Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Singh & Ors. on 11 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Vijay Singh & Ors.
FIR No.704/03
U/s : 323/451/34 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 06.01.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 11.02.2015
Date of judgment : 11.02.2015
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 704/03 2.Date of the Commission : 26.03.2003 of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Nahar Singh,
: R/o H. No. 28-A, Adhchini Village, New
: Delhi.
: 2. Rajwanti W/o Sh. Vijay Singh,
: R/o H. No. 28-A, Adhchini Village, New
: Delhi.
: 3. Nathu Singh S/o Late Sh. Nahar
: Singh, R/o H. No. 38, Adhchini Village,
: New Delhi.
: 4. Kalawati W/o Sh. Nathu Singh,
: R/o H. No. 38, Adhchini Village, New
: Delhi.
: 5. Omwati W/o Sh. Vijender Singh,
: R/o H. No. 38, Adhchini Village, New
: Delhi.
FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 1/10
4.Name of the complainant : Smt. Anupama Devi W/o Sh. Rajpal
: R/o H. No. 28, Village Adhchini, New
: Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : u/s 323/451/34 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 26.03.2003 at about 8.30am at H. No. 20, Village Adhchini, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused persons namely Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Omwati and Vijender Kumar (proceedings abated vide order 26.03.2013) in furtherance of their common intention after preparing to commit assault on complainant Smt. Anupama Devi criminally trespassed in the above plot of complainant and voluntarily caused simple injuries on the complainant and thereby accused persons committed offences punishable u/s 451/323/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 704/03 under section 451/323/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 06.01.2005.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offence punishable under section 451/323/34 IPC was framed against the accused FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 2/10 persons namely Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Omwati and Vijender Kumar (proceedings abated vide order 26.03.2013) and read out to the said accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 WHC Vipin being Duty Officer was examined on 16.03.2011 and proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/A (OSR) and endorsement on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-1/B.
7. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
8. PW-2 Smt. Anupama Devi being complainant was examined on 11.01.2012 and deposed that on 23.06.2003 when she was doing her household work in her house, all the accused persons i.e. Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Vijender Kumar (deceased) and Omwati entered into her house forcefully and beaten her mercilessly due to which she received injuries over her forehead and accordingly accused persons committed assault upon her and also intimidate her. Thereafter, she was removed to AIIMS hospital by ASI Satpal Singh. She further deposed that there was a property dispute between her husband and the accused persons and due to which there were always quarrel between them. Her criminal complaint gave before the court from point X to X bearing her signature at point A is Ex. PW-2/A.
9. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Vijay and Rajwanti wherein she stated that police never met her in FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 3/10 connection with this case. She admitted that mother-in-law namely Smt. Kitabo Devi had already instituted a case against her and her husband. She further admitted that on account of property the matter had already been settled between them. She further deposed that the house of the accused Vijay adjacent to her house. She denied the suggestion that the house of the accused Vijay was not adjacent to her house. She further deposed that she was pass 6/7 standard and she does not know English and further she does not remember the time when the alleged incident took place. She admitted that there was a thickly populated area. She denied the suggestion that her mother in law did not have any room in the said property. The property in question is an ancestral property. She further deposed that she did not call police. She voluntarily stated that her husband called the police. She admitted that when the alleged incident took place her husband was not present in the house. She voluntarily stated that she came thereafter and the door of the house was open and she was alone there. She admitted that Vijay was in a govt. Job. She denied the suggestion that at the time of incident Vijay was performing his duty in DTC bus or that the house of the Vijay was not visible to her house. She further deposed that no public persons gathered at the spot at the time of incident. She admitted that an FIR no. 173/04 was registered on account of some quarrel between her and her mother in law and that another FIR u/s 308 IPC was registered against her and her husband. She denied the suggestion that she and her husband took illegal possession of the premises of her mother in law or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by her or that no such incident took place. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 4/10
10. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused Omwati, Kalwati, Nathu Singh despite opportunity given.
11. PW-3 Rajpal being husband of the complainant was examined on 17.04.2012 and deposed that on 11.08.1998 a partition between Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Tara Devi, Kitabo Devi, Vijender Kumar (deceased) and omwati took place in respect of their ancestral property at H. No. 28, Adhchini Village and a settlement was arrived among them and the share was already demarketed between all of them. He further deposed that on 23.06.2003, when his wife Anupama Devi was doing household work in their portion of plot, accused Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Tara Devi, his mother namely Kitabo Devi and Omwati entered into his house forcefully and beaten his wife Anupama Devi mercilessly. On hearing the noise when he tried to enter into his house, Vijay Singh came out from his house. In this regard, he made a call on 100 number and took his wife to AIIMS Hospital.
12. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Vijay and Rajwanti wherein he stated that Vijya was his elder brother. He further deposed that he was not aware whether Vijay was in Govt. job however, he was a driver. He further deposed that he cannot tell the exact time when he arrived at his house but it was morning and he was coming back after having purchased eggs, bread etc. He further deposed that after making a call of 100 number police reached at the spot within 5-10 minutes and he does not remember how much time police remained there. He further deposed that police remained only five minutes at the spot and inquired him and his wife only. No public persons was present at the spot except the accused persons. He further deposed that he took his wife to the hospital and he had no idea about the time spent in the hospital. He further FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 5/10 deposed that his signatures were not taken in the hospital and no such police official from the PS Malviya Nagar had arrived at hospital. He denied the suggest that he was deposing falsely or that Vijay was performing his duty on the day of alleged incident.
13. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused Omwati, Kalwati, Nathu Singh despite opportunity given.
