Delhi District Court
Fir No. 273/11; State vs . Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 1 Of 37 on 28 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 69/11
FIR No. 273/11
P.S. Saraswati Vihar
U/S: 392/394/452/397/34
IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Radhika @ Kalima
w/o Sh. Mari Muttu
r/o C104, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(2) T. Ramesh
s/o Thirumani
r/o C104, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi
Date of Institution: 09092011
Date of arguments: 28022014
Date of judgement: 28022014
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 11072011, on receipt of DD no. 68B, SI Surender Kumar along FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 1 of 37 with Ct. Kuldeep reached A35, Lok Vihar, Pitampura where crowd was gathered and two ladies with blood oozing from their bodies were taken out from the house by public and beat staff and their names were revealed as Shanti Devi and Veena. One more lady was apprehended by public and beat staff whose name was revealed as Radhika. Smt. Veena was saying that Radhika and her husband Ramesh had caused injuries to them. Smt. Veena in QRT vehicle and Smt. Shanti Devi in PCR van were shifted to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital by SI Surender and Ct. Kuldeep and beat staff were left at the spot. Smt. Veena Guglani was admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 934/11 and Smt. Shanti Devi was admitted vide MLC no. 935/11 and doctor declared them fit for statement.
2. In her statement, Smt. Veena Guglani stated that she was residing at A35, Lok Vihar along with her husband Ramesh and mother in law Smt. Shanti Devi and his husband was having his work of hosiery at Sadar Bazar. As usual, her husband left the home at 8:30 am for work and she along with her mother in law were alone in the home. One maid Radhika worked in her house for about one month and she had left the work about two months back. On 11072011 at about 12 pm, Radhika along with her daughter Laxmi came to her house and requested to keep her daughter for FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 2 of 37 work and when complainant refused, she went away. At about 2:30 pm, Radhika along with her daughter again came at their house and after drinking water, Radhika returned back as complainant had work to do. At about 3:30 pm, Radhika again visited their house and said that she had forgotten her mobile in the house. After taking the mobile and drinking water, Radhika returned back. At about 6:15 pm, Radhika again rang the door bell of complainant and asked for water and complainant went in kitchen to bring water. When complainant brought water, Radhika had come inside the house. Radhika was accompanied with one another person and she told complainant that he was her husband and asked water for him also and he was also given water. Radhika asked complainant to employ her husband in factory and complainant told Radhika that she would talk to her husband. But instead of going, that person namely Ramesh pulled complainant towards the puja room and started throwing her head on the floor and gave her beatings and pressing the neck of complainant. Despite resistant by complainant, Ramesh continued to beat her. In the meantime, complainant heard the screaming of her mother in law. Radhika also came to the complainant and started giving her beatings with the walking stick of her mother in law.
FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 3 of 37
3. It is the further case of prosecution that in the meantime, after hearing the screaming of her mother, neighbours raised alarm and after hearing the noise, Radhika and Ramesh ran towards the back door. When complainant rescued herself, she saw her mother in law lying in the lobby in a pool of blood. Complainant bolted the inside doors and raised alarm through jalidar door and dialled at 100 number. The police and neighbour came there in a short time. Meanwhile, Radhika and Ramesh broke the lock of back door. Radhika was apprehended near the under construction house and Ramesh managed to flee away. SI Surender inspected the spot and found lot of blood in the lobby and broken glass pieces having blood were lying there and iron walking stick was also lying there. Blood was also lying near the room adjoining lobby towards right side. Blood stained gloves were found near the wooden almirah in the room adjoining bedroom towards left side and blood was also lying on almirah, floor and other places. The lock of back door was found broken. FIR u/s 393/394/452/34 IPC was registered.
4. In the meantime, QRT Incharge ASI Daya Nand, PS Rani Bagh produced one person at the spot and told that he was running on Road no. 44 and people were shouting behind him 'pakdopakdo'. On seeing the blood on his clothes, he apprehended FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 4 of 37 that person with the help of staff and on inquiry, he came to know that crime at Lok Vihar was committed by him. On inquiry, the name of that person was revealed as T. Ramesh. Both accused gave disclosure statements and both were arrested in this case. On their pointing out, stick, wiper, stool, broken lock with blood stains at back door were seized by the police. Supplementary statement of Smt. Veena was recorded on 19072011 and statement of Smt. Shanti Devi was recorded on 20072011. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Smt. Veena. Smt. Veena disclosed that her ring and Rs. 8,000/ which were kept in kitchen were looted by accused Radhika and Ramesh. Smt. Shanti Devi disclosed that accused Radhika asked for keys from her and when she showed her ignorance, she was beaten by accused Radhika and then she took out the key kept under the TV and took search of almirah kept in the other room and also searched kitchen. Initially, accused Radhika hit Smt. Shanti Devi with dandi and when she fell down, she left her and when she was standing, Radhika again gave beatings to her. Section 392 IPC was added later on. The doctor gave the result on the MLC as grievous. Accused T. Ramesh refused for her TIP. The money and ring could not be recovered despite search. During PC remand, Smt. Veena identified T. Ramesh. Bloodstained clothes of Smt. FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 5 of 37 Veena and Smt. Shanti were obtained and blood stained clothes of accused were also taken into possession. Call details of phone no. 9953900755 and 9582549091 of accused Radhika and T. Ramesh were obtained. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 392/394/452/397/34 IPC was filed against both accused.
5. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 452/392/394/397/34 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 19 witnesses. PW2 Smt. Veena Guglani, in her testimony, proved her statement Ex. PW2/A; her MLC as Ex. PW2/B; her discharge summary as Ex. PW2/X; discharge summary of her mother in law as Ex. PW2/Y. PW2 also identified one aluminium chowki as Ex P1; one aluminium stool as Ex. P2; one walking stick as Ex. P3; one plastic wiper/ pocha as Ex. P4; one white dupatta, one red shirt and one bra, all smeared with blood as Ex. P5 (colly) which were seized by the doctor in the hospital; one double bed sheet of yellow and white colour and one sofa cover both smeared with blood as Ex. P6 (colly); one printed saree of white and blue colour, one blue colour blouse, one white colour petticoat and one multi dupatta, all FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 6 of 37 smeared with blood as Ex. P7(colly); pieces of glass as Ex. P8 which was hit by accused Radhika on the head of her mother in law and one lock make Laxmi as Ex. PW2/P9 which was on the back door of her house and broken by the accused persons. PW3 ASI Tej Singh, in his testimony, proved the FIR as Ex. PW3/A. PW4 SI Matadin Meena, in his testimony, proved his report as Ex. PW4/A. PW5 Ct. Parvinder, in his testimony, proved CD as Ex. PW5/A and photographs as Ex. PW5/B1 to B40. PW6 Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha, MM Rohini Courts, in his testimony, proved TIP proceedings of accused T. Ramesh as Ex. PW6/A; application of IO for TIP as Ex. PW6/B and application for supply of copy of TIP as Ex. PW6/C. PW7 Dr. Sanjay, SR, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, in his testimony, proved MLC of Smt. Shanti Devi as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 Ct. Shree Krishan, in his testimony, proved seizure memo of moving stick and wiper used by the accused persons as Ex. PW8/A; seizure memo of broken pieces of glass as Ex. PW8/B; blood stained bed sheet and bangles as Ex. PW8/C; broken blood stained lock as Ex. PW8/D; two aluminium stools as Ex. PW8/E; arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Radhika and Ramesh as Ex. PW8/F1 and F2 and Ex. PW8/G1 and G2. PW8 also identified plastic gloves smeared with blood as Ex. PW8/P1 recovered at the instance of FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 7 of 37 accused Ramesh near the wooden almirah of the room; white pants and red lining shirt smeared with blood of accused Ramesh and saree having blue colour flower print, petticoat of koka colour and one blouse of accused Radhika as Ex. PW8/J which were taken into police possession; one maroon/ red shirt having white strips Ex. PW12/P1 and one off white pants Ex. PW12/P2 of accused Ramesh; one saree, one blouse, and one petticoat Ex. PW12/P3 of accused Radhika.
7. PW9 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer from Vodafone, in his testimony, proved CDR of mobile no. 9582549091 for the period 08072011 to 12072011 in the name of Baby as Ex. PW9/A; CAF as Ex. PW9/B; her ID proof as Ex. PW9/C and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW9/D. PW9 also proved CDR of mobile no. 9953900755 for the period 08072011 to 12072011 in the name of Shiv Shankar as Ex PW9/E; CAF as Ex. PW9/F; ID proof as Ex. PW9/G and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW9/H. PW10 HC Vikram Singh, in his testimony, proved entry no. 3537 of register no. 19 as Ex. PW10/A; RC no. 111/21/11 as Ex. PW10/B and copy of acknowledgement of FSL as Ex. PW10/C. PW12 HC Parveen Kumar, in his testimony, proved seizure memo of sample of blood lying at the spot as Ex. PW12/A; FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 8 of 37 seizure memo of two pullandas containing clothes of victim Veena and Shanti Devi handed over by doctor at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital as Ex. PW12/B; pointing out memo by both accused of place of occurrence as Ex. PW12/C; one maroon/ red shirt having white strips Ex. PW12/P1; one off white pants Ex. PW12/P2 of accused Ramesh; one saree, one blouse, and one petticoat Ex. PW12/P3 of accused Radhika. PW13 Dr. Manideepa, MO, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital proved the MLC Ex. PW2/B of injured Veena. PW15 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, in her testimony, proved her biological report as Ex. PW15/A and serological report as Ex. PW15/B. PW17 SI Surender Kumar, in his testimony, proved the tehrir prepared by him as Ex. PW17/A; site plan prepared by him as Ex. PW17/B; site plan of the spot from where different exhibits were lifted as Ex. PW17/C. PW19 Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia, Traffic Inspector, Narela, in his testimony, proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW19/A