Delhi District Court
State vs . Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors. on 3 February, 2012
State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No. 02403R0543522007
Sessions Case No. 128/09
FIR No. 108/07
PS Sangam Vihar
U/s 341/323/308/506/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi
S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o House No.
1623, IBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o House No.
1623, IBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Dharmender
S/o Sh. Ram Pal, R/o I9/803B, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Premwati
W/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o House No.
1623, IBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
_______________________________________________________________
Date of institution : 16.01.2008
Case received by way of transfer : 27.02.2009
Date when arguments were heard : 23.01.2012
Date of Judgment : 03.02.2012
JUDGMENT
As per case of prosecution, on 30.01.2007 at about 11.40 pm, SC No. 128/09 1/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
an information was received about a quarrel at House No. 803, BlockI, Gali No.9, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. It was recorded as DD No.21 and was marked to HC Jagan Nath. The latter reached at spot alongwith Ct. Goverdhan. The injured were reported to have been referred to AIIMS Hospital. IO went there but no such injured was found having admitted in the hospital. IO returned to spot. Neither any injured nor any eye witness met him there. On 31.01.2007, IO again went to AIIMS Hospital and procured MLC of injured Rajinder, Smt. Latesh and Narender. IO went to house of injured and recorded statement of Latesh Devi, who disclosed about incident as: " I am residing at address mentioned above (19/803A, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi). On 30.01.2007 at about 11.00 pm, I alongwith my younger son Himanshu aged about 9 years, had gone to the shop of my husband situated at Peepal Chowk. When I was returning to my house, I turned towards our house in gali. Laxmi, who was in inebriated condition, waylaid me and started abusing. After being objected by me, Laxmi Kumar rushed to his house and brought an iron pipe. I ran towards my house. In between, Laxmi Kumar, his younger brother Arvind and Dharmender came to me. Laxmi Kumar pushed me to the ground, by catching hold of my chignon. He hit me by iron rod on my left arm.
After hearing my shriek, Narender Singh (fatherin law) and Rajinder Singh (brotherinlaw) came at spot and tried to save me. Laxmi Kumar, Arvind and Dharmender started beating them also with iron rods. SC No. 128/09 2/9
State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
Both of them fell down on the ground. In between, Premwati (the mother of Laxmi Kumar and Arvind) reached there, who exhorted the accused calling them to kill us. Laxmi Kumar started beating my brother inlaw (Rajinder Singh), who suffered injury on his head. In his efforts to save himself, Rajinder Singh suffered injury on his arms. Arvind Kumar hit my fatherinlaw by iron rod. After that, all of offenders fled away stating that, that was enough for that day. All of them threatened to kill us."
IO made endorsement and got FIR in this case registered. After investigation of the case, police indicted all of accused for offences punishable U/s 341/323/308/506/34 IPC. All of accused were charged by order of this court dated 19.02.2008 for offences punishable U/s 341/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 308/34 IPC as well as 506 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, when charge was read over and explained to them.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Smt. Latesh as PW1, HC Om Prakash as PW2, Ct. Chandra Shekhar as PW3, Sh. Narender as PW4, HC Gayatri as PW5, Retired Ct. Subhash Chand as PW6, Ct. Goverdhan as PW7, HC Jagan Nath as PW8 and Dr. Venu Madhav R.K as PW9.
The accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C alleged the incident as disclosed by PW1 Smt. Latesh, as incorrect. All of them claimed that same were falsely implicated in this SC No. 128/09 3/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
case. The accused persons examined one Sh. Om Prakash as DW1, Mohar Singh as DW2, HC Krishan Kumar as DW3 and one Pratap Singh as DW4.
I heard Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for state and Sh. G.K. Tiwari, Advocate for all accused persons.
HC Om Prakash (PW2) deposed that on 31.01.2007, he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Sangam Vihar. On that day at 11.40 pm, Ct. Goverdhan brought to him a rukka sent by HC Jagan Nath on the basis of which, he registered FIR No. 108/07 in this case. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/A. Ct. Chandra Shekhar (PW3) stated about receipt of a call at 11.40 pm about a quarrel at House No. 803, Gali No.9, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. He recorded DD No. 21 in Rojnamcha. The investigation was marked to HC Jagan Nath, the Emergency Officer. This witness further disclosed about registration of DD No. 24 by him about injured having admitted in AIIMS Hospital on an information given by ASI P.M. Khan. Photocopies of DD No. 21 and 24 are Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. Ct. Goverdhan (PW7) verified the fact that he accompanied HC Jagan Nath on 30.01.2007 to the spot i.e. 19/803A, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. Injured were reported to have been referred to some unknown hospital by a PCR Van. PW7 also witnessed the IO having recorded statement of Smt. Latesh and again arrest of accused Laxmi Kumar in his presence. As per him, PW7 again joined SC No. 128/09 4/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
investigation on 04.02.2007 alongwith HC Jagan Nath. Accused Dharmender was arrested by them. The latter made a disclosure statement and got recovered an iron pipe from the roof of his house. It was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/H. All this is also verified by HC Jagan Nath (PW8). This witness recorded statement of complainant Latesh and made endorsement on it as Ex. PW8/A, on which FIR in this case was registered.
Dr. Venu Madhav R.K. (PW9) identified signatures of Dr. Arinditta Sinha on Xray Report of injured Latesh, Rajinder Singh and Narender having prepared by Dr. Arinditta Sinha which are Ex. PW9/A (of injured Latesh), Ex. PW9/B (of injured Rajinder Singh) and Ex. PW9/C (of injured Narender).
