Doctor did not meet them. Thereafter they went to PS Gokalpuri and made a complaint against all the accused persons. Her statement was recorded which was Mark X. Later on accused persons were FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 3 of 8 pages arrested and accused Chaman Lal was arrested from his house at her instance and there also the accused abused and threatened them to kill her. Arrest memo and personal search memos are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. PW2: Shri Dev Parkash Goel is a Retired Medical Officer from UP Government. He deposed on the lines of p rosecution that the incident happened on 04.11.2001 when he along with his wife came to his plot at the aforesaid address for the purpose of cleaning it as they were planning to start repair work at the plot. At about 9.00 am, three persons namely Mahender, Jagrup and Chaman came to his plot and forcibly entered in his aforesaid plot and Chaman started beating him. He had further deposed that all the three accused persons came outside the plot and he also came out and closed the main gate by putting locks. Thereafter they went to the PS and the police officials asked them to come on next day. On 5.11.2001 they again reached the PS and lodged the complaint. He was under the pain and agony caused by the beatings of the accused persons and thereafter left the P.S. He had further deposed that they did not visit to the plot as accused Chaman had earlier threatened them on 4.11.2001 stated that if they would come again to aforesaid plot they have to face dire consequences. Thereafter they went to Lucknow to their son in law's place for their treatment and got the medical treatment from Medical Neuro Surgeon. Witness had correctly identified the accused FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 4 of 8 pages Chaman Singh but failed to identify accused Jagrup. Further he admitted that accused Mahender had already expired.
Further during cross examination by Ld. APP witness had admitted that on the date of incident, his residential address was Bhagwati Bhawan, Saharanpur Road, Baraut, Bagpat, U.P. PW2 further deposed that he had not seen whether his wife was beaten or not but admitted that accused persons had pushed them out from the plot. He had no knowledge if the site plan was prepared at his instance. He did not recollect if the accused Chaman Singh was arrested from his house in his presence since long time has elapsed. Witness had admitted his signatures on personal search memo Ex. PW1/A. Further he had admitted that due to lapse of long time he could not identify the accused Jagrup as such he had identified the accused Jagrup as well.
PW3 is SI Braham Singh duty officer who had proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A .
PW4 SI Sanjeev Kumar IO of the case who had deposed that 05.11.2001, he was posted at PS Gokal Puri as SI. On that day, HC duty officer Braham Singh had handed over him the copy of FIR. Thereafter he along with complainant Bhagwati Aggarwal and her husband Dev Parkash went to gali no. 2, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi where they had showed him the spot i.e. House no. 2930 and stated that in the said plot , the FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 5 of 8 pages accused persons Jagroop, Mahender and Chaman Singh had beaten them, while they were planning to start some repair work. he had correctly identified the accused in the court. He had prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/A. The complainant had showed him the house of accused Chaman Singh which was opposite to the spot. At the instance of the complainant he had arrested the accused Chaman Singh vide memo Ex. PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/A and thereafter recorded the disclosure statement of accused Chaman Singh Ex. PW4/B. On 13.11.2001 remaining accused Mahender and Jagrup had been arrested formally in the court. The personal search memo of accused Jagrup is Ex. PW4/D. The information of arrest of Mahender was given to his relative Ranbir Singh vide memo Ex. PW4/E and the information of arrest of Jagrup was given to his relative Sushil vide memo Ex. PW4/F. 4 Thereafter PE was closed and all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons in statement recorded under section 313 CrPC wherein accused persons had denied the entire evidence and had taken the plea of false implication. They had refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP and Shri Ranvir Singh, Ld .counsel for the accused.
6. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses, arguments as FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 6 of 8 pages well as the material placed on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to proved its case against the accused persons because both PW1 and PW2 who were the star witness of the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution. PW1 during her cross examination deposed that all neighbours were watching the incident from their respective house but nobody came to rescue them. She further deposed that her husband had accompanied him first twothree years to PS but police did not call him. Further PW1 deposed and admitted that they came to know in respect of civil suit having been filed on behalf of accused persons on 15.10.2001 and suit was filed on 3.10.2001 by accused persons for making attempt to take possession on 5.10.2001. She had denied the suggestion that "accused Jagroop and Chaman Singh were the owner of the plot in question", that no threatening was given by accused persons or accused persons had not entered into the plot" and "that the present complaint is filed just to pressurize the accused persons to withdraw their civil suit or that she was deposing falsely".
PW2 during cross examination by Ld. counsel deposed that he had not seen if his wife was beaten or not. Further he could not recollect whether accused Chaman Singh was arrested from his house in his presence since a long time has elapsed. Further on the pointing out of Ld. APP, witness had identified the accused Jagrup Singh and had stated that due to lapse of time FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 7 of 8 pages he could not identify him during his examination in chief.
7. After taking into consideration facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 are not trustworthy and comes under the shadow of doubt rather it appears that the present case has been registered in vengeance because it is admitted by the PW1 during her cross examination that we came to know about the civil suit having been filed by the accused persons prior to alleged offence i.e. on 15.10.2009. The incident took place in the presence of the public i.e. all nearbys or neighbours despite that prosecution has not made any efforts to cite or examined them as witness who can substantiate the version of both PWs. Hence prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Hence both accused persons are acquitted of charges under section 451/323/506/34 IPC. Their bail bond and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged.
File be consigned to record room after completion of other necessary formalities in this regard.
(Announced in the Open Court
on 09.07.2014) (RAKESH KUMAR III)
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTH EAST,KKD COURTS,DELHI
FIR No. 404/01 State vs. Chaman Singh etc. page 8 of 8 pages