Delhi District Court
State vs Tajender Singh And Ans on 10 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 4259/2019
FIR No. : 69/2018
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 452/325/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
1) TAJENDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o RZ-218C, Gali no. 18
Tughlakabad Extension
New Delhi
2) GAJENDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Padam Singh
R/o 2704, Chowk Rai Ji
Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk
New Delhi .... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Radhey Shyam
Tajender Singh
2. Name of Accused :
Gajender Singh
3. Offence complained of or proved : 452/325/34 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 31.01.2018
6. Date of Filing of case : 16.08.2019
7. Date of Reserving Order : 27.11.2024
State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 1 of 21
8. Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024
9. Final Order : Convicted
Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. counsel for the accused.
"Sooner or later everyone sits down
to a banquet of consequences."
Robert Louis Stevenson
The accused persons could not offer any plausible defence to the prosecution version that on account of a dispute, they had beaten up the complainant. In fact, they offered an alternate motive on record for the offence alleged, and the witnesses brought by them to court further fortified the prosecution version. As such, they are convicted for the offences alleged.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Pithily, it is the case of the prosecution that on 31.01.2018, at about 8.30 pm, both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed inside the house where the complainant, was residing i.e. Plot no. 40, Pushp Vihar, Sector 6, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, armed with dandas, and beat up the complainant which caused him grievous injuries. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 452/325/34 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, the subject charge sheet was filed. Cognizance of offences as disclosed in the charge sheet was taken, and the accused were summoned to face trial. They appeared and were supplied State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 2 of 21with the copy of the charge sheet in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 452/325/34 IPC was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Proceedings thereafter progressed to the stage of recoding of PE. At the stage of PE, prosecution examined a total of five witnesses:
Witness Name Nature of Testimony PW1 Sh. Radhey He deposed as per his complaint and Shyam supported the prosecution version. He was (the complainant) duly cross-examined by the ld. Defence Counsel.
PW2 ASI Sunil He testified qua the arrest and personal search of accused Gajender vide arrest and personal search memos, Ex PW2/A and Ex PW2/B respectively, in a Kalandra, Ex PW2/C, vide DD no. 20A. The witness was duly cross-examined by the ld. Defence Counsel.
PW3 ASI Puran Mal He testified that he recorded DD no. 44A as per PCR call regarding the quarrel, and DD no. 48A regarding MLC of injured/complainant Radhey Shyam, Ex PW3/A and Ex PW3/B respectively. He also proved the arrest memo, personal search State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 3 of 21memo and disclosure statement of accused Gajender vide Ex PW3/C, Ex PW3/D and Ex PW3/E respectively. The witness was duly cross-examined by the ld. Defence Counsel.
PW4 Retired SI Ranbir He is the IO of the present case. He testified Singh (2nd IO) that investigation was marked to him on 20.01.2019, and he arrested accused Gajender, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex PW3/C, Ex PW3/D and Ex PW3/E respectively. After completion of investigation, he prepared the subject charge sheet and filed it before the court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the ld.
Defence Counsel.
PW5 Inspector He deposed that on 31.01.2018, he received st Durgadas (1 IO) PCR call vide DD no. 44A as to a quarrel, whereupon he reached at the place of incident. He testified regarding preparation of rukka by him, Ex PW5/A, basis which present FIR was registered. He also testified qua preparation of the site plan by him, Ex PW5/B. He further deposed that on 08.05.2018, he sent a notice Ex PW5/B1, to accused Tajender to join the investigation.
State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 4 of 21Consequent upon joining the accused investigation at the PS, he arrested accused Tajender, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex PW5/C, Ex PW5/D and Ex PW5/E respectively. PW5 testified qua the recovery of a wooden stick from the spot, vide seizure vide memo Ex PW5/F. The said wooden stick was correctly identified by PW5 in his testimony. He further deposed that on receipt of DD no. 48A, he reached AIIMS Trauma Centre and collected MLC of the complainant. He was not cross-
examined despite opportunity.