Complainant Smt. Latesh (PW1) in her statement before the court deposed that on 30.01.2007 at about 11.00 pm, when she was returning to her house alongwith her husband from Peepal Chowk, Gandhi @ Laxmi Kumar was seen standing there in intoxicated condition. After seeing him, she moved aside. Said Gandhi pulled her blouse from the backside and abused her. She did not react but managed somehow to move away. There was another boy, who took said Gandhi away from there. After that, five persons followed her to their house. They were armed with iron pipes. Same were Gandhi, Arvind, Dharmender, Arjun and Premwati. Gandhi threw her on the floor. On hearing her shriek, her SC No. 128/09 5/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw came out. Gandhi and Arvind assaulted her with iron pipes. Dharmender hit her brotherinlaw. She suffered injury on her palm of left hand. Her left forearm was fractured. Her fatherinlaw (Narender) and brotherinlaw (Rajinder Singh) tried to catch the pipe from the hands of accused but the accused persons started beating them with those iron pipes. Her brotherinlaw suffered injury on his head and sustained fractures in both of his arms. He became unconscious. Her fatherinlaw also suffered fracture on both of his arms. Then, Premwati came and started exhorting other accused not to spare us. Sh. Narender (PW4) is stated to be another eye witness of incident and also an injured. This witness also narrated the story that on hearing the cry of complainant, he came out of the house and tried to save the complainant, but accused persons assaulted him also. He suffered fracture on his left hand. Rajinder Singh sustained injury on his head.
It is contended by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that both of these witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW4 were eye witnesses of incident and also the injured. Both of them supported the case of prosecution. The complainant and injured are neighbours of each other and hence, their identity is not in dispute.
On the other hand, as per Ld. Defence Counsel, prosecution failed to prove its case. Ld. Counsel pointed out contradictions having croppedup in the statements of complainant recorded in court qua her SC No. 128/09 6/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
statement, on the basis of which, FIR in this case was registered. Again, as per Ld. Counsel, PW4 gave a different version. Contending that the husband of complainant had borrowed money from the accused persons, the former was not repaying said amount and on being asked by accused persons, it was husband of complainant who raised quarrel. Ld. Counsel referred Om Prakash (DW1) who is husband of accused Premwati and complainant Latesh is his sisterinlaw. DW1 stated on oath that Narender and his family members had taken Rs. 35,000/ from him in June 1984 and 1985. Same again borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/ in February and March. Said Narender was involved in a criminal case and he helped him by advancing said money. He again gave Rs. 65,000/ in year 199596 and further a sum of Rs. 75,000/. When he demanded money, Narender started quarreling with him and his sons. Mohar Singh (DW2) is also a relative of complainant and accused persons, claimed to have witnessed the incident. This witness stated about injury on himself and Dharmender, suffered while intervening in the quarrel. Pratap Singh (DW4) also claimed to have witnessed the incident. As per this witness, Rajinder, Narender and brother of Rajinder were quarreling with each other having consumed liquor. Gandhi came in between. As soon as he reached at spot, Narender asked "maar do saale ko" as he was asking for repayment of money. On that, 23 persons started beating Laxmi Kumar with fists and blows. Narender also exhorted his companions to kill SC No. 128/09 7/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
Gandhi.
From the statements of witnesses (PWs as well as DWs), it is clear that a fight took place between the accused persons on one hand as well as fatherinlaw of complainant and some other persons on the other. If complainant Smt. Latesh (PW1) is taken as true, accused Gandhi who was already standing there, abused her (the complainant) and pulled her blouse. He was taken away by some other boy, who was also standing there. It is not explained who was that boy, who took away accused Gandhi from the spot. When complainant reached near her house, five persons i.e. accused followed her there, armed with iron pipes. They started beating the complainant. On hearing her shriek, her fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw reached there. Sh. Narender (PW4) was fatherinlaw of complainant. He also claimed that on hearing her voice, he reached at spot. While he tried to intervene, he was assaulted by accused. In this way, PW4 had not seen what had happened till the time he reached at spot. Even as per complainant, she was accompanied by her husband as well as son Himanshu. None of these persons is examined by the prosecution as a witness, who could tell the story. As pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel, there are so many contradictions in the statement of PW1 and PW4. As per former, accused Premwati, the mother of co accused Arvind and Dharmender came later on and she simply exhorted the coaccused to kill the complainant, while as per Sh. Narender (PW4), SC No. 128/09 8/9 State vs. Laxmi Kumar @ Gandhi & Ors.
Arvind, Premwati and Arjun came together. As mentioned above, however, Sh. Narender (PW4) did not witness as how incident started but same narrated about accused Laxmi Kumar having abused Smt. Latesh and when she objected, accused Laxmi Kumar told her to teach a lesson. Same returned to his house and brought a pipe and hit the complainant with that pipe on her left hand. All this shows that Sh. Narender (PW4) tried to buttress the case of prosecution. There are material contradictions in the statement of complainant on the basis of which FIR was registered and her deposition in court.
No reason is explained as why prosecution did not opt to examine the husband of complainant Sh. Mahesh Babu or their son namely Himanshu or any other person from the public. It is not denied that the spot was a public place situated in thickly populated area and several persons witnessed the incident.
Considering the facts discussed above, in my opinion, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were aggressors. All of them are hence, acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court today (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI) i.e 3rd February, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East Saket Court: New Delhi SC No. 128/09 9/9