Delhi District Court
State vs . on 13 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 422935/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSW020006322014
FIR No. -: 276/2014
Police Station -: Chhawla
Section(s) -: 323/325/506/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1) POONAM
W/o Sh. Kuldeep,
R/o H. no. RZ-15,
Gali no. 1, Dinpur Ext.
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2) NEETU,
W/o Sh. Jasveer Singh,
R/o H. no. RZ-12,
Gali no. 1, Dinpur Ext.
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3) SONIA
W/o Sh. Naresh,
R/o H. no. RZ-18,
Gali no. 1, Dinpur Ext.
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
4) KULDEEP
S/o Sh. Ramphal,
R/o H. no. RZ-15,
Gali no. 1, Dinpur Ext.
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
.... Accused
Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 1 of 13
1. Name of Complainant : Promila
1) Poonam
2) Neetu
2. Name of Accused :
3) Sonia
4) Kuldeep
Offence complained of or
3. : 323/325/506/34 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of commission of
5. : 19.04.2014
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 08.09.2014
7. Date of Reserving Order : 06.03.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. counsel for the accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
-:
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Accused Poonam, Neetu Rani @Nootan and Sonia are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section Sections 323/325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the IPC). Accused Kuldeep Singh is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 19.04.2014, at about 06.30PM, near house no E-16, Dinpur Extension, within the jurisdiction of PS Chhawla, accused Poonam, Neetu Rani, Sonia, alongwith one Reetu Gulia (since acquitted) beat up the Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 2 of 13 complainant Promila, her sister-in-law Rekha, and her mother Kamla Devi. In the incident, complainant Promila sustained grievous injuries, and Rekha and Kamla sustained simple injuries. During the incident , accused Kuldeep also reached the spot, and extended threats to complainant and injured persons.
3. Upon culmination of investigation, subject chargesheet was filed against accused persons under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC. When the accused persons appeared before Court to face trial, in compliance of Section 207 CrPC, copy of chargesheet was supplied to them.
4. After consideration of material on record, and hearing arguments of both sides, charge under Section 323/325/34 IPC were framed against Reetu Gulia, and accused Poonam, Neetu Rani and Sonia. Charge under Section 506 IPC was framed against accused Kuldeep Singh. All of them pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them, and claimed trial.
5. During the pendency of proceedings, all the injured persons, including complainant, settled their disputes accused Reetu Gulia in Mediation proceedings. Consequent to the offence being compounded qua her, she was acquitted of the charges framed against her.
6. Qua the remaining accused persons, trial commenced, and proceedings progressed to the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. To prove its case against Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 3 of 13 them, prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses.
6.1 Rekha w/o Ashok Kumar was examined as PW1.
She testified that a quarrel took place between her children and those of her neighbours, accused Nootan and Poonam. This issue escalated, and accused Neetu Rani and Poonam starting beating her. When injured Kamla intervened to break the scuffle, she was also pushed to the ground, and beaten up. Both accused were also joined by accused Reetu Gulia and Sonia, who also started beating her, Kamla and Promila. She testified that accused Kuldeep also reached the spot, twisted her hand, abused Promila and threatened to kill her. Then a crowd gathered around the area, and saved them. A PCR call was then made by her, after which police reached the spot and took her, Promila and Kamla to the hospital. She was duly cross examined by all accused persons, and then discharged.
6.2 PW2 Kamla, being one of the injured, testified that while she was going to her house after having purchased milk on the day of incident, she saw that Nutan, Poonam and Rekha were embroiled in a fight. Seeing that accused Nutan and Rekha were beating Poonam up, she intervened and tried to break the fight, upon which accused Poonam, Nutan and Reetu started beating her too. When her daughter Promila came to the spot, she was also beaten up by accused persons. Thereafter, accused Kuldeep also came to the spot, twisted her daughters hand, and abused her. She testified that a crowd then gathered, which saved them from the clutches of accused persons. She testified that thereafter, Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 4 of 13 PCR van reached the spot, took her, Promila and Rekha to the hospital where their MLC's were prepared. She was discharged as a witness, after being duly cross examined.
6.3 Prosecution examined injured Promila as PW3. She also deposed that accused Poonam, Nutan and Sonia beat her, her mother Kamla, and the complainant Rekha on the day of incident. She also testified that accused Kuldeep then reached the spot and abused her. Then a crowd gathered and broke the fight. She also deposed how she, along with her mother Kamla, and Rekha were taken to the hospital. She was cross-examined at length, and then discharged.
6.4. Prosecution examined ASI Anita Dagar/DO Writer as PW4. She proved the FIR Ex PW4/A(OSR) and rukka Ex PW4/B. She was duly cross examined and discharged.
