Delhi District Court
State vs . Maya Ram & Anr.. on 15 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL GUPTA, M.M(NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 411/95
U/s : 452/325/34 IPC
P.S : Seelampur
State Vs. Maya Ram & Anr..
Unique Case ID No. 02402R002291996
J U D G M E N T
1. Sl. No. of the case : 825/2011
2. Date of institution of the case : 29.06.1996
3. Name of complainant : Smt. Ladati @ Ladata
4. Date of commission of offence : Intervening night of
29/30.06.1995
5. Name of accused, parentage & address : 1) Maya Ram s/o
Late Raja Ram
: 2) Rajesh S/o Sh. Maya Ram
: 3) Vinod Sharma s/o
Sh. Maya Ram
All r/o 2334, Dharampura,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi - 06.
6. Offence complained of or proved : 452/325/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of which order was reserved : 27.03.2014
10.Date of pronouncement : 15.04.2014
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the intervening night of 29/30.06.1995 at about 12.15 am at house no. E157, Jagjeet Nagar, 3rd Pusta, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Seelampur, FIR No. 411/95. 1 Of 15 accused persons namely Maya Ram along with some men in furtherance of their common intention committed house tress pass and also caused grievous injuries to one Pramod. The FIR in question was registered on 30.06.1995 on the complaint of Smt. Ladeta for the offences under Section 448/323/34 IPC.
2. After the registration of FIR, the IO/ASI Mahabir Singh investigated the present case and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons namely Maya Ram, and Rajesh for the offences under Section 448/325/34 IPC. Accused Vinod was kept in column no. 2 as the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C were issued against him ( he was later on apprehended and joined the proceedings). After supplying the documents and hearing the accused, separate charge under Section 452/325/34 IPC was framed against them on 11.08.1997 by Ld. Predecessor. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty in respect of the allegations contained in the charge and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.
PW1 is Sh. Krishan Kumar. He has deposed as under : " that on 29.06.1995 in the night I was sleeping on the roof of the house. At about 12.30 AM 30/40 persons came on the roof and surrounded us and accused persons started giving beatings on the roof. FIR No. 411/95. 2 Of 15 I along with Sonu, wife Smt. Ladata, my younger brother Pramod, Ram Niwas and Bani at that time on roof and one Rekha also there. Sonu and my wife on the ground. Police officials were standing on ground floor. My wife, and brother Pramod and children got injuries. Accused persons Vinod, Raju present in the court and May Ram also present in the court. Accused Ram Karan not present in the court. All these accused persons thrown my family members. Accused persons took all articles from my house and shop. The stolen articles were ring, watch, two fans, clothes, and 10,000/ rupees and some ornaments from my house and from the shop Tub, money box. Police did not record my statement as they mixed hand with the accused. My wife Ladata lodged the FIR at PS."
He was duly crossexamined by Sh. M.K. Shukla, ld. defence counsel for accused persons.
PW2 is the complainant Smt. Ladela. She has deposed as under : " that I am residing in a house at III Pusta Jagjit Nagar about 20 years when my husband started a dairy shop in the same house. The owner of this house is Maya Ram. We were residing in the said house in accordance with consent given by Sh. Maya Ram. He had given consent to us to reside in the said house in order to save the property. On 6th month in year 1995 date might be 22nd around 1 a.m. Maya Ram along with 30/40 other persons arrived at our house and started beatings myself, my husband, my brother in laws Pappu and Ram Niwas. They also thrown my daughter Rekha and Sonu from the roof. and had taken away Rs.10,000/ in cash, golden ornaments/bangles and one pair of Pajeb (Shilver) and one Tagari (Shilver). They had also taken away clothes, utensils and books of our children and also FIR No. 411/95. 3 Of 15 oust myself as well as my sisterinlaw Babi from the house forcibly and put a lock on the shop. Police was informed by Maya Ram and police arrived at the spot and taken pappu to a hospital whose name I do not know. My statement was not recorded by the police. All the accused persons now present in the court. are the same persons who committed the abovesaid incident alongwith other persons. I am illiterate."
This witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. counsel for all accused.