14. PW-4 SI Pradeep was examined on 04.02.2014 and deposed that he had brought the attested copy from MHCR of PS Malviya Nagar regarding destruction of DD entry no. 6-A and 14-A dated 23.06.2003 of PS Malviya Nagar. The said attested copy of order was taken on judicial record. However, on perusal of the judicial file it revealed that neither DD no. 6-A nor DD no. 14-A was on judicial record itself and neither their photocopies are on judicial record nor the said DD entry numbers have been made part of the charge sheet.
15. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity given.
16. PW-5 Dr. Satya Prakash was examined on 16.04.2014 and deposed that he was appearing on behalf of Dr. Sandeep who had prepared the MLC No. CS 66008 of Anupama Devi on dated 23.06.2003. The photocopy of the said MLC was on judicial record which is Mark A-1. He further deposed that he cannot identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sandeep as he had not worked with him. However, as per MLC, the patient is vital stable and patient having injury on her forehead of about 1 cm in size. At this stage, record clerk Rajbir Singh of AIIMS Hospital appeared and produced a certified copy of the order dated 17.09.2013 issued by Medical Superintendent, as per which the record of the said MLC has been destroyed. The said record was taken on judicial record.
FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 6/10
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused Vijay and Rajwanti wherein he stated that he had received instructions from MS of AIIMS to appear before the Hon'ble Court.
18. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused Omwati, Kalwati, Nathu Singh despite opportunity given.
19. PW-6 ASI Umed Singh being IO was examined on 22.09.2014 and deposed that on dated 15.11.2004 he was posted as ASI at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day he had received the case file from MHC(R) at the instruction of SHO concerned as further investigation of present case was marked to him and he inspected the case file and visited spot i.e. Adhichini Village but no accused persons were found. He further deposed that on 24.11.2004 he identified the accused persons namely Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati and Om Wati all were present in the court and accused Vijender Singh (since expired) came at PS. He further deposed that he interrogated all the accused persons and arrested them vide memo Ex. PW6/A to PW6/F each bearing his signatures at point X. He further deposed that all accused persons were released on police bail and after the completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and filed before the court.
20. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons wherein he stated that he does not remember as to how many times he had visited the spot after 15.11.2004 till filing of charge sheet. He admitted that accused Vijay was working at that time in DTC. He voluntarily stated that it was came to his knowledge after filing of charge sheet. He further deposed that he does not remember as to how the information obtained by him. He admitted that the complainant as well as the accused persons are their relatives and he had no knowledge that Kitabo Devi had FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 7/10 already filed cases against the complainant and her husband and he had no knowledge about the pendency of civil litigation between the complainant as well as the accused persons. He further deposed that he was posted in PS Malviya Nagar since 2003 and he had not done any investigation as regards the duty performed by accused Vijay on the date of incident. He admitted that he had not mentioned the above said facts in the charge sheet and that he was aware that the accused persons as well as the complainant used to quarrel among each other. He denied the suggestion that the complainant and her husband forcibly took the possession of two rooms of Kitabo Devi i.e. the mother of accused persons and she was not inclined to give her share that is why the present case has been registered against the family members. He further denied the suggestion that no such incident took place and accused was falsely implicated with the connivance of complainant or that accused Vijay was not present at the spot at the time of alleged offence. He further denied the suggestion that none of accused persons had inflicted any injuries upon the complainant as well as the injured. He further deposed that he can not say whether a relative of the complainant is working in AIIMS. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons were present at the spot at the time of alleged incident.
21. Apart from these six witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities given. Hence, PE was ordered to be closed on 27.10.2015. The statement of accused persons under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 11.02.2015 in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they do not want to lead any defence evidence.
22. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for state. Heard.
FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 8/10 Reasons for Decision
23. Prosecution has examined six witnesses in the present matter as cited 7 witness in the list of witnesses. A complaint was filed by the complainant namely Smt. Anupama who has been examined as PW-2. In her complaint Ex. PW-2/A, she deposed that on the date of incident when she was doing her household work in her house, all the accused persons i.e. Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Vijender Kumar (deceased) and Omwati entered into her house forcefully and beaten her mercilessly due to which she received injuries over her forehead and accordingly accused persons committed assault upon her and also intimidate her. In this regard, she made a complaint to the police vide Ex. PW-2/A bearing her signature at point A.
24. Apart from this witness, PW Rajpal being husband of the complainant was examined as PW-3 who deposed that on 23.06.2003, when his wife Anupama Devi was doing household work in their portion of plot, accused Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati, Tara Devi, his mother namely Kitabo Devi and Omwati entered into his house forcefully and beaten his wife Anupama Devi mercilessly. He further deposed that on hearing the noise when he tried to enter into his house, Vijay Singh came out from his house. In this regard, he made a call on 100 number and took his wife to AIIMS Hospital.
25. Apart from these two witness, prosecution has examined only formal witnesses and there is no other public witness as regards the incident. It is necessary that there were other public witnesses to support the version of the prosecution. No public persons have joined the investigation for the reasons best known to the IO. At the same time, MLC as regards FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 9/10 injury which has been placed on record has also not been properly proved as the doctor who has been examined was not the doctor who prepared the MLC and the original MLC is not on record, only photocopy is on record. Thus, it is clear that it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons present in the court was the person who criminally trespassed in the plot of complainant after preparing to commit assault on the complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant Smt. Anupama Devi and had committed offences u/s 451/323/34 of IPC and there are no other witnesses to support the version of the prosecution. Thus, the accused persons are required to be given benefit of doubt. The accused persons namely Vijay Singh, Rajwanti, Nathu Singh, Kalawati and Omwati are hereby acquitted of the offence charged u/s 451/323/34 of IPC.
Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court (CHETNA SINGH) on 11.02.2015 MM-02(SD)/11.02.2015
Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/11.02.2015 FIR No. 704/03 State Vs Vijay Singh & Ors. Pages 10/10