6.5 PW5 examined by prosecution was Ct. Shobha. She testified that she arrested all accused persons on the day of incident. When questions in the nature of cross-examination were put to her by Ld APP for the State in terms of Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, she testified that arrest memos Ex PW5/A- Ex PW5/E bear her signatures. However, she failed to identify accused Kuldeep. She was also cross examined duly, and then discharged.
6.6 ASI Kuldeep Singh/IO took the witness stand as PW6. He deposed that he reached the spot of incident after Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 5 of 13 receipt of DD no. 85A, where he found out that injured had already been removed to RTRM hospital. He testified that he obtained the results of MLC of all three injured, and thereafter prepared the rukka on the basis of which subject FIR was registered. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex PW6/A, and arrested them vide arrest memos Ex PW1/A- Ex PW1/E. He testified that he placed on record the X-ray plates of the injured persons. The witness was duly cross-examined, and discharged.
6.7 Dr LR Richhele, Radiologist, was examined as PW7. He testified that on the basis of X-Ray plate of injured Pramila Ex PW7/B, he prepared her MLC which is Ex PW7/A, as per which she sustained a fracture in a finger of her hand. He was cross-examined, and then discharged.
6.8 Dr Satish Chandra Yadav, Senior Medical Officer from RTRM Hospital was examined as PW8. He proved the MLC of injured Pramila Ex PW8/A, and that of injured Rekha, Ex PW8/B. He was cross examined at length by the accused persons, and then discharged.
7. No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and PE was accordingly closed.
8. Thereafter, in order to accord an opportunity to accused persons to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them at trial, their statements were recorded under Section 313/281 CrPC. Accused persons submitted that Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 6 of 13 they have been falsely implicated by the injured, and while a verbal fight had taken place between them and injured, they did not cause any injury to any one. Accused Kuldeep submitted that he was not even present at the spot of incident, on the day of incident, and was in fact in Agra, U.P on the said day. Neither of the accused persons opted to lead defence evidence in the affirmative, when asked.
9. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Final arguments have been heard. Record perused. Considered.
10. Now, it is the case of prosecution that accused Poonam, Neetu and Sonia beat up injured Promila, Rekha and Kamla, and further that accused Kuldeep extended threats to Promila.
11. Prosecution has placed on record X-ray plate of hand of injured Promila on record. With the help of the same, as well as the MLC's of all injured persons, duly proved by the authors thereof i.e. PW7 and PW8 , prosecution has been able to establish that injured Pramila sustained grevious injuries on the day of incident, and injured Rekha and Kamla sustained simple injuries. In his cross examination, PW7 admitted that he does not know who conducted the X-Ray examination of injured Pramila, and cannot say how she sustained the injuries. However, this by itself, is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of PW7. Even though he did not conduct the X-Ray examination of patient Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 7 of 13 himself, he testified that his opinion in the MLC is based on the x-ray plates. As per the same, injured Promila had sustained a grievous injury in her hand. His testimony is thus based on cogent material, ie X-ray plates, and the same are also on record. It stands proved that injured Pramila did sustain grievous injuries on the day of incident. Similarly, testimony of PW8 proves that simple injuries were sustained by injured Rekha and Kamla during the incident in question.
12. Cross examination of PW1-PW3 establishes the presence of accused Poonam, Sonia, Reetu Gulia and Neetu on the spot as well. Especially pertinent in this regard is suggestion given to PW1 Rekha about the proceedings initiated against her, and other injured, under Section 107/150 CrPC. She admitted that she appeared in the court of SDM with respect to the said proceedings. Similar suggestion was given to PW3 by accused Sonia, regarding initiation of separate kalandara proceedings under the aforesaid provisions against both accused persons, and against the injured persons. In giving these suggestions, accused Neetu, Ravi, Sonia and Kuldeep have admitted their presence on the spot, by admitting that such proceedings were initiated at their behest. Further, accused Sonia also did not deny her presence at the spot, at any point in time. Her defence is only that she reached the spot after the fight had ended. Suffice it to say at this juncture that all accused persons were present at the spot at about the time of incident.
Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 8 of 1313. These Kalandara proceedings, however, do more than establish the presence of accused persons on the spot. Both the kalandaras, one prepared against accused persons, and other against injured persons, are on record. Their perusal reveal that while injured persons herein have portrayed accused persons as aggressors, a competing version was also set by accused persons, and duly recorded by police officials. This competing version probabalises the fact that instead of accused persons being the aggressors, they were actually participants in a fight / scuffle with the injured persons. The kalandra on record creats a reasonable doubt as to the nature of the incident. They indicate that perhaps a fight had taken place between the parties, and the version of injured persons that they were all cornered and beaten up is not true.
