Delhi District Court
State vs . Bimla Devi on 30 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH ARUN KUMAR GARG: MM04(SE)
/SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Bimla Devi
Unique Case ID: 02406R0147062013
FIR NO. : 96/13
U/S : 289/324 IPC
PS : Govindpuri
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 167/2/2013
b) Date of institution of the case : 27.05.2013
c) Date of commission of offence : 14.02.2013
d) Name of the complainant : Pooja D/o Sh. Ram
Nagina R/o B935,
Transit Camp,
Govindpuri, New Delhi
e) Name & address of accused : Bimla Devi W/o Sh.
Puran Lal R/o B949, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi
f) Offence charged with :U/s 289/324 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 1 of 9 h) Arguments heard on : 14.05.2016 i) Final order : Acquitted j) Date of Judgment : 30.05.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. On 14.02.2013, on the complaint of one Ms. Pooja, an FIR no. 96/13 was registered against the accused at PS Govindpuri u/s 289/324 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused under Sections 289/324 IPC on 27.05.2013. As per charge sheet, allegations against accused are that on 14.02.2013 at about 09.20 PM in front of house no. B949, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, New Delhi, the complainant had failed to take proper care of her dog and on her provocation, her dog had bitten the complainant at her left thigh and caused simple injuries. After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 289/324 IPC were framed against the accused on 04.10.2013, to which she did not Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 2 of 9 plead guilty and claimed trial.
2.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Complainant was examined as PW1, whereas DO ASI Yad Ram was examined as PW2. HC Sukram Pal, who had allegedly taken the complainant to hospital has been examined as PW3. ASI Ashok Kumar, first IO of the case was examined as PW4, whereas the second IO SI Satish Kumar has been examined as PW5. Sh. Ajit Singh, Record Clerk from AIIMS Hospital was examined as PW6, who has identified the signatures of Dr. Virender Pratap Singh on MLC of the complainant. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Resident at AIIMS Hospital was examined as PW7 to prove the opinion on the MLC on behalf of Dr. Virender Pratap Singh.
3.Prosecution has relied upon the following documents which were tendered in evidence by the aforesaid witnesses:
Ex. PW1/A: The complaint given by the complainant to SHO PS Govindpuri.
Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 3 of 9 Ex. PW2/A : FIR No. 96/13 dated 14.02.2013 PS Govindpuri Ex. PW2/B : Endorsement made by DO on the Rukka Ex. PW4/A: Rukka prepared by PW4 IO/ASI Ashok Kumar Ex. PW4/B: Site Plan prepared at the instance of complainant Ex. PW4/B: FIR No. 1462/15 dated 13.11.2015 PS Govindpuri.
Ex. PW5/A: Seizure memo of the photographs and documents of vaccination of dog of accused Ex. PW5/B : Arrest memo of the accused. Ex. PW5/C : Disclosure statement of accused. Mark A & B: Documents of vaccination of dog Ex. P1 and P2: Photographs of the dog of accused Ex. PW6/A: Authority letter in favour of PW6 signed by MS, AIIMS Ex. PW6/B: MLC of the injured prepared by Dr. Virender Pratap Singh Ex. PW7/A: authority letter in favour of PW7 signed by MS, AIIMS.
Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 22.03.2016 and the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 4 of 9 03.05.2016 after putting entire incriminating evidence to her .
Accused chose not to lead any evidence in her defence and as such the matter was fixed for final arguments.
4. Final arguments on behalf of parties were thereafter heard on 14.05.2016. It is submitted by Ld. APP for state that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts through the testimony of PW1 to PW7 and as such accused should be convicted under Sections 289/324 IPC.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. He submits that the testimony of PW1 in the court is contrary to the version given by her in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. He submits that as per complaint the time of incident was 9.20 PM on 14.02.2013, whereas, as per her testimony in the court, the complainant has given the time of alleged incident as 9.45 pm on 14.02.2013. Besides, Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 5 of 9 according to him, as per complaint dog had bitten the complainant at three places, whereas, the complainant has failed to give the number of injuries during her deposition in the court. According to him, there is contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW3 as to the time when the complainant was taken to hospital. He submits that prosecution has failed to prove on record that the bite marks, if any, on the leg of complainant were caused by any dog much less the dog of accused. He thus submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and is entitled to be acquitted of all charges.
6.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record. The comparison of the stand taken by the complainant in the complaint Ex. PW1/A with her testimony in the Court shows several material contradictions/improvements in her deposition before the court. A bare perusal of the complaint made by the Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 6 of 9 complainant to police shows that the complainant had alleged that the accused caught hold of the complainant and provoked her dog with the sound "su" to bite the complainant, whereas during her deposition before the court she stated that she was caught by the daughter of accused and accused left her dog on the complainant and provoked the dog by saying "le le kha ja". In the complaint to the police Ex. PW1/A, there is no whisper about the fact that the complainant was coming back from the toilet alongwith her mother, but during her deposition in the court she stated that while returning from the toilet, she was accompanied by her mother, who had separated the dog from the complainant. Though, in her complaint to police, PW1 stated that she was bitten at three places on her left thigh but during her deposition in the court she has stated that oil and chilli was applied by daughter of accused on the bite mark at one place only. In the MLC Ex. PW6/B, the doctor had failed to give any opinion as to whether the bite marks noted by him on the Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 7 of 9 left thigh of the complainant were caused by any dog, though, in the alleged history written in the MLC, as per complainant's mother she was bitten by neigbouror's dog. The said doctor who had examined the complainant and prepared the MLC was never examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to collect/adduce any scientific evidence on record that the alleged bite marks on the left thigh of the complainant were caused by the dog of accused otherwise than the balt statement of complainant, whose testimony is not free from doubts in view of contradictions/improvements noted hereinabove. No independent public witness has been examined by the IO to corroborate the stand taken by complainant despite the fact that as per complainant a number of public persons were present at the spot at the time of alleged biting of complainant by dog of the accused.
7.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and Judgment dated 30.05.2016 FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri State v. Bimla Devi 8 of 9 benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the story of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
8.In the case in hand, there are several contradictions/deficiencies/lacunae in the prosecution story which are giving rise to serious doubts about the veracity of the case set up by the prosecution and hence, in my considered opinion, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
9.Thus, the accused is hereby acquitted of charges under Sections 289/324 IPC.
10.Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this 30h day of May, 2016. This judgment consists of 09 signed pages.
(Arun Kumar Garg)
MM04(SE)/Delhi /30.05.2016
Judgment dated 30.05.2016
FIR No. 96/13 PS Govindpuri
State v. Bimla Devi 9 of 9