4. Both accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of:
Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Whether Ex No. Admitted or Denied 1 Endorsement by DO Admitted A1 2 FIR No. 69 /2018 Admitted A2 3 Certificate under Section 65B Indian Admitted A3 Evidence Act 4 DD no. 44A dated 31.01.2018 Admitted A4 5 DD no. 48A dated 31.01.2018 Admitted A5 6 Original Kalandra vide DD no. 20A Admitted A6 dated 02.08.2019, PS Saket State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 5 of 21 7 MLC No. 500075550 of injured Admitted
A7 Radhey Shyam dated 31.01.2018 4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined.
5. Thereafter, PE was closed. Then, in order to accord an opportunity to the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, their statements under Section 313/281 CrPC were recorded.
6. Accused Tajender submitted that the complainant was residing in Plot no. 40, Sector 6, Opposite Metro Enclave, Saket as a caretaker, and he entered into a business partnership with him. It is his version that both he as well as the complainant started doing the business of arranging/licencing autos from the plot and that he also invested Rs.3-4 lacs in the business. However, when he approached the complainant seeking repayment of the said amount, the latter instead permitted him to use the premises where the alleged offence occurred. Accused Tajender further stated that he rented out the same to one Alam for running of his cement business and used to receive rent from the said Alam. He also stated that he had rented this plot to one Abid Khan as well. It is his case that the complainant has been engaged in nefarious activities, and so as to throw him out of the plot, he falsely implicated him in the present case.
6.1 Accused Gajender Singh submitted that he used to intermittently State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 6 of 21reside in the plot where the alleged incident took place at request of accused Tajinder, and he has no idea about the facts of the case. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
6.2 Both the accused opted to lead DE in the affirmative.
7. At the stage of DE, accused examined one Beer Wati W/o Sh. Charan Singh as DW1. She testified in her examination in chief that she is the mother of accused Tajender Singh, and that complainant had falsely implicated her son on account of certain financial disputes. DW1 was duly cross-examined and discharged.
8. The accused then examined Naresh Agarwal S/o late Sh. Gyan Chand as DW2. DW2 testified that he has had friendly relations with accused Tajender since 20-22 years. He also testified that one day in the year 2018, he had seen complainant, Radhe Shyam, coming to his house in an auto, and at that time, he was injured. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
9. No other witnesses were examined by the accused, and DE was closed. The matter was then fixed for final arguments.
10. Final arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
11. One of the offences for which the accused have been charged is the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. Section 452 IPC provides that State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 7 of 21whoever commits house trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining any person or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint shall be punished by the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Bare perusal of the provision reveals that actual causation of hurt is not necessary, and it is enough for a person to be punished for the said offence if he trespassed into a house having made preparation to cause hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, whatever may be the degree and nature of the preparation. The offence of house trespass is described in Section 442 IPC as the entering or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for custody of property.
12. Section 325 IPC provides for punishment for a term of either description, which may extend to 7 years and also fine, for any person who causes grievous hurt to another, as defined in Section 320 IPC, except in the cases excepted by Section 335 IPC. The evidence on the record shall be analyzed in the light of the legal position enunciated above.
13. To recapitulate, it is the case of the prosecution that on 31.01.2018, both accused persons, along with two others, trespassed into plot no. 40, Pushp Vihar, Sector 6, New Delhi, and beat up the complainant Radhey Shyam. The accused persons have taken the defence, broadly, that they did not participate in any such act of trespass or causing grievous hurt, and that the complainant has falsely implicated them in the present case on account of prior grudges/disputes between the parties.
State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 8 of 2114. Certain facts emerge as admitted facts, upon scrutiny of the evidence:
(i) Complainant used to live in the plot in question at the relevant time, and the same constitutes "dwelling house".
(ii) He had suffered grievous injuries on the day of incident.
15. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 452/325/34 IPC, it remains to be established:
(i) Both accused persons were present at the spot of the incident, at the time thereof.
(ii) Both the accused persons, together with others, trespassed into the plot above.
(iii) Both the accused persons beat up the complainant with Dandas, and caused him grievous hurt.
