Delhi District Court
State vs Charan Singh S/O Late Sh. Girdhari Lal on 6 May, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS
(NORTH) DELHI
SC NO. 30/09
STATE
versus
1. Charan Singh S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o 414, Kashmiri Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi07
2. Jag Pravesh S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram
R/o 466, Kashmiri Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi07
3. Prem Chand S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o 414, Kashmiri Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi07
4. Smt. Indu Tomar W/o Sh. Jitender Tomar
R/o 411, Kashmiri Bagh, Kishan Ganj, Delhi07
FIR No. : 93/08
Offence U/S : 325/323/506/34
Police Station : Gulabi Bagh
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 3.09.2009
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 21.4.2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6.5.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons Charan Singh, Jagparvesh, Premchand and Indu Tomar have been facing trial for the offences punishable u/s 325/323/506 read with section 34 IPC S.C.No. Page 1 of 14 pages 2 vide FIR No. 93/08.
2. The prosecution version is that on 23.6.08 at about 6.15 p.m. at house no. 411, Kashmiri Bagh, Kishanganj, Delhi, all the four accused sharing common intention caused grievous hurt to Vinod Kumar s/o Iqbal Singh and simple hurt to Kaushal w/o Rajiv, Usha w/o Vinod and Rajiv s/o Iqbal Singh.
3. It is also alleged that accused persons criminally intimidated the complainant and injured thereby threatening them to kill. The FIR in the present case was recorded on 26.9.08 after the opinion was given by the doctor on the medical report of Vinod Kumar as grievous ( from ortho view point) and on the basis of report about the incident lodged by complainant Vinod vide EXPW2/1. The accused persons were chargesheeted for the offences punishable u/s 325/323/506/34 IPC.
4. On 9.12.09, charge was framed against the accused persons for the abovesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
6. PW1 HC Yoginder recorded the FIR of the present case vide EXPW1/1 on 26.9.08 being duty officer at PS Gulabi Bagh.
7. PW2 Vinod Kumar, the complainant deposed that on 23.6.08 at about 6.15 p.m, he was washing motorcycle outside his house. Accused Indu Tomar was returning from her office and said to him " Aa gaya kameena, ek to pita hi tha chappal se, doosra bhi pitega". Complainant asked her not to talk to S.C.No. Page 2 of 14 pages 3 him and called elders of her family at which Indu Tomar went towards house of her fatherinlaw. After sometime, accused Charan Singh, Jagparvesh, Prem Singh and five sons of Charan Singh came armed with dandas and attacked him. On hearing commotion, his sisterinlaw Kaushal came out and she was also abused and assaulted by the accused persons. His brother Rajiv also came there but he was also assaulted by the accused persons. Police came there on the basis of telephonic information given by his brother and they were taken to hospital for medical examination. Complainant further stated that his statement was recorded two months after the occurrence vide EXPW2/1. Site plan prepared in this case is EXPW2/2. According to the complainant, his father is involved in civil litigation with the accused persons on the issue of common toilet. He also filed complaint with respect to the incident in the court of metropolitan magistrate. During crossexamination, PW2 stated that he was working as Munshi on the day of occurrence. He did not mention in his statement the words uttered by Indu Tomar. The complainant was confronted with his statement EXPW2/1 on various aspects. He was discharged from the hospital on the day of occurrence itself. From the hospital he went straight to the police station but was advised to go back. He tried to give his complaint to the police but police did not write the same. He did not lodge any written complaint against police officials to any higher authorities even through the lawyer with whom he was working. He admitted that neighbours had collected at S.C.No. Page 3 of 14 pages 4 the time of occurrence. During crossexamination, he could not tell the date or the details of the complaint case filed by him before the metropolitan magistrate. His clothes as well as clothes of his brother got blood stained but same were not handed over to the police. After discharge from the hospital, he was sent to jail for 13 days and from the jail also he did not prefer any complaint about false implication. His brother Rajiv also remained in jail . He has no knowledge that accused persons got injured in the incident dt. 23.6.08 although he had seen the accused in the hospital. He had stated to the doctor who prepared MLC that accused persons had assaulted him. The neighbours had collected at the spot but he could not give their names. He admitted that water was lying scattered around the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith his brother Rajiv assaulted the accused persons with danda and saria and he and his brother sustained injuries while they slipped on the water.
