Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Singh & Others. on 3 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
OUTER 05, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Jai Singh & others.
FIR No. : 137/98
P.S. : Kanjhawala
U/s.: 323/324/34 IPC
Unique ID No. 02404RO0210122010
Date of institution of the case : 22.7.99
Date of reserving judgment: 22.3.2012
Date of Judgment: 03.4.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 216/2/99
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 21.11.1998
3. Date of institution of the case : 22.7.99
4. Name of the complainant : Sukhbir Singh
5. Name of the accused, parentage & address : 1. Jai Singh S/o Indraj Singh,
2. Rakesh S/o Jai Singh
3. Arun S/o Jai Singh
4. Dinesh S/o Jai Singh
All R/o village Rani Khera, Delhi
6. Offence complained or proved : U/s 323/324/34 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order : 03.4.2012
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that all the accused Jai Singh, Arun, Rakesh and Dinesh have been sent up to face trial for the offence U/s 323/324//34 IPC FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 1 with the allegations that on 21.11.1998 at about 10:15a.m in the fields of Sukhbir Singh near Chhotu Ram College within the jurisdiction of PS Kanjhawala, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of complainant Sukhbir Singh by hitting him with sharp object and also caused simple injuries on the person of Ram Phal with blunt object.
2. The investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed in context of the present FIR against the accused u/s 323/324/34 IPC.
3. The cognizance was taken and provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C. were complied with.
4. After hearing arguments, all the four accused persons were charged U/s 323/324/34 IPC on 27.3.2000 to which the said accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty"
and instead claimed trial.
5. To substantiate the prosecution case, following witnesses were examined by the prosecution:
6. PW 1 Sukhbir Singh deposed that on 21.11.1998 he alongwith his uncle Ram Phal was working in their fields and at about 10:15am Rakesh, Arun, Dinesh and Jai Singh came to his field and started abusing. On objecting, the accused Jai Singh caught him and accused Rakesh hit him with a fawra. Accused Dinesh caught his uncle Ram Phal and accused Arun caused injuries on the hand of his uncle by the handle of the aforesaid fawra. All accused fled from the spot. The incident was also seen by Dilbagh and other public persons. He alongwith his uncle Ram Phal were shifted to DDU Hospital by police and his statement was recorded as Ex. PW 1/A. FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 2
7. PW 2 Ram Phal deposed that on 21.11.1998 he alongwith his nephew Sukhbir Singh was working on their fields and all the accused came to their fields and started abusing. On objection, the accused Jai Singh caught hold his nephew Sukhbir and accused Rakesh hit him with fawra. He further deposed that Sukhbir was also caught by Dinesh and Arun also. The accused Dinesh caught him and the accused Arun inflicted injury on his hand with the wooden handle of aforesaid fawra. The accused persons also gave fist blows on his nose, face and all over his body. The accused persons fled away and he alongwith his nephew were shifted to DDU Hospital by the police.
8. PW 3 Dilbagh Singh deposed that on 21.11.1998 he was working on his field alongwith his brother Ram Phal and nephew Sukhbir and at about 10:15am all accused came to the field. Sukhbir was caught hold and Rakesh inflicted injury on his head by fawra. Accused Dinesh caught hold Ram Phal and accused Arun caused injury on the hand of Ram Phal with the handle of aforesaid fawra. The accused persons fled away from the spot.
9. PW 4 SI Tarif Singh deposed that on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Sri Kishan and sent by HC Joginder he recorded the FIR Ex. PW 4/A and made an endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW 4/B.
10. PW 5 HC Sri Kishan deposed that he took the injured to the DDU Hospital for medical examination. He also deposed that he handed over the medical examination form and MLC to the IO. He got the FIR registered and handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO.
FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 3
11. PW 6 Shri Om Parkash proved the writing and signatures of Dr. M.M. Narnaware and Dr. A.K. Mathur who prepared the MLC Ex. PW 6/A.