14. What compounds the doubt is the fact that subject FIR has been registered with a considerable delay of over a month. PW6/IO admitted that he had collected the MLC of the injured persons on the day of the incident. He deposed that he had also recorded the statements of the injured/complainant on the same day. There then appears on record no reasonable explanation for the delay that was caused in the registration of the FIR. While a delay in registration of FIR may not ipso-facto be detrimental to case of prosecution in all cases, in the case at hand such delay has remained unexplained. The delay is indicative of the fact that the true version of the events that had transpired on the day of incident is contained in the two kalandaras, as per which both parties insinuated aggression on Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 9 of 13 the other, and which leads to the conclusion that they were both equal aggressors. Why the IO chose to not advert to the two kalandaras in his testimony or explain why he chose to register the FIR after a considerable delay deepens the doubt raised over prosecution version. Attempt at concealment and delay in FIR suggest that true contours of incident have not been detailed on record by prosecution.
15. This court is fortified in this opinion in view of the testimony of PW5. PW5 deposed that she, along with the IO, had conducted an enquiry on the day of incident, and found that even accused persons were not completely at fault. Now, PW5 is an official witness, unrelated to both parties. No motive has been attributed to her for deposing in favour of accused persons. She has categorically testified in her cross examination that accused persons were not at fault, although she admitted that no such enquiry report has been placed on record by her. This testimony, considered in the backdrop of other factors discussed above, especially the delay in registration of subject FIR, dents the version of prosecution even more.
16. In view of the aforesaid loopholes, the fact that prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses also becomes a factor detracting from the credibility of its version. Both, accused persons, as well as the injured, have admitted that the fight between them started due to a scuffle between their children. Proceedings were initiated against both parties under Section 107/150 CrPC on the basis of competing claims raised by Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 10 of 13 them, as discussed above. In such a scenario, the version offered by injured persons on record seems to require corroboration. All three injured- PW1-PW3 admitted that a crowd had gathered when they were being beaten up. Such crowd presumably consisted of residents of nearby houses, given that the fight took place at a residential spot. Yet, the IO not make any independent person as a witness to the case, and did not even make any genuine attempts in that direction- he did not try to find out their names or addresses, for reasons best known to him. This further punctures the case of prosecution.
17. Section 323 IPC makes punishable the act of voluntarily causing hurt to another. Section 325 IPC makes it an offence for one to voluntarily inflict grievous hurt upon another. Section 321 IPC is also relevant, and it provides that, ' Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".'
18. In the case at hand, it stands established that injuries were sustained by PW1-PW3. However, prosecution has not been able to categorically establish that such injuries were caused to them by accused persons, who had the intention or knowledge that their act will cause hurt to anyone. Instead, a reasonable doubt exists that a fight had broken out between accused persons on one hand, and injured persons on another, during which fight injured persons sustained certain injuries. Accused persons have Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 11 of 13 been able to show the existence of several crevices in the case of prosecution which make its case doubtful, and indicate towards the possibility of accused persons being falsely implicated in the present proceedings, which were initiated with a considerable, unexplained delay.
19. Allegations are also made by injured Promila that accused Kuldeep twisted her hand, used abusive language against her, and threatened her. In her cross examination, the witness gave vague answers when asked if she mentioned this fact to the police in her initial complaint. This fact creates a doubt as to her testimony recorded in the court. The fact that the witness did not tell these facts to the police official and infact stated in her complaint Ex. PW6/B that injuries were caused to her by the act of accused Neetu, Poonam, Sonia and Reetu dents her credibility as a witness. In her complaint Ex. PW6/B, PW3 Promila had only stated that accused Kuldeep came to the spot later on and had extended threat to all of the injured. Because of the improvement made by her in her testimony, testimony of PW2 does not inspire confidence of this court. Similarly PW-2 Kamla also testified in her examination in chief that accused Kuldeep had caught hold of the hand of Promila, twisted it and had threatened to kill her. However, even when this witness was this witness was confronted with statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she also admitted that she has not mentioned these facts to the IO. Perusal of the statement of this witness under Section 161 CrPC also reveals that in the same, she had only stated that accused Kuldeep had threatened her and other injured Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 12 of 13 persons. In view of the other circumstances of the case discussed in the forgoing portions of this judgment such as the delay in the FIR, as well as the incruitment in the testimonies of the witnesses, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to establish that accused Kuldeep extended threats to the injured persons. Accordingly he can not be convicted for the offence of criminal intimidation.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the above discussion, accused Neetu W/o Jasveer Singh, Poonam W/o Kuldeep, Sonia W/o Naresh and Kuldeep S/o Ramphal are acquitted of all charges against them.
Pronounced in open court on 13.03.2023 in presence of accused person. This judgment contains 13 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by MEDHAMEDHA ARYA ARYA Date:
2023.03.15 16:59:58 +0530 (MEDHA ARYA) Metropolitan Magistrate - 07 South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 13.03.2023 Cr. Case No. 422935/2016 State vs. Poonam & ors. Page 13 of 13