Delhi District Court
State vs Doly Sharma on 13 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAHIL MONGA, JMFC-04, NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Dolly Sharma
FIR No. 369/13
PS: Karawal Nagar
U/S: 323/341/34 IPC
CNR No. DLNE02-001086-2013
ID number of the case : 464559/2015
Date of commission of offence : 25.06.2023
Date of institution of the case : 22.11.2013
Name of the complainant : Sudha
Name of accused and address : Dolly Sharma W/o Shri Ram Shankar R/o
Gali no 4/1, Karawal Nagar, Extension, Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 323/341/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 13.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.2013 at 11.30 am in front of H. No. 165, Gali No. 4/1. Karawal Nagar, Delhi, accused has committed the offence of wrongfully restraining and causing simple hurt to the complainant Sudha. In regard to the said incident, FIR bearing no. 369/2013 was registered against accused Dolly sharma. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 323/341 was filed against accused Dolly Sharma. Accused appeared before this court and after compliance under section 207, charge under section 323/341 IPC was framed against her to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows:-
Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Date:
MONGA 2024.09.13
FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. 1/1
14:24:33
+0530
Sl. Witness Name Witness no. Remark
No.
1 Smt. Sudha PW-1 Complainant in this case.
2 Smt. Sarvesh PW-2 Eye witness
3 ASI Hoshiyar PW-3 Duty officer
Singh
4 Smt. Nirmla PW-4 Eye witness
Devi
5 W/Ct. Anita PW-5 Police witness who accompanied the IO
to the house of accused for investigation.
6 SI Ishwari PW-6 First IO in the present case.
Prasad
7 Insp. Ashwani PW-7 3rd IO in the present case.
Ambariya
8 SI Manoj PW-8 IO of the case
9 ASI Biresh PW-9 2nd IO in the present case.
Kumar
10 Dr. Sabir PW-10 Doctor who prepared MLC
Hussain
Prosecution has also relied upon the following document:-
SL. Items Exhibits No. 1 Complaint PW1/A 2 Site plan PW1/B 3 Copy of FIR PW3/A 4 Rukka PW3/B 5 Certificate under section 65 B IEA PW3/C 6 Arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B 7 Rukka Ex. PW6/A 8 MLC NO. 2448/13 dated 25.06.2023 Ex. PW10/A FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. 1/2
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
3. All the incriminating evidences were put to the accused while recording her statement under Section 313 CrPC and she denied the same stating that she is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case". She chose not to lead any Defence Evidence.
4. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW10 conclusively proves the commission of alleged offences by the accused and prays for the conviction. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there are various discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
5. In the instant case, the accused has been charged for the offence under sections 323 and 341of the Indian Penal Code. In order to sustain conviction under section 323/341 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
The accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to the victim; The accused voluntarily obstructed the victim from proceeding in a certain direction in which he/she had right to proceed and; and It becomes relevant to reproduce the aforesaid sections as under :-
Section 321 defines voluntarily causing hurt, "whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person and thereby cause hurt to any person is said to "Voluntarily cause hurt". While Section 323 of IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine whichDigitally may signed by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA extend to Rs. 1000/- or both. MONGA Date:
2024.09.13 14:24:45 +0530 FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. 1/3 Section 339 defines wrongful restraint as "whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed is said to wrongfully restraint that person.". Section 341 of IPC reads that whosoever wrongfully restraints any person shall be punished with simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or both.
6. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offence of voluntary causing hurt punishable under section 323 and wrongful restraint punishable under section 341 of IPC, it has to be proved that the accused had caused hurt to the complainant and had prevented her from proceeding in any direction in which she had a right to proceed. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, a reference be made to the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate Digitally signed by SAHIL FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. 1/4MONGA SAHIL MONGA Date:
2024.09.13 14:24:49 +0530 them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
8. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW1/Victim/Complainant has deposed that on 25.06.2013 at around 11:30 A.M, she went to the house of accused to settle the matter between accused and their neighbour Sarvesh as the accused was throwing stones over Sarvesh . PW1 further deposed that when she tried to settle the matter between accused and Sarvesh, accused argued with her and in the meantime Sarvesh also reached at the house of accused. She further deposed that after that she fell down on the floor and became unconscious as someone struck on her back from behind whereafter she was shifted to hospital. And someone had called at 100 number. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP, wherein she denied the suggestion that accused along with her daughter prevented her way and beaten by them. She further denied the suggestion that accused pushed her from behind . Bare Perusal of the testimony of PW1/Complainant casts a shadow of doubt on the story of prosecution as nothing incriminating against the accused has popped up in her evidence. SAHIL MONGA Digitally signed by SAHIL MONGA FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. Date: 1/5 2024.09.13 14:24:54 +0530
9. In order to corroborate its story, prosecution examined Smt. Sarvesh as PW-2 who deposed that on 25.06.2013 at about 11.30 AM, accused and her daughter Bharti were beating Sudha and she reached at the spot to pecify the matter and save Sudha. She further deposed that Sudha got injury due to said quarrel. PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused. In her cross examination, she deposed that accused was throwing stones in the house of Sudha. One more witness Smt. Nirmala Devi stated to be an eye witness to the incident was examined by prosecution as PW- 4 who also deposed that 25.06.2013 at about 11.30 AM, accused and her daughter Bharti were beating Sudha . She further deposed that Sudha got injury due to said quarrel. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 contradicts with the testimony of PW- 1/victim/ complainant. From the perusal of testimony of PW-2 and PW-4, it can be deducted that PW-2 and PW-4 have disputes with the accused herein and they have deposed in the court as a knee jerk reaction. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 does not inspire the confidence of the court in the absence of corroboration from the deposition made by the victim herself which consequently raises a doubt in the mind.
10. In light of the several inconsistencies in the testimony of all the witnesses and contradictions of the testimony of PW-1/complainant with the complaint, the testimony of all the three material witnesses does not inspire the confidence of this court to believe the prosecution story beyond reasonable doubt.
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt otherwise the benefit has to be given to the accused. It is also a settled principle that thought there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. This principle of law has been signed Digitally by SAHIL SAHIL MONGA FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma MONGA Date:
Page No. 2024.09.13 1/6 14:24:57 +0530 reiterated by the Hon'ble apex court in the following cases : Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W. Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67; Reddy Sampath W. v. State of A.P, (2005) 7 SCC 603 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 172.
12. In view of the detail observations and reasons provided in preceding paragraph, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to discharge its burden in this case. Accordingly, accused Dolly Sharma is acquitted in Digitally signed by the present case. SAHIL SAHIL MONGA Announced in open court (Sahil Monga) MONGA Date:
today i.e. on 13.09.2024 JMFC MM-04/NE/KKD/Delhi 2024.09.13 All 07 pages have been checked 13.09.202414:25:02 +0530 and signed by me.FIR No. 369/13 State Vs. Dolly Sharma Page No. 1/7