PW3 is Sh. Ram Niwas (brotherinlaw of the complainant). He has deposed as under : " that we are residing in the said house from about 12 years prior to the date of incident. Accused Mayaram now present in the court is the owner of the said house. On 2961995 around 12 mid night / 1a.m. I alongwith other members of the family were sleeping at the roof of the house. On hearing noise we got up and we found a crowd at the roof as well as the ground floor of the house. All accused persons now present in the court were present in the crowd. All the accused persons now present in the court started beatings to all of us. Police arrived at the spot and started beatings all the persons present in the inside the house. Parmod received injuries at his hands and legs. and my sister in law Ladeta received injuries on her hand. Kishan Lal took them to a hospital whose name I do not remember. The injuries were caused by all accused persons now present in the court. I was enquired by the police but no FIR was lodged". He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused at length.
PW4 is Babby. She deposed has deposed as under : FIR No. 411/95. 4 Of 15 " that on 29695 at about 12 mid night Maya Ram, Ram Karan Raju and Vinod came and gave beatings to Pappu and Kishan Kr. and Bachchan. Accused persons threw the Bacchan from the roof. Four accused persons out of them three now present in the court came into my house. One accused person is not present today. When the accused persons came into my house thereafter they went on roof and when I alongwith Lareta and Kishan, Ram Niwas and children were sleeping on the roof. Accused persons having lathis and Danda and Knife in their hands. Accused persons took the all goods from my house."
The PW4 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State as she was resiling from her earlier statement given to the police.
In the crossexamination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, the PW 4 has stated that the police did not record his statement. Police did not enquire him. Vol. said police officials came with the accused persons now present in the court. It is correct that accused persons removed all the goods from my house. It is correct that the accused persons now present in the court gave notice to vacate the house within one month. It is wrong to suggest that when the accused persons came on the roof Larent was not present on the roof. It is wrong to suggest that only three persons namely Maya Ram, Vinod and Rajesh Kumar came into my house. Vol. Said four persons (including these three accused persons). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as compromise with the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that police officials recorded my statement.
PW5 is Dr. Sudhansu, ACM, GTB Hospital Delhi. He deposed that on 30695 he was posted at GTB Hospital in casualty as FIR No. 411/95. 5 Of 15 ACMO. One Parmod, injured brought by HC Ramesh Chand with the alleged history of assault, he examined the same. After medical treatment he referred the injured to SR. Resident Ortho. He proved the MLC No. A2312/95 as Ex.PW5/A. PW6 is Sh. Pramod Kumar. He has deposed as under : " that on 29695 I was sleeping on the roof of my house. Maya Ram, Raju and Vinod and Ram Karan came to my roof at about 12 a.m. or 1 a.m. They started giving beatings to me and my family members who were sleeping on the roof. Thereafter, we made a noise. I noticed during the quarrel that PCR Van was standing on the main road. Maya Ram, Vinod, Raju and Ram Karan had thrown me from the roof. Accused persons also thrown my sisterinlaw namely Laret and her children. Consequently, leg was broken. Accused persons also broken the lock of my room and and entered into room and took the goods of my house by Matador. Accused persons also broken the lock of dairy shop and removed Rs.10,000/ from galla. and also taken away the goods of shop. Except accused Ram Karan all the accused persons are present in the court today. PCR officials took me at GTB Hospital. I remained at the hospital till 11 a.m. When the accused persons had thrown the goods of my house after they put their locks on the house as well as shop.
This witness was duly crossexamined by Sh. Arun Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused.
