Delhi District Court
State vs . Devender @ Lapoti on 19 December, 2019
FIR No.152/18
State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti
Police Station : Sultan Puri
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 422/2018
CNR no. : DLNW010071102018
State
Vs
Devender @ Lapoti
S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/O E6/109, E2/450, Sultan Puri
Delhi
FIR No. : 152/18
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Section : 307/328/354/420/452/34 IPC
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 04.07.2018
Date when judgment reserved : 19.12.2019
Date when judgment pronounced : 19.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case under section 307/328/354/420/452/34 IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that this FIR was registered on the complaint of Ms. Manisha wherein she stated that on 03/03/2018 at about 9:30 p.m. two boys namely Akshay and Lapoti trespassed in her house and caught hold of her and assaulted her. She raised alarm on which Akshay caught hold of her and Lapoti poured chemical used Page No. 1 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri for mopping purpose in her mouth and they also criminally intimidated her. She was shifted to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri where she received medical treatment. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out by the police. Clothes of complainant and bottle of chemical were seized. Accused Devender @ Lapori was arrested. Other accused persons could not be arrested. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet qua accused Devender @ Lapoti was filed in the Court.
3. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
4. Vide order dated 12/12/2018 charge under Sections 452/354/328/307/506/34 of IPC against was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in total 8 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
6. PW3 Ms. Manisha is the complainant, PW4 Sh. Sagar is the husband of complainant, PW6 Smt. Meenu,mother in law of the Page No. 2 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri complainant. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW2 ASI Arvind Kumar was the duty officer who proved FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW2/A, ExPW2/B and Ex. PW2/C respectively.
8. PW5 Ct. Sachin has deposed in sync with PW7 SI Amit with whom he remained in the investigation.
9. PW7 SI Amit was the IO of the case. He has deposed that on receipt of DD no. 36A Ex. PW7/A he alongwith Ct. Sachin went to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he found Manisha, W/o Sagar under treatment vide MLC no. 3550/18. On 04.03.2018, he again alongwith Ct. Sachin went to hospital and recorded statement of Manisha Ex. PW3/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW7/B and collected gastric lavage of victim Manisha alongwith sample seal from the hospital. He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter he got the case registered. On the same day i.e. 04.03.2018, he went to the spot E2/422, Sultanpuri, Delhi, where he met Sagar, husband of Manisha and prepared site plan Ex. PW7/A at the pointing of Sagar and seized clothes of victim Manisha and bottle containing some drops of chemical used for moping vide seizure memo Ex PW4/DB. On 08.03.2018, he got recorded the statement of victim Manisha U/s 164 Page No. 3 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri Cr.P.C. Ex. Pw4/B vide application Ex. PW 7/C and obtained copy of her statement vide application Ex. PW7/D. On 09.03.2018, he arrested accused Devender @ Lapoti on identification of Manisha vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/DA and took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW7/E and produced the accused in the court on 10.03.2018. Thereafter sent the exhibits to FSL and later on collected FSL result which is Ex. PW1/A and obtained result on MLC Ex. PW7/H from the doctors in which the nature of injuries was opined as simple. He searched for accused Aksay and Chotu and prepared chargesheet against accused Devender U/s 307/328/354/450/452/34 IPC and filed it in the court.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
10. PW1 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Delhi has deposed that on 04/05/2018, three sealed cloth parcels 1,2,& 3 were received in the office of FSL and the same was marked to him and examined by him. He proved report as ExPW11/A. As per his report on chemical, microscopic, TLC, GCHS and GCHSMS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, traquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in the exhibits.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
11. PW8 Dr. Vipin Dabas, Medical Officer Incharge, Asha Kiran Page No. 4 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri Home, Avantika has deposed that on 3/3/2018 he has examined one lady Manisha w/o Sagar who was brought by her husband with alleged history of physical assault after that she ingested some substance for suicidal attempt. He proved MLC as ExPW7/H and opined the nature of injury as simple and collected sample of gastric lavage and referred the patient to SR Medicine for further management.
ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES
12. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for the accused and have perused the material available on record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is argued that the complainant and other public witnesses have not identified the accused and they have not supported the case of prosecution and hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
14. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has controverted the contentions of Ld. Counsel for defence.
FINDING OF THE COURT
15. As stated above this FIR was registered on the complaint of Ms. Manisha w/o Sh. Sagar in which she stated that on the fateful day her Page No. 5 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri two neighbours namely, Akshay and Lapoti criminally trespassed into her house and they started altercation with her and when she screamed for help, she was caught by Akshay and the other boy namely Lapoti poured some chemical in her mouth and they left away after threatening to kill her.
16. The said Manisha has been examined in court as PW3 and she has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that on the fateful day, it was occasion of Holi, and some boys of locality entered her house and applied gulal on her person but she objected to the same. She raised alarm and her husband and mother in law also came there and in the meantime one of the boys poured some liquid on her head and some drops of the same also got poured in her mouth. She felt uneasy and she was taken to hospital. She further deposed that she did not know the name of the said boys who entered her house and applied colours on her. She could not identify accused Devender @ Lapoti in court.
