Delhi District Court
State vs Rajneesh Sharma@ Sonu on 21 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. AISHWARYA SINGH
KASHYAP, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MM06),
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
STATE Vs RAJNEESH SHARMA@ SONU
CR NO: 84341/2016
FIR NO: 415/2015 PS Seemapuri
CNR No.: DLSH020061992015
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu
S/o Satish Sharma
R/o H.No. F-99B/100, Dilshad Colony, New Seemapuri,
Delhi.
... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Puspender
2. Name of Accused person :- Rajneesh Sharma
@ Sonu
3. Offence complained of or :- 324/341/506 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 13.03.2015
offence
6. Date of Registration of case :- 12.08.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 21.08.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 21.08.2023
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Factual Matrix
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 13.03.2015 around 5:30 PM in a park within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri, Sh. Puspender (hereinafter 'the complainant') along with his son were on a walk and the children of the colony Page 1 of 9 AISHWARYA Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:04:18 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 were playing in the near vicinity. The children had a squabble during their play and the complainant scolded his son however, in the meanwhile, one boy's father namely Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu (hereinafter 'the accused') came there and without asking anything, wrongfully restrained the complainant and started pushing him due to which the complainant fell down. The complainant already had a fracture in his leg and used a hockey to walk. The accused snatched the hockey of the complainant and started hitting the complainant with it whilst threatening him and his children with life. The walkers in the park saved the complainant. As such, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under section 323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC'), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Seemapuri.
Investigation and Trial Proceedings
2. The accused entered appearance before this court and in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") he was supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
3. Thereafter, upon finding prima facie case against the accused, charge under Section 323/341/506 of the IPC were served upon the accused on 03.07.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
4. During the trial, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 2 of 9AISHWARYA SINGH Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:04:38 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Sh. Pushpender (complainant) PW2 :- HC Ajeet (Police Witness) PW3 :- ASI Rakesh Kumar (IO) PW4 :- Dr. Susheel Bansotra PW5 :- HC Pathpal (DO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of Complainant Ex C1 :- Copy of FIR Ex C2 :- 65B Certificate Ex. PW2/A :- Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW2/B :- Personal Search memo of accused Ex. PW3/A :- Rukka Ex. PW3/B :- Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW3/C :- Site plan Ex. PW4/A :- MLC of complainant
5. Pushpender (PW-1) is the complainant and star witness of the prosecution. His testimony is vital in the present case being the only eye-witness. However, it is riddled with material inconsistencies thereby rendering it unreliable as discussed hereinafter.
6. ASI Rakesh Kumar (PW3) is the IO in the present matter who reiterated the prosecution version and denied the suggestion that he did not properly investigate the case. The accused was correctly identified by the IO.
7. During the course of trial accused had admitted the recording and genuineness of FIR (Ex C1) as per the mandate of Section 294 CrPC therefore, PW 4 at LOW was accordingly dropped.
Page 3 of 9AISHWARYA Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:05:02 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016
8. Rest of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in the table above however, they are formal in nature being police witnesses. The prosecution failed to bring on record the testimony of any independent/other public persons on record.
Statement of Accused
9. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of accused was recorded without oath on 10.07.2023 under section 313 CrPC without oath. In response, the accused denied all the allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter thereby pleading innocence. The accused did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
10. Rival submissions were heard on behalf of the accused as well as the State. Whilst Ld. APP for the State sought conviction on the ground that all the ingredients of the offence stood satisfied in the matter and the case of the prosecution was established beyond reasonable doubt, Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the same citing unsubstantiated version of the prosecution in view of lack of independent witnesses, lack of recovery from the accused and unreliable testimony of the complainant and prosecution witnesses stating that the complainant falsely implicated the accused who stood acquitted in the false case filed by the wife of the complainant.
Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by AISHWARYAAISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:05:45 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 Ingredients of the Offences Involved
11. In order to establish the offences as mentioned hereunder, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients and the scales of degree of proof essential in a criminal trial is proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Section 323 IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
13. Section 341 IPC: Punishment for wrongful restraint:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
14. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation defined in Section 503 IPC: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Page 5 of 9AISHWARYA SINGH Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:06:18 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Burden of Proof
15. Our criminal jurisprudence postulates that burden of proof of commission of the offence lies on the prosecution and the offence committed must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must satisfy all the essential ingredients of the offence by the accused as per the version of the prosecution.