12. PW 7 ASI Jagminder Singh deposed that on receiving the the DD No. 11 A he alongwith Ct. Virsa Vando and Ct. Sri Kishan reached at the spot and found Sukhbir and Ram Phal in injured condition. The injured were sent to DDU Hospital through Ct. Sri Kishan who returned to the spot alongwith the MLC Ex. PW 6/A. Statement Ex. PW 1/A of Sukhbir was recorded and tehrir Ex. PW 7/A was prepared and FIR was got registered through Ct. Sri Kishan. On 22.11.1998, the accused persons were arrested vide Ex. PW 7/B, 7/C and 7/D and their personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW 7/E, 7/F and 7/G. Site plan Ex. PW 7/I was prepared.
13. PW 8 ASI Jeet Singh deposed that on 14.3.1999 he received the file through MHC(R) for further investigation and on 16.3.1999 he submitted the MLC of Ram Phal to DDU Hospital for obtaining the doctor's opinion on injuries. He obtained the result on 04.5.1999 on the MLC Ex. PW 6/A On 8.6.1999, the investigation was completed and the file was handed over to SHO.
14. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr. PC on 21.7.2009 and further on 03.2.2012 where the accused persons pleaded false implication. The accused persons chose to lead defence evidence and examined only witness - DW 1 Ranbir Singh who deposed that on 21.11.1998 he had gone to the field of accused persons around 8:15am and found accused Jai Singh, Dinesh and Rakesh present there. Ram Phal and Sukhbir were also present in their fields and were making ' dohli ' . Rakesh started his tractor but Sukhbir and Ram Phal did not allow the FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 4 tractor to pass through their field and Ram Phal assaulted Rakesh with a fawra which in fact hit the tractor, slipped and injured Sukhbir. Thereafter Ramphal tried to stop the tractor by climbing upon the Jantra Side on rear of tractor, slipped and got injured. The three accused persons fled away on the tractor and Ram Phal and Sukhbir followed them on foot and abused.
15. This court has heard the rival final arguments from both sides and has perused the judicial record.
16. The present case is lodged on the statement Ex PW1/A of Sukhbir Singh to police where he stated that on 21.11.98 while he was working in his field, the accused Rakesh, Dinesh, Arun and their father Jai Singh came and started abusing him. When he objected the accused Jai singh caught him and accused Rakesh hit him with Fawra on the left side of his head and when Ramphal tried to intervene, the accused Dinesh caught Ramphal and accused Arun hit Ramphal with a lathi (wooden stick). When he raised alarm and seeing the public persons coming, the accused fled away. He also stated that the incident is also seen by Dilbagh.
17. The defence of the accused persons are that on the fateful day while the accused persons were coming on their tractor and were passing through the fields of complainant, the complainant raised objection and Ramphal hit the Fawra (Tehelwa long wooden stick with a metal blade at its end) on the tractor which slipped and injured complainant Sukhbir. When the accused persons were trying to escape, Ramphal tried to stop by climbing from the rear side of tractor and fell down on Jantra (tool attached to rear side of tractor for making dohli partitions in field). It is also the defence that the FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 5 accused persons were not having the impugned Fawra as they were using the tractor and in fact the Fawra was being used by the complainant and other injured as they were making the Dohli (low level mud partition in field) manually and not by tractor tools. It is alleged that there was no motive for the accused persons to cause injury to the complainant and the injured in the present case. It is also alleged that the witness Dilbagh is fabricated partison witness and was not present at the time of incident.
18. To prove the case, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses to the incident. PW1 is the complainant Sukhbir Singh, PW2 Ramphal is uncle of complainant and PW3 Dilbagh is also a relative of complainant. The police was informed in the present case by some unknown person. The DD entry 11A has not been furnished and proved on record for the reasons known to prosecution. It remains a mystery as to who informed police and what information was given.
19. The complainant as PW1 deposed that he reached the field at around 7.30 am alone to make dohli in the field while PW2 deposed that he went to the fields together with PW1 at around 9/9.30 am. PW2 further deposed that Sukhbir was plucking grass in his field and denied the suggestion that Sukhbir was making dohli. PW1 Sukhbir deposed that intially only accused Dinesh had come and later all the accused persons came together on tractor. PW2 Ramphal and PW3 Dilbagh stated that the accused persons did not came on tractor and that there was no tractor in the fields. It is a serious inconsistency and contradiction in the statement of witnesses with regard to the incident. It is the defence of the accused persons that the scuffle started when the tractor was passing through the field of complainant. The complainant confirms the presence of FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 6 tractor while other eye witnesses denied.