PW7 is Dr. P.S. Bajaj, Mool Chand Hospital. He deposed that on the MLC No.A2312/95 of injured Pramod I have given the FIR No. 411/95. 6 Of 15 opinion regarding injuries as grievous. The same is already Ex.PW5/A. PW8 is Ct. Jitender. He has deposed as under : "that on the 29/30.06.95, I was posted at PS Seelampur and on that date I was on emergency duty with ASI Mahavir Singh at PS Usmanpur and on the intervening night of 29.06.95 in the night about about 12.40 am a call was received regarding a quarrel vide DD 18 was received and on the receipt of the same we reached at A157 Jagjeet Nagar, 3rd Pusta Usmanpur, Delhi. There complainant Smt. Larto Devi met us and she told about the quarrel ASI Mahavir recorded statement of complainant Smt. Larto Devi and thereafter handed over me for getting the case registered. I took the rukka to the PS and got registered FIR no.411/95 u/s 323/34 IPC and I returned original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. When the rukka was handed over to me the IO went to the hospital in respect of injured Pramod, who return at the spot after collecting MLC by that time when I return back at the spot with the copy of FIR and original. The IO prepared site plan, the scene of crime was photographed and broken lock was taken into possession vide seizure memo ex.PW8/A which bears my sig. At point A. Search of the accused was made and accused Maya FIR No. 411/95. 7 Of 15 Prasad, Rajesh were arrested and their p/search was conducted vide memo ex. PW8/B and ex. PW/8/C which bears my sign. at point A respectively. Statement of public witnesses were also recorded by the IO. Accused Maya Prasad and Rajesh are present in the court today. I can identify the case property if shown to me." He has correctly identified the case property when produced in the court. There is no crossexamination on behalf of the accused for this witness.
PW 9 is Sh. Raj Kumar, XRay Record Clerk, GTB Hospital. PW9 has deposed that in the year 1994 he was given additional charge for keeping MLC X ray record. In the year 1995 Dr. SB Sahai was posted at GTB Hospital as Radiologist as he had worked with him. He had seen him writing and signing during the course of official work. Dr. S.B Sahai had left the GTB hospital and his whereabouts are not known. He has deposed that X ray reporting on X requisition slip which is on the file is in the handwriting of DR. SB Sahai which is Ex PW9/A. Ld. Defence Counsel has crossexamined this at witness at length.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 26.03.2011. Later on the accused examined three witnesses in their defence. All FIR No. 411/95. 8 Of 15 the three witnesses are court officials and through them accused has got exhibited certified copies of certain judgments passed/pending between the parties before the civil courts.
5. Arguments has been heard from both the sides. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts where Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitness and for that reason alone accused deserves acquittal.
6. Perusal of the record shows that accused has been charged with for the offences under Section 452/325/34 IPC. The grievous injury on the person of Mr. Pramod is duly proved from the MLC Ex. PW5/A and the reporting on Xray requisition slip Ex. PW9/A. Now, it is to be seen as to what evidence has come on record to single out the persons responsible for committing the offences in question including that of causing the grievous injuries to Mr. Pramod.
Smt. Ladeta is the star witness in this matter as the FIR in question has been registered on her complaint only. In her statement given to the police, she has stated that she is residing in the premises in question along with her sisterinlaw and children. Her husband is running a shop of milk dairy in the premises and the owner of the FIR No. 411/95. 9 Of 15 premises has been stated as Maya Ram, Ram Dutt and Ram Karan. She has also stated that they were residing in the premises temporarily on being asked by Maya Ram and no rent was being paid by them. Her husband Mr. Kishan Lal was stated as doing the business of milk dairy for last around 10 years. She has further stated that on the fateful day at around 12.15 am, Kishan Lal, Ram Niwas and Pramod were sleeping on the roof. The accused Maya Ram alongwith two men came there. They all broke open the lock of the milk dairy and the goods belonging to her were kept on the road. The accused put his lock there. When Pramod tried to stop them from doing so he was beaten up with danda by the accused Maya Ram and two men due to which he received injuries. Call was made to 100 number on which the polices arrived and took ( him) to GTB hospital for medical examination. She has alleged that Maya Ram and his men has broken the lock of their shop and the goods has been kept outside so she has prayed for action against accused Maya Ram. A supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on the same day in which she stated that due to perplexity she has stated in her earlier statement about the men of Maya Ram instead of the sons of Maya Ram namely Rajesh and Vinod. The accused Rajesh has been arrested and the FIR No. 411/95. 10 Of 15 accused Vinod Kumar has fled away from the spot. She has prayed that search be made to find him. She has also stated that her husband and her brothers received injuries from the accused persons. Pramod Kumar received injuries on his leg from danda.