8. PW3 Usha is the wife of complainant Vinod Kumar. She stated that on 23.6.08 on hearing noise she came out of her house and saw 78 persons beating her husband and brother in law with saria and danda. Some of those persons are accused present in the court. She herself sustained internal injuries and her sister in law Kaushal also sustained injuries. Police came and took all of them to hospital. She tried to narrate the incident to police but police did not listen to her. During crossexamination, she stated that her house was at a distance of one and half hour travel by motorcycle from the S.C.No. Page 4 of 14 pages 5 place of occurrence. Her statement was recorded twothree months after the incident. On the day of occurrence she had visited the house of Rajiv Kumar but on this aspect she was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. She was also confronted with other portions of her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. She further stated that she is not confirmed that any of the accused persons was carrying saria or not. She could not admit or deny that her husband and brother in law assaulted the accused persons with danda and saria and accused were simply defending themselves. She voluntarily stated that when she came out both the groups were quarreling. The clothes of her husband and brother in law got blood stained. They were taken to hospital alongwith the accused. She also visited the hospital with her husband but not disclosed to the doctor about assault. She denied the suggestion that her husband and brother in law assaulted the accused persons and caused injuries to Jagparvesh, Premchand and Charan Singh.
9. PW4 Rajiv Kumar deposed that on 23.6.08, he received telephone in his office that Indu Tomar was abusing his brother. On the way he called PCR. He reached home and found Charan Singh, Premchand and four sons of Charan Singh beating his brother Vinod with danda while Jagparvesh and Indu Tomar had caught hold of his wife. On intervention, he (PW4) was assaulted by Jagparvesh and his four sons. Usha did not suffer much injuries. Someone hit danda on his head from behind and the said danda also hit Jagparvesh. During S.C.No. Page 5 of 14 pages 6 crossexamination, he stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. He got discharged from the hospital on the morning of 24.6.08. He had given written complaint but could not produce the copy. He denied the suggestion that no such complaint was lodged by him. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused assaulted them. He had stated to the doctor who prepared MLC that he has been assaulted from behind by someone. He suffered injuries on the back of his head but did not lose consciousness. He did not suffer any other injury in the incident. His clothes got drenched with blood and blood fell on the ground also. He admitted that injuries were suffered by Jagparvesh, Charan Singh and Amit but stated that he cannot tell the details. He denied that accused persons were assaulted by them. His office was at Noida and it takes about 3045 minutes to reach his home from his office by motorcycle. He did not file any complaint in the court against the accused persons or police authorities.
10. PW5 Kaushal deposed that on 23.6.08 when Indu Tomar was abusing her brother in law Vinod, she called her husband and requested him to come early. Then on hearing noise, she came out and found Jagparvesh, Charan Singh, Premchand and their sons beating up her brotherinlaw Vinod. On intervention she was pulled in the scuffle. Indu Tomar caught hold of her. Jagparvesh snatched his dupatta and threw away the same. She was given fist blow in her eye by brotherinlaw of Indu Tomar. Usha was not present at that time and came S.C.No. Page 6 of 14 pages 7 subsequently and sustained injuries. During cross examination, she stated that she never went before any police authority to lodge the complaint. She admitted that civil litigation was pending between the parties. She did not see the scuffle between her brother in law, her husband and the accused persons. She admitted that accused persons sustained injuries in the incident.
11. PW6 constable Satish Chand joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO and got the FIR registered on the basis of rukka.
12. PW7 Dr. Ajay Bansal, posted with Hindu Rao hospital deposed that on 15.7.08 he examined notes of emergency medical officer ( ortho) and gave opinion as regard nature of injuries on MLC of Kaushal, Vinod and Rajiv vide EXPW7/AC. During crossexamination he admitted that such injuries could be possible by fall.