17. Since she was not supporting the case of prosecution, she was cross examined at length by Ld. Addl.PP for the State in which she denied the suggestion of the State that accused Lapoti, present in the court, trespassed into her house on 3/3/2018 at about 9:30 p.m. or that he together with is accomplices caught hold of her or that he molested her or that when she raised alarm, he administered chemical forcibly in her mouth. She further denied the suggestion of the State that the accused were arrested in her presence and regarding her Page No. 6 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri signatures in the arrest memo, she stated that police officials obtained her signatures on papers and she further denied the suggestions of he State that she has been won over by the accused.
18. In her cross examination by Ld.counsel for the defence, she categorically stated that accused Lapoti, present in the court, was not among the boys who had entered her house or misbehaved with her.
19. Sh. Sagar (husband of complainant) and Smt. Meenu (mother in law of the complainant) have been examined as PW4 and PW6 respectively and they have also not supported the case of prosecution at all.
20. PW4 Sh. Sagar has deposed that on the fateful day, it was occasion of Holi and some boys entered his house and started misbehaving with his wife by applying colour on her despite her unwillingness and in the melee, some liquid of colour got poured in her mouth and she started feeling uneasy. He took her to hospital where she got medical treatment. He further deposed that he did not know the name and addresses of those boys who entered in his house and misbehaved with his wife.
21. PW6 Smt.Meenu has deposed that at the relevant time his son Sagar was living with his wife in a separate accommodation and she did not know anything about the incident in question. She further deposed that it was only about 7:00 p.m. on that day, while Sagar was Page No. 7 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri present at his house, he received a phone call of his wife and subsequently she went to the hospital and Manisha was out of danger.
22. Since both the said witnesses i.e. PW4 Sh. Sagar and PW6 Smt. Meenu were not supported the case of prosecution they were also cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but nothing could come out in the cross examination of the State.
23. It is not out of place here to mention that the testimony of the remaining witnesses only relates to the investigation of this case and in view of the non identification of the accused by the material witnesses, there is nothing on record to connect him with the offence in question.
24. It is relevant here to state that when Manisha was taken to SGM Hospital Mangol Puri, Delhi on 3/3/2018, her MLC ExPW7/H was prepared by the doctors and in the alleged history, she told "physical assault today at around 21:30, after that she ingested some unknown poisonous substance for suicidal attempt, as told by herself".
25. This alleged history to the doctors about ingestion of some unknown poisonous substance for suicidal attempt makes her complaint ExPW3/A to the police highly doubtful and this doubt gets fortified as she has not supported the case of prosecution in her testimony before the court and she has failed to identify the accused as well.
Page No. 8 of 11 FIR No.152/18State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri
26. She was taken to hospital on 3/3/2018 and she gave her complaint ExPW3/A to the police on the next day i.e. on 4/3/2018 and there is nothing on record to explain the said contradiction in her statement.
27. When the contradictions are material in nature, it has been held in Tehsildar Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012 :
Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings so state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements.
28. In the present case, in my view, the contradictions mentioned above are vital in nature and it goes to the root of the matter and there is nothing on record to explain about the same and hence this witness does not appear to be reliable, dependable and trustworthy.
29. In my view, in view of the above, after the examination of all the said three public witnesses and other witnesses including IO SI Amit (PW7), no purpose would have been served by recording the remaining prosecution evidence because the testimony of remaining witnesses was formal in nature and even if the remaining witnesses Page No. 9 of 11 FIR No.152/18 State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri were examined, it would make no difference to the case since the injured persons could not identify the accused and there is no recovery from the accused the prosecution would not have been able to prove its case by any stretch of imagination.
30. Hence, the examination of the remaining witnesses which were formal in nature would have been futile exercise and of no purpose. Life and liberty of an individual is very precious and the accused cannot be allowed to face trial only for examination of witnesses, whose examination would make no difference to the case of prosecution by any imagination.
31. Hence, in totality PE was closed by the court and since there was nothing incriminatory against the accused on record, SA was dispensed with.
32. In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence".Page No. 10 of 11 FIR No.152/18
State Vs. Devender @ Lapoti Police Station : Sultan Puri
33. In view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, both the accused persons are acquitted from the charges framed against them.
34. The accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount u/s 437A CrPC.
35. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the state and the same may be destroyed after the period of appeal and if appeal is preferred, subject to the order of Ld. Appellate court.
36. Time is sought by the accused for furnishing bail bond u/s 437A CrPC.
37. Put up on 20/12/2019 for the same.
Announced in the open court on this 19th day of December, 2019 (Deepak Garg) ASJII, NorthWest Rohini: Delhi Page No. 11 of 11