Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar Etc. on 30 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MM-05, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Presided by : Ms. Aakanksha Vyas Cr. Case no. 11620/16 STATE Vs. Manoj Kumar etc. FIR No. 450/07 PS Krishna Nagar JUDGMENT:
a) Case No. : 11620/2016
b) Complainant : Ram Piyari
c) Name, parentage and address of : (1) Manoj s/o Sh. Mahipal Singh,
the accused persons. r/o 46/2D/1, Street No. 17,
East Azad Nagar, Delhi-51.
(2) Mahipal s/o Late Sh. Banwari
Lal, r/o 46/2D/1, street No. 17,
East Azad Nagar, Delhi-51.
(3) Goldy s/o Sh. Narottam Das,
r/o P-108, Gali no. 7, Shanker
Nagar Extension, Delhi-51.
(4) Narottam s/o Late Sh.
Banwari Lal, r/o P-108, Gali
no. 7, Shanker Nagar
Extension, Delhi-51.
(5) Chetan s/o Sh. Narottam
Das, r/o P-108, Gali no. 7,
Shanker Nagar Extension,
Delhi-51.
(6) Sonu s/o Sh. Santosh Kumar,
r/o 11/11, Gali no. 11,
Shanker Nagar Extension,
Delhi-51.
(7) Vakil s/o Late Sh. Ganga
Prasad, r/o P-108, Gali no. 7,
Shanker Nagar Extension,
Delhi-51.
d) Offences charged : U/s 452/323/506/34 IPC
e) Plea of accused persons : Not guilty
f) Date on which judgment was : 19.12.2020
reserved
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of decision : 30.01.2021
FIR No. 450/07 page 1 out of 8
FINAL ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the present case in which the accused persons herein namely Manoj Kumar, Mahipal Singh, Narottam Das, Goldi, Chetan, Wakil and Sonu have all faced trial for the commission of offences under sections 452/323/506/34 IPC. Briefly put, as per the chargesheet, the case of the prosecution is that on 8/10/2006, a call was made on PCR vide DD no. 32A regarding quarrel whereupon ASI Udaipal (hereinafter refereed to as the Investigating officer/IO) along with Ct. Upkar went to the spot i.e. H. No. 1160/E Gali no. 7 Shankar Nagar Extension Delhi and came to know that the injured had been shifted to the SDN hospital. As per the chargesheet, thereafter the IO went to the SDN hospital and collected the MLC of the injured namely Ram Pyari/complainant and Ashok. However the injured persons did not give their statements. Further as per the chargesheet, the complainant subsequently filed an application under section 156(3) CrPC in the court and upon direction of the court, the IO recorded the statements of the injured persons on 19/10/06 and subsequently on the direction of the court, FIR was registered on 22/9/2007 against the accused persons. The statement of the complainant on the basis of which the FIR was lodged is as follows.
The complainant Ram Pyari stated that on 8/10/06 when she was at her home, at about 8 pm, all the accused persons knocked the door of her house and when she opened the door, all the accused persons entered her house. Further, accused Narottam Das caught her hands while accused Goldi started beating her and asked her about the whereabouts of her son Ashok . The complainant further stated that she told the accused persons that her son was at Jheel Stand upon which the accused threatened her that 'tujhe nahi chodenge kaam tamaam kar denge'. The complainant further alleged that accused Goldi hit her left arm with a knife and beat her with fists and legs and thereafter all the accused persons ran towards jheel stand. The complainant further stated that after sometime, she also reached jheel stand where she saw that all the accused persons were beating her son. The complainant further stated that she took her son home and on the way she called PCR and thereafter they went to SDN Hospital for treatment. The complainant also alleged that her gold earring and Rs. 450/- were also taken away during the incident.
FIR No. 450/07 page 2 out of 8 2. Investigation was conducted and the abovenamed accused persons were
arrested and eventually chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons under sections 452/323341/506/34 IPC. Thereafter the accused persons were summoned and charged for the commission of offences under sections 452/323/506/34 IPC.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The complainant Ram Pyari was examined as PW1. Injured Ashok who is also the son of the complainant was examined as PW2. PW8 is the IO SI Udaipal Singh. PW7 is ASI Ompal Singh who assisted the IO during investigation on 9/10/07 and is a witness to the arrest of the accused Narottam Das and Mahipal. PW4 Ct. Rakesh assisted the IO during investigation on 9/10/07 and is a witness to the arrest of the accused Manoj, Chetan and Goldi. PW3 HC Ram Veer assisted the IO during investigation on 27/09/07 and is a witness to the arrest of the accused Sonu and Wakil. PW5 is DR. Ashiko Sazerou who proved the MLC of both the injured persons i.e. Ex. PW5/A and B by identifying the signatures and handwriting of the examining doctor thereon. PW6 is HC Sushil who had only a formal role in the investigation. Further, the accused persons admitted the registration of the present FIR (without admitting contents thereof).