13. PW8 Dr Mukta Seth, posted as Sr. Resident Hindu Rao hospital gave opinion about nature of injuries on MLC of Usha vide EXPW8/A.
14. PW9 SI Ravi Kant deposed that FIR no. 59/08 was registered and opinion on the MLC of Vinod Kumar was received on 26.9.08 as grievous. He recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar and got the FIR registered. Thereafter investigation was handed over to SI Daljeet Singh. During crossexamination, he admitted that opinion on the MLC of Vinod was opined as simple from surgical side. On 23.6.08 Rajiv, Vinod, Usha, Kaushal did not get the report lodged.
S.C.No. Page 7 of 14 pages
8
15. PW10 Dr Dhanajay Kumar medically examined Rajiv
Kumar and proved his MLC EXPW7/C. He also examined
Usha and Vinod and proved MLC EXPW8/A & EXPW7/B.
16. PW11 ASI Daljeet Singh conducted further investigation of this case. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan EXPW2/2. He arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos and personal search memos EXPW11/AH and completed investigation.
17. PW12 Dr. D.D. Pathak proved MLC of Kaushal w/o Rajiv Kumar EXPW12/A. Thereafter Prosecution evidence was closed.
18. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein entire incriminating evidence has been put forth and explained to which they pleaded innocence and false implication. It is stated by accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in order to counter their case wherein they sustained injuries at the hands of complainant Vinod Kumar and his brother Rajiv. They preferred not to lead evidence in defence.
19. I have heard Ld APP for the State, Ld defence counsel Sh. Sanjay Suri and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the record.
20. It is argued by Ld APP that case of the prosecution stands proved with the testimony of complainant and other injured persons. The accused persons have been specifically named therein. Medical reports also corroborate that injuries were so sustained by the complainant and his relatives. The cross S.C.No. Page 8 of 14 pages 9 case has also been pending against the complainant and his brother and in fact both groups assaulted to each other.
21. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel argues that case of the prosecution suffers from inherent weakness and illegalities. Firstly there is delay in recording the FIR for which no reason has been brought forward. The accused persons have sustained serious injuries in the incident on 23.6.08 and in order to counter their case (FIR No. 59/08) the present FIR has been registered by the police without any justification. The prosecution in this case has failed to explain serious injuries sustained by the accused, the testimony of the witnesses are inconsistent and contradictory and therefore no reliance can be placed on the same. It is contended that accused persons be acquitted forthwith.
22. The incident is dated 23.6.08. It is evident that with respect to the incident, firstly the FIR No. 59/08 was recorded on the date of occurrence itself against complainant Vinod and his brother Rajiv and grievous injuries were sustained by accused Charan Singh, Jagparvesh and simple injuries were sustained by accused Premchand. The said case was registered u/s 308/323 IPC.
23. The present case was registered on 26.9.08. It is not disputed that accused and injured persons were examined at Hindu Rao hospital on the day of occurrence itself and while the accused persons were discharged on the same day, the accused Jagparvesh remained hospitalized. The complainant and his brother were arrested in FIR No. 59/08 on 26.6.08.
S.C.No. Page 9 of 14 pages
10
24. There is no explanation or justification given on the
aspect as to why opinion on the MLC of Vinod Kumar delayed for three months. The opinion has been given by doctor Ajay Bansal who has been examined as PW7. According to his testimony he examined the notes of emergency medical officer (ortho) and gave the opinion. There is no explanation as to why these notes were not produced before the doctor at the initial stage itself. There is no noting on the MLC EXPW7/B as on what basis the opinion 'grievous' has been given. However, on perusal of record, I find one x ray requisition slip of Hindu Rao hospital dt. 23.6.08 pertaining to complainant Vinod Kumar whereupon fracture of ulna is noted. However, at the same time it is noted thereupon that film poor quality cannot be commented upon. It has also been noted therein that x ray done after two months. In such circumstances, it is not clear as to which film was produced whereupon fracture of ulna was observed. The X ray plates filed on the record do not relate to the complainant by any oral or documentary evidence. On consideration of the record, I am of the opinion that opinion has been later manipulated in order to counter the cross case pending against the complainant and his brother. I find no justification for delay in the registration of the case and there is no basis to the prosecution version that on getting the opinion, case was registered.