16. It is to be kept in mind that largely, the evidence that has been led on the record by both the parties is ocular in nature. The evidence has to be scrutinized not only on the basis of what was deposed, but also in the light of attending circumstances that came to fore. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra 2022 (SC) 596 [Cr. Appeal 739 of 2017, decided on 14th July 2022] elaborated the principles pertaining to appreciation of oral testimonies of witnesses, "27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 9 of 21judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the 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, it is undoubtedly 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 them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or 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. V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 10 of 21
recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 :
AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]"
17. The evidence led on record shall be appreciated in view of the above legal position. The primary witness examined by the prosecution is complainant PW1 Radhey Shyam. PW1 testified that in the year 2018, he was working as a Chowkidar at the plot where the incident took place, and was also residing there. He testified that on the day of the incident, four persons, including two accused, trespassed into the premises and beat him up with dandas that they had carried inside. He testified that during such incident, he sustained one fracture on his left knee/leg, and two of his teeth were also broken. He then testified that he made a call to the PCR at number 100, and the police officials who reached the spot, took him to the State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 11 of 21
hospital where he had received his treatment. In his testimony, he relied upon his complaint, Ex PW1/A. He stated that the IO had also prepared site plan at this instance. He further testified that accused Gajender had hit him with his fist on his mouth because of which teeth were broken, and that accused Tajender had beat him up with a danda. The witness correctly identified the accused persons in court. He also testified that the incident had taken place because accused Tajender had an objection to him permitting a generator truck to remain standing on the plot where the incident occurred against payment of rent.
18. As per the version of the prosecution, the objection of the accused against complainant letting generator truck stand in the plot on question against payment of rent formed the backdrop against which accused persons committed the alleged offence. The accused persons have not denied knowing the complainant prior to the alleged incident, but have offered a slightly different version. As per them, there was prior acrimony between them and complainant on account of complainant's failure to repay the sum of money he had borrowed from accused Tajender. While a contrary version as to the backdrop of the dispute has been offered by accused persons, it is seen that their version also supplies a motive to the incident in question. That the accused persons had a motive to commit the offence, is a relevant fact as per Section 9 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
19. In his examination in chief, complainant had stated that the accused persons trespassed inside his room and beat him up. In his complaint Ex PW1/A, he had stated that he was beaten up first in the room, and then taken outside to an open field. In slight variation, in his cross-examination, State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 12 of 21he stated that he was taken out to a field where he was then beaten up. Certain contradictions are noticeable in the testimony of PW1 at this stage. As per the version of complainant, as culled out from the complaint Ex PW1/A as well as his examination in chief, at least some part of the offence had taken place inside the room where the accused persons trespassed. However, in his cross-examination, he testified that at the time when the incident took place, his wife was present, but she had not seen the incident as the accused had taken him to the corner of a large empty plot, and had then beaten him. It appears that the version of the complainant as contained in his complaint and in his cross-examination regarding the fact that he was beaten up first inside his room before being known to the corner of another plot is an embellishment. However, it is trite that some embellishments in the testimony of witnesses are to be expected, given the zeal of the complainant in pursuing his case. The embellishment/ contradiction as noticed in the version of the complainant is not of such a nature that would make doubtful the entire version of the complainant. In fact, careful perusal of his cross-examination reveals that the complainant explained that he was taken up to the corner of a plot where he was beaten up, and that his wife could not save him from the attack as the accused fled the spot before she could reach the place. He also explained that the plot is very large and that he was taken to a corner by the accused persons before being beaten up. He further explained in his cross-examination that after the incident, he had lost his consciousness and that he was taken to the hospital by police officers. When his testimony as a whole is considered, it is seen that the complainant was able to well explain the contours of the exact incident. He could explain the exact act of aggression carried out by each accused. That is to State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 13 of 21say, he stated that accused Gajender had hit him with his fist on his mouth because of which his teeth were broken, and that accused Tajender had broken his legs with danda. Even though his testimony to the effect that he was beaten up inside the room as well is found to be not true, it is seen that even at the initial stage, when the site plan Ex PW5/B was prepared at the instance of the complainant, he had indicated the corner of a plot to also be one of the places where he was beaten up. As such, his testimony cannot be considered to be replete with contradictions of nature as would discredit the witness entirely. In fact, not only did the witness specify the roles of each accused categorically, but his testimony is also substantiated by his medical records. The MLC of the complainant Ex A7 was admitted to be true by the accused persons. When the said MLC is perused, it is seen that the nature of injuries which were suffered by the complainant are in consonance with the testimony of the complainant, regarding the circumstances in which such injuries were sustained by him.