The testimony of the PWs shall be discussed during appreciation of evidence.
4. Thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded U/s. 313 Cr.PC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication in this case by the complainant. Accused Manoj denied that the alleged incident had occurred and pleaded that PW2 Ashok had earlier stabbed him and in that regard FIR no. 300/06 was lodged at PS Krishna Nagar . Further PW2 Ashok was convicted in the said case and accused Manoj was awarded compensation of 50000/-. Accused Manoj pleaded that the present case had been lodged against the accused persons by the complainant as an act of revenge. The remaining accused persons also reiterated the plea of accused Manoj. In defence evidence, the accused Manoj examined himself as DW1. Thereafter defence evidence was closed and final submissions were heard. Ld. APP for state argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved in light of the testimony of the injured persons and their MLCs. Further the Ld. APP submitted that any inconsistency in the testimony of the PWs was minor in nature and did not impeach their credit. In other words, the Ld. APP contended that a holistic reading of the testimony of FIR No. 450/07 page 3 out of 8 prosecution witnesses shows that the offences charged are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused filed written submissions and contended that there were various inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the PWs which rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful and entitled the accused persons to a verdict of acquittal. Further, the Ld. Counsel also pointed out that even though the alleged incident occurred in a public place, no independent public witness was examined by the prosecution.
6. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged u/s 452/323/506/34 IPC. Therefore it is important to look at the said provisions. Section 452 IPC prescribes punishment for aggravated form of house trespass and provides as follows:
"Whoever commits house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
Section 323 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to someone. Section 506 IPC prescribes the punishment for criminal intimidation which is defined by section 503 IPC as follows:
"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. "
7. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant/PW1 is relevant and the chief examination of PW1 is reproduced below:
" I am residing at abovesaid address with my family. On 08.10.2006, at about
08.00 pm I was present at my house. On that day, at about 08.00 pm accused persons namely Narottam Das, Goldi, Chetan, Manoj, Sonu, Mahi Pal, Vakil along with their associates came to my house and started knocking door of my house loudly. On this I had opened the door of my house and accused persons had forcibly entered into my house. Accused Narottam Das hold my hand and accused Goldi had started beating me. They were asking FIR No. 450/07 page 4 out of 8 to me about my son Ashok. I had replied my son had gone to Jheel stand. On this accused persons had given threats to kill me. Accused Goldi had hitted me on my left hand by knife and they had also beaten me by legs and fits. Thereafter, the accused persons had run away towards Jheel Stand. I had chased the accused persons and also reached at Jheel stand where I saw abovesaid accused persons were beating to my son Ashok. I took my son and were going to my home and made a call on 100 number. We were taken to SDN Hospital where we were medically examined. Police officer recorded my statement which is Ex.PW1/A bears my thumb impression at point A. At this stage witness correctly identified to the accused persons namely Narottam Das, Goldi, Chetan, Manoj, Sonu, Mahipal, Vakil who are present in the Court.
At this stage, ld. APP seeks permission to ask leading question on some relevant point. Heard and allowed.
My one earing and Rs. 452/- had also missing in the abovesaid incident. It is correct that police officer had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B."
The testimony of PW2 Ashok i.e. the other injured person in this case is also relevant and his chief examination is reproduced below:-
" On 08.10.2006, I was present at Jheel Stand. On that day at about 9 pm all the accused persons present in the court today (correctly identified) had come to me and accused Narottam had caught my hand and remaining accused persons had beaten me with Danda and with fist and blow. My mother had also reached there and she made call on 100 number. Police had come at the spot and I was taken to the SDN hospital. My medical examination had not been got conducted on that day. On the same day in the night at about 2 am I was medically examined in the SDN hospital. My case was not registered by the police and case was registered through court."