25. Now coming to the testimony of the complainant and other injured persons, on evaluation and examination of the S.C.No. Page 10 of 14 pages 11 same , I find that they are inconsistent and contradictory and no credit can be given to their statements. PW2 Vinod Kumar complainant has improved upon his report lodged with the police and failed to completely support his report EXPW2/1. The words attributed to Indu Tomar in his testimony were not stated in the complaint. According to the complaint, the reason of the quarrel was that Indu Tomar objected to washing of motorcycle by him. The mention of criminal intimidation has also been made in the report. However, in the testimony, he has not mentioned about the objection to the washing of the motorcycle and about the alleged threats/criminal intimidation. It is clear that no complaint was lodged by the complainant immediately after the occurrence. The alleged blood stained clothes were also not handed over/seized by the police nor any mention of the bleeding is there in the medical reports of complainant and his brother. Complainant Vinod during crossexamination stated that he has no knowledge about injuries of the accused persons despite that he has been facing trial u/s 308 IPC for causing serious injuries to them in the incident. It is clear that complainant (PW2) is not trustworthy witness and has been changing versions to suit his convenience. PW3 Usha deposed that 78 persons were assaulting her husband and brotherinlaw but she could not specifically name the accused persons nor attributed the specific role played by the accused persons in such beatings. However, during cross examination, she could not withstand her statement and S.C.No. Page 11 of 14 pages 12 stated that she cannot admit or deny the suggestion that her husband and brother in law assaulted the accused persons with danda and saria. However, later she denied the suggestion that they assaulted accused Jagparvesh, Premchand and Charan Singh. PW4 Rajiv Kumar has also failed to give consistent testimony about the incident. According to him, he was hit on his head with danda by someone. He could not name specific person or accused responsible for hitting him. He admitted during cross examination that besides this, he did not suffer any other injury in the incident. He admitted having given written complaint about the incident but could not produce any such complaint. In this way, PW4 also failed to specifically narrate the details of incident and role played by each accused. PW5 Kaushal has given new facts by stating that she was pulled in the scuffle by Indu Tomar and Jagparvesh snatched her dupata. At no stage, such statement has come forward in the testimony of any of other witnesses. During cross examination, she admitted that she never went before any police authority to lodge the complaint and she did not see the scuffle between accused persons and complainant. She admitted that accused persons sustained injuries in the incident. In the circumstances, testimony of PW5 does not prove the case of assault against the accused persons.
26. The simple injuries were sustained by the complainant and other injured persons in the incident as per their medical reports whereas grievous injuries were sustained by the S.C.No. Page 12 of 14 pages 13 accused persons in the incident and that too on their vital body parts. The cross case pending against the complainant and his brother and defence pleas taken therein are totally different. The complainant and his brother have maintained defence pleas in the said case to the effect that the issue of quarrel was use of common toilet and bathroom. The complainant and his brother were discharged on the day of occurrence itself. On MLC of Rajiv ( PW4) beatings through fists and foot are noted and there is no mention of assault by danda. No complaint was lodged by them with respect to the incident immediately thereafter. It is clear that complainant and his relatives have managed to get the present case registered only as a counterblast to the criminal trial faced by them. There is no merit or substance in the version put forth by the complainant and his relatives.
27. In the face of contradictions, variations and improvements, in the statements of the complainant and other injured persons I hold that prosecution case has been completely demolished. It has not been proved that complainant Vinod sustained grievous injuries in the incident and his relatives sustained simple injuries in incident at the hands of the accused persons. None of the witnesses has deposed about the alleged threats as stated in the first information report. In this way there is no evidence with respect to offence of criminal intimidation against the accused persons.
28. In view of aforesaid discussions, I hold that prosecution S.C.No. Page 13 of 14 pages 14 has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6.5.2011 (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI S.C.No. Page 14 of 14 pages