20. Appreciation of testimony of PW1 also reveals that the witness could not remain steadfast in his version as regards the genesis of the incident. In his examination in chief, he stated that the incident occurred because both the accused used to have an objection in him letting generator truck stand on the same plot where he was residing as a caretaker, and where the incident in question took place. In his cross-examination, he completely changed his version and stated that he did not even know the accused persons prior to the incident. However, the accused persons have nowhere taken the defence that they have been wrongly identified by the complainant, or that they had nothing to do with him. In fact, it is their case that they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of prior State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 14 of 21disputes with the complainant. Given this fact, and in view of the fact that in his complaint Ex PW1/A, the complainant had stated the names of the accused as well, it can safely be deduced that PW1 did not testify truthfully in his cross-examination that he did not know the accused persons prior to the incident in question. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. That is to say, the fact that the witness deposed falsely as regards one fact is not enough to discard his testimony in its entirety. This is especially so in view of the fact that the witness is an injured or a stamped witness, and it is unlikely that he shall testify falsely against the accused persons, while at the same time, shielding the real offenders.
21. The law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh and Others reported as (2011) 4 SCC 324, wherein it was held as under:-
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due Weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this ends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673 and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259)".
State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 15 of 2122. On the touchstone of legal position enunciated above, evaluation of evidence on record and perusal of the material on record demonstrate that PW1 has remained steadfast in his version in all material aspects. He testified that the room where he was staying was trespassed into by the accused persons, who were armed with dandas. He further deposed that accused Gajender hit him on his mouth with his fist, and his teeth were broken as a result of the assault. This injury is clearly reflected in the MLC. PW1 further testified that accused Tajender hit him on his leg with a Danda, and even this finds corroboration in the MLC. The MLC no. 500075550, Ex A7, has remained unrebutted. The testimony of injured witness finds due support from the said document.
23. Having noted that PW1 is consistent as regards the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC, his testimony shall be examined qua the allegations pertaining to offence of trespass. Simply, he testified that accused entered into the room where he was residing, dragged him out, and beat him up. The discrepancy regarding the place where the victim was hit pales into insignificance given the fact that witness could well explain the nature of injuries inflicted upon him by the accused. Further, though the witness version varied as to the place where he was hit, he has remained steadfast in his version that accused trespassed inside his property, having made preparation to hit him. Now, in his cross examination it was suggested to the witness that accused Tajender had an office in the same property. The suggestion was duly denied by the witness. The witness was asked how the property was rented out by accused Tajender to two others. The witness pleaded ignorance about the same. From the latter answer, it can be deduced that the tenor of defence of the accused is that they had every right to enter State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 16 of 21the property. However, such a defence is untenable, as even the best case of accused is that the portion of property where they had an office had been leased out by them, and thus, they had no right to enter into the same even. Further, the fact that they were maintaining an office in some portion of property would not give them the right to enter the room of complainant being the portion of property the possession of which was exclusively with PW1, admittedly.
24. From the testimony of PW1, it can safely be concluded that the accused persons committed the offence of causing grave hurt and house- trespass as alleged. This court finds the testimony of the complainant/PW1 creditworthy.
25. The testimony of IO/PW5 Inspector Durga Das adds further weight to the case of prosecution. He testified regarding the circumstances in which the accused Tajender was arrested, and the investigation carried out by him. He also identified the case property i.e. the Danda recovered from the accused, Ex P1. He justified that the same was recovered at the instance of accused Tajender vide memo Ex PW5/F, in presence of Ct Rampal. His testimony was not assailed in any manner by the accused persons. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity. It is trite that where a party fails to cross-examine a witness, the testimony of such witness which has remained unrebutted, can be presumed to be correct. As such, the identification of case property by the witness can be assumed to be correct, and this lends further credit to the case of prosecution. The witness further testified that he also recorded the statement of an eyewitness, Bimla. Although the presence of the said witness could not be secured by the State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 17 of 21prosecution, from the unrebutted testimony of PW5, it stands established that there was an independent witness to the incident as well, and this also fortifies the prosecution version.