8. A perusal of the above testimony of PW1 shows that PW1 has identified all the accused persons in the court and reiterated the averments of her complaint Ex. PW1/A. However during her cross examination, various facts have come on record which are inconsistent with the testimony of PW2 Ashok and also impeach the credibility of her own testimony. To begin with, as per the complaint Ex. PW1/A and the FIR No. 450/07 page 5 out of 8 chief examination of PW1, the accused persons had entered her house at around 8:00 pm. The complainant has testified that the accused persons asked her about the whereabouts of PW2 and after she told them that PW2 was at Jheel chowk, the accused ran towards Jheel chowk and she also chased them and when she reached there, accused were beating PW2. It is important to note that during cross examination, the complainant deposed that the distance between her house and jheel chowk was about 15 minutes. Yet during her cross examination, it has come on record that she reached Jheel chowk at about 10:00-11:00 pm. The fact that the spot namely Jheel Chowk where PW2 was allegedly beaten by the accused was only 15 minutes from the house of PW1 and yet PW1 reached the said spot only at 10:00-11:00 pm despite having following the accused persons to jheel chowk immediately, raises a strong doubt upon the story of the complainant. Moving on, during her chief examination, the complainant deposed that from Jheel chowk, she took PW2 and was going to her home and called on 100 no. But during her cross examination, she deposed that from Jheel chowk , she came alone. This is again a major contradiction as it raises a suspicion about the presence of the complainant at the time when PW2 was allegedly beaten by the accused persons at Jheel Chowk. A suggestion to this effect was also given to the complainant during her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. Further, the record shows that while the incident in question occurred on 8/10/06, the complaint was recorded on 19/10/06 i.e. only a few days after the occurrence of the alleged incident. Though this delay has not been explained by the complainant/PW1 in her chief examination, it is pertinent to note that it has come on record during the testimony of PW8/IO that the said statement was recorded on the direction of the court after an application was filed by the complainant under section 156(3) CrPC on 10/10/06. Now the IO/PW8 has deposed in his testimony that both the injured had not given their statement on the day of the alleged incident and further that he had visited their house several times but they had did not given any statement. It is trite to state that a delay on the part of the complainant in giving his or her statement regarding the incident that has occurred for unexplained reasons gives rise to a strong possibility of fabrication. I now turn to the testimony of complainant /PW1 on this aspect. In her cross examination, the complainant deposed that her statement was recorded in the hospital. Further even upon being suggested otherwise, the complainant affirmed that her statement was recorded in the hospital. But later on the FIR No. 450/07 page 6 out of 8 complainant has vacillated in her testimony and during cross examination, the complainant deposed that she had not given any statement on 8/10/06 as the police were not recording the correct version. Even if that be the case, this fact is not mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A or in his testimony. When the complainant was confronted with this fact during cross examination, the complainant has deposed that her statement was not read over to her and being illiterate, she cannot tell whether this fact was recorded or not. However this explanation only appears to be an afterthought as the complainant subsequently deposed during cross examination that she did not make any complaint to the police. The factual position which therefore emerges is that even though the complainant and PW2 were beaten by the accused persons on 8/10/06, the complainant chose not to make a statement to the police on that day or even immediately thereafter, as also affirmed by the testimony of PW8/IO. This substantial and unexplained delay also raises a strong doubt upon the case of the prosecution.
I have also noted the injuries suffered by the complainant as per her MLC i.e. Ex. PW5/A. The said MLC reflects three injuries namely (i) 'clw' on left arm (ii) bruises on both knees and (iii) swelling on left index finger. It is also pertinent to note that as per the said MLC, the nature of injury suffered by the complainant is simple and blunt. The complainant has however deposed that accused Goldi had hit her on her left hand by a knife. Leaving aside the semantics qua arm and hand, the fact remains that the nature of injury suffered by the complainant is blunt and not sharp despite her testimony to the contrary. Further, PW5 was also not cross examined on this aspect by the prosecution. The other injuries of the complainant are bruises on knees and swelling in a finger which can be caused by any reason.
10. I now turn to certain specific contradictions which emerge from the testimony of PW2. PW2 has deposed that accused persons had beaten him with Danda and fists and blows. However the complainant/PW1 who was present when PW2 was being beaten has not deposed that PW2 was beaten by danda. Further, in his previous statement to the police i.e. Mark A, PW2 has even stated that accused Goldy had put knife on his neck. Further the MLC of PW2 I.e. Ex. PW5/B shows that PW2 was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged incident. Even PW1 admitted this fact during her cross examination but PW2 denied this fact during his cross examination. In light of the above facts, the credit of PW2 is severely impeached and his testimony does not appear to be creditworthy. The prosecution has also strongly relied upon the FIR No. 450/07 page 7 out of 8 MLC of PW2 in support of the case of the prosecution. I have carefully perused the same and noted the various injuries reflected therein. However the MLC even though an important piece of evidence cannot be the sole basis for accepting the testimony of PW2 as genuine when the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is otherwise riddled with so many discrepancies and contradictions as discussed above. Further, I have also noted that in the abovesaid, MLC it was observed that the PW2 had been advised examination of the eye on 9/10/06 but he did not turn up for the same even as on 17/11/06 and final opinion was only given in 2007. This failure of the injured/PW2 to follow up on his MLC is also suspicious. Apart from the above, it is also pertinent to mention that DW1/accused Manoj has deposed that one FIR no. 300/06 under section 308 IPC was got lodged against PW2 by accused Manoj. This fact is more or less admitted by the injured persons. Having said so, the possibility of the present case being a counter to the abovesaid FIR also cannot be ruled out.
11. In light of the preceding discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations of the injured persons have not been proved on record beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused persons stand acquitted of the offences charged.
Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA VYAS AAKANKSHA Location: Karkardooma
Announced in the open court on VYAS Courts, Delhi
Date: 2021.01.30 12:59:35
+0530
this day i.e. 30.01.2021 (AAKANKSHA VYAS)
MM-5, East, KKD Courts, Delhi
30.01.2021
FIR No. 450/07 page 8 out of 8