20. Further, the PW1 Sukhbir stated that he went to the field to make dohli while PW2 stated that Sukhbir was plucking grass and not making dohli on that day. PW3 Dilbagh Singh also deposed in his cross examination that on that day all of them were making dohli in their respective fields with the help of Fawra also known as Tehelwa. The defence of the accused persons is that the accused persons were not having Phawra/Tehelwa as they make dohli with the help of tractor and not manually. The impugned Fawra/Tehelwa which has been used during the incident has not been recovered or seized. The version of defence looks probable, as the testimonies of witness corroborate the fact that they were making dohli with the help of Fawra/Tehelwa.
21. PW1 in his statement Ex PW1/A stated that on seeing the public persons coming, the accused fled away and also deposed the same as PW1 in court however PW2 Ramphal deposed that no other person except him and Sukhbir was working in the nearby fields. No independent public witness is examined in the present case. PW1 deposed that the incident is also seen by PW3 Dilbagh however PW2 Ramphal deposed that he cannot tell whether Dilbagh was present in the field or not. Even PW7 ASI Jagminder Singh did not depose that he met Dilbagh at the spot. IO deposed that the statement of witness Dilbagh was recorded at the field however witness Dilbagh deposed that it was recorded in the police station. Thus, this court finds the presence of PW3 Dilbagh at the place of incident highly doubtful.
22. PW1 also deposed that statement of PW2 Ramphal was recorded by the police in the hospital in his presence while PW2 deposed that his statement was recorded in the FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 7 police station before leaving for the hospital. In the further cross examination of PW2, he deposed that their statements were not recorded in the police station before leaving for hospital but after coming from police station in the night and their signatures were obtained on blank papers and they were told that the statements would be written later on. PW2 also improved over his earlier statement by deposing that he was given fist blows on his nose, face and body. Such statement has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses.
23. The witnesses deposed that from the spot they were taken to the police station and then to hospital and thereafter they went to their homes. The site plan was prepared by IO but does not seem to prepared at the behest of any of the witnesses.
24. Considering the material inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of the eye witnesses, this court finds it unsafe to rely on their testimonies. In State (Govt. of Delhi) v. Yad Ram & Others 2006 IX AD (DELHI) 317, it was observed that:
"10. After going through the statements of the witnesses and after going through the post mortem report, we have come to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt against the accused persons. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and there are serious contradictions in the statements of all the four witnesses who are eye witnesses in this case. Therefore, they cannot be held reliable and trustworthy."
25. It is a well known dictum that it is better to acquit hundred culprits then to convict an innocent. The defence version also appears plausible and creates a reasonable suspicion over the prosecution story. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 8 chaff. It was observed the High court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar & Anr. v. State 115 (2004) DLT 587 that if the defence version is more probable and the witness account is not wholly truthful, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted. No motive found to be attributed to the accused persons to cause injuries. Though it is not necessary to prove the motive in the criminal prosecution but if proved it gives a good connection between the facts. No facts are stated by the witnesses as to how the accused came and starting abusing him without any reason and caused injuries. It is admitted that there is a way passing from the complainant field which goes to accused's field and it is the defence that scuffle started when the accused persons were using that way. The fact that the witnesses/ injured themselves were using the Fawra for making dohli and that there was no occasion for the accused persons to have Fawra with them as they used tractor is also relevant. It is also not deposed by the injured that when the accused persons came they were having Fawras in their hands. The two injured and the third eye witness are related to each other and are partison witnesses. Their testimonies are tainted with contradictions and thus cannot be relied upon. The defence version is not improbable. With these observations, this court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The accused persons cannot be convicted on mere presumptions, conjectures or probabilities. There is no cogent or convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of accused persons. Every person is presumed to be innocent until prove guilty. The accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and exoneration. The accused Rakesh, Dinesh, Arun and Jai Singh are hereby acquitted of the charges u/s 323/324/34 IPC. Their Sureties are FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 9 discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement on the same.
File after necessary compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( Sushil Anuj Tyagi )
on 3rd day of April, 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rohini Courts: Delhi
cr
FIR No. 137/1998 PS Kanjhawala 10