26. Apart from the above, remaining witnesses PW2/ASI Sunil, PW3/ASI Puran Mal and PW4 Retd. SI Ranbir Singh deposed qua the circumstances in which accused Gajender was arrested. Their versions align well with the prosecution version, and provides the link evidence in the case.
27. By examining the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution could offer on record a well rounded version of the incident alleged against the accused.
28. No plausible counter version was offered by the accused persons. They did not even offer the defence that they were not present at the spot of the incident, at the time thereof. Further, in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC, accused Tajender stated that he had a business arrangement with the complainant, who was the caretaker of plot number 40, Sector 6, opposite Metro Enclave, Saket. He also stated that with the permission of the complainant, the business was being run out of the said plot. He stated that complainant was engaged in various nefarious activities, and wanted to throw him out of the plot, for which reason he falsely implicated him in the present case. From the statement of the accused, it can be seen that there were disputes between him and the complainant, which could have motivated him to commit the offences as alleged against the complainant. The complainant has suffered grave injuries in the case, and accused Tajender Singh could not explain as to why the complainant would State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 18 of 21falsely implicate him in the case, at the cost of letting the real perpetrator of the offence go scot free. No explanation of this fact was offered by accused Gajender either.
29. The witnesses examined by the accused also in no manner further their case. DW1 testified that she is the mother of accused Tajender and aunt of accused Gajender. In her examination in chief, she stated that complainant was an alcoholic, and 5 years ago a quarrel had taken place between the complainant and accused Tajender. She testified that complainant has falsely implicated her son for money. In her cross- examination, the witness admitted that the incident did not take place in her presence. She further stated that she does not know if the complainant had sustained any injury in the incident that had ensued. In her cross- examination, she stated that as per the information given to her by accused Tajendar, the incident had taken place in the night. This portion of testimony of DW1 further establishes the fact that the incident as alleged by the prosecution had indeed taken place. The witness then stated that while she does not remember the date of the quarrel, she had met the complainant after the incident and saw that he had sustained injuries. While the witness is not an eyewitness of the incident alleged, from her testimony, the occurrence of the incident as well as the fact that complainant had sustained injuries during the same is further confirmed. As such, the testimony of this witness, far from helping the case of the accused, in fact adds to the belief worthiness of the prosecution case.
30. The next witness which was examined by the accused is DW2, Naresh Agarwal, who only testified that he used to sometimes lend money State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 19 of 21to accused Tajender, and that one day in the year 2018, he had seen that the complainant was coming to his house in an auto, and at that time, a band aid was tied on his right leg. The testimony of this witness also establishes the version of the prosecution to the effect that the complainant had sustained injuries during the incident. Since the witness is not an eyewitness of the incident, he does not help the case of the accused in any manner, but to limited extent as discussed in the foregoing portions of this paragraph, helps the case of the prosecution.
31. During the course of final arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons argued that the complainant had actually sustained the injuries reflected in the MLC Ex A7 in an accident. This argument is in no way supported by the MLC. Furthermore, it is seen that such a defence was not taken by the accused person throughout the trial. DW2 also testified that he had seen the accused alighting from an auto rickshaw one day in the year 2018, on which date the complainant was wearing bandages. By no stretch of imagination, from this testimony, it cannot be concluded that the complainant had fallen from an auto rickshaw and had sustained the injuries as he complained of. This argument of ld. Counsel for accused persons stands rejected.
32. All in all, it is seen that the prosecution has been able to make out a believe worthy and credible case against both the accused persons. The accused persons could not perforate the case of the prosecution in any manner. As such, they stand convicted for the offences punishable under section 452/325/34 IPC.
State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 20 of 2133. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convicts free of cost.
34. The convicts be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Pronounced in open Court on Digitally signed by Medha Arya 10.12.2024 in the presence Medha Date: of both accused. Arya 2024.12.12 16:33:08 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.12.2024 State vs. Tajender Singh & Anr. FIR No. 69/2018, PS: Saket Page 21 of 21