Subsequently, during the course of trial in her testimony dated 12.07.2000 she has deposed that she is residing in the house at 3rd pusta Jagjit Nagar for last about 20 years and her husband started a dairy in the house. Regarding the incident in question she has deposed that in the 6th month of the year 1995 (date might be 22nd ) around 1.00 am, Maya Ram along with 30/40 other persons arrived at their house and started beating her, her husband, her brother in law Pappu and Ram Niwas. They also thrown their daughter Rekha and Sonu from the roof. They had taken away Rs. 10,000/ in cash, golden ornaments/bangles and one pair of pajeb ( silver) and one tagdi ( silver). They had also taken away the clothes, utensils and books of their children. They also ousted herself as well as her sister in law Babi from the house forcibly and put the lock on the shop. Police was informed by Maya Ram and on arrival the police took Pappu to hospital whose name she did know. She identified the accused present in the court and also stated that she is illiterate. She denied that her FIR No. 411/95. 11 Of 15 statement was recorded by the police. In her cross examination, she stated that the shop in question was given to them on rent on the assurances that whenever they shall vacate the same, a small shop shall be provided to them. She has also deposed that the accused Vinod gave hockey blows to her brother in law Pappu on his leg.
On comparison of both these statements, it emerges that there are several contradictions between the two. As per her statement given to the police, the accused Maya Ram along with his two men ( who were later on told to be his sons) has come on the fateful day but in the testimony before the Court, it has been stated that Maya Ram came along with 3040 persons. Similarly, she did not state to the police that she was beaten up by the accused persons or that her daughter Rekha and Sonu were thrown from the roof. She has also not stated to the police that a cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/ along with golden ornaments/bangles and one pair of pajeb ( silver), one tagdi ( silver), clothes, utensils and books of her children were taken away. There is also a contradiction in that she had not stated to the police that she along with her sister in law Babi were ousted from the house forcibly. The shop in question being on rent was also stated by her for the first time in the court. The injury on the person of Mr. FIR No. 411/95. 12 Of 15 Pramod Kumar was earlier stated to have been caused by the accused persons from a danda but later on same was stated to have been caused by the accused Vinod by a hockey.
It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu Versus Sait @ Krishna Kumar (2008) 15SCC 440 :
" in case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the Court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded."
It is also to be seen that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the five eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution inter se. The contradictions are not minor. PW3 Ram Niwas went to the extent in his crossexamination that the police gave beatings to the Pramod with danda and other family members were also beaten by the police. Similarly, PW6 Pramod Kumar deposed that during the quarrel he noticed the PCR standing on the main road. These facts regarding the police were deposed first time before the Court and creates a doubt as to what was the role of the police in this entire matter. Similarly, PW1 Kishan Kumar has deposed that accused persons has thrown Pramod, Rekha, Sonu and his wife from the roof on the ground. PW2 Smt. Ladeta has deposed that her daughter Rekha FIR No. 411/95. 13 Of 15 and Sonu were thrown from the roof. PW3 Ram Niwas has deposed nothing regarding this. PW4 Babi has deposed that the Bachhan were thrown from the roof. PW6 Pramod has deposed that he along with his sister in law and her children were thrown from the roof and consequently his leg was broken. So, it is not clear who were the persons thrown from the roof as there is contradiction regarding this in the testimony of different eyewitnesses. Also, why this fact was not stated by the witnesses to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has not been explained. Further, in case some people were thrown from the roof on the ground then they must have received injuries but there is only one MLC on record pertaining to PW6 Pramod Kumar who sustained the injuries in question on being beaten by the accused persons ( as per the statement to the police).
In view of the above, it can be safely said that it is not clear as to how many people came on the spot on the fateful day. It is also not clear as to what was the specific role of the accused persons. How the injury in question to Mr. Pramod was caused is also doubtful.
It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Mahender Pratap Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh ( 2009) 11SCC 334 :
" The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for FIR No. 411/95. 14 Of 15 disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
7. In view of the above, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the perspicuous conclusion is a resounding acquittal of the accused persons namely Maya Ram, Rajesh and Vinod for the offences under Section 452/325 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Dictated & Announced in the open Court on 15.04.2014 ( SUNIL GUPTA ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NE) KKD COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI FIR No. 411/95. 15 Of 15