Material Inconsistencies
16. The version put forth by the prosecution has material inconsistencies that raise doubts in the mind of the court. As per the complainant, who is the star/primary witness of the prosecution, the incident happened in a public park where the accused hit the complainant with his own hockey stick and other walkers in the park came to the rescue of the complainant. The complainant failed to specify the details of the injuries received by him- site of injury or nature of injury. The allegations made by the complainant with respect to threat extended by the accused varies materially from the version made on oath before the court during the recording of his evidence. It is also pertinent to mention that there is delay in filing the FIR wherein the incident is of 13.03.2015 whereas FIR was registered subsequently on 16.03.2015. This fact assumes relevance juxtaposed with the fact that during his cross-examination by the accused, it was revealed that the wife of the accused had also filed a case against the complainant with respect to the same incident however, the complainant failed to mention any such detail in his complaint. Additionally, in the complaint, it is alleged that the accused threatened the complainant at the spot whereas during his examination-in-chief, the complainant deposed on oath that accused forced the complainant to take back his case through someone else.
Page 6 of 9AISHWARYA SINGH Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:07:05 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 No further details of the mode of threat or the identity of the person through whom the threat was executed was revealed by the complainant.
Lack of Independent Witnesses
17. Considering the public nature of the place of incident, especially keeping in mind the fact that the complainant was allegedly rescued by people present in the park, it is circumspect that the police did not bring on record any independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. The relevant excerpt of the cross-examination of the IO is being reproduced hereunder:1 It is correct that I have not obtained the signatures of complainant on the site plan. It is correct that I had not met any eye witness of the incident in the park when I visited there. I had told the complainant to produce any witness of the incident but he did not produce.
Lack of Recovery of Hockey Stick
18. The complainant stated in his complaint that he was already having a fracture therefore, he was carrying a hockey stick to walk in the park which was subsequently used by the accused to hit him. However, in his examination-in-chief before the court on oath, the complainant failed to mention the detail with respect to the fracture in his leg at the time of incident. Herein, recovery of hockey from the accused was important for establishing the case of the prosecution. However, neither the said hockey stick was recovered nor any details of said hockey stick was given during the trial.
Lack of Corroborative Medical Opinion
19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid details, it is also pertinent to mention that no such detail of any fracture is found on the MLC of 1 Cross-examination of PW3/ASI Rakesh Kumar on 02.03.2023.
Page 7 of 9AISHWARYA SINGH Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:07:33 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 the complainant prepared on the same date of incident which is Ex. PW4/A wherein nature of injury is found to be 'simple' with the remarks 'Abrasion on L Elbow'. It is improbable to believe that a man with a fracture being hit by another grown man by a hockey stick would escape unscathed but for a minor abrasion on his elbow. As per the testimony of PW4/Dr. Susheel Bansotra, abrasion means in common language 'Kharonch'. It was also reiterated that other than the same, no other injury was mentioned in the MLC. Be that as it may, in view of lack of independent/other eye witnesses or other corroborative material on record, there is no cogent evidence to prove that even the said abrasion was caused by the accused in the present case. Therefore, shrouding the testimony of the witness as well as the reliability of the present investigation with doubt.
20. The cumulative result of the aforesaid deliberation underscores the fact that in the instant case, the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the case of the prosecution. The entire investigation of the case does not inspire confidence before the court based on the inconsistencies and lacunae as aforementioned wherein it is apposite to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences and prove their commission by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision
21. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences by bringing on record cogent evidence and independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is hereby found not guilty and acquitted of the offences Page 8 of 9 AISHWARYA SINGH Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:07:59 +05'30' State vs. Rajneesh Sharma @ Sonu Cr. Case No. 84341/2016 punishable under Section 323/341/506 of the IPC.
ORDER: Acquitted Accused shall furnish personal bond and surety bond as per the mandate of Section 437A CrPC upon which previous bonds shall be cancelled and previous surety shall be discharged.
Announced in Open Court on 21.08.2023.
(This judgement contains 9/Nine signed pages.) AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2023.08.21 18:08:35 +05'30' (Aishwarya Singh Kashyap) MM 06/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi 21.08.2023 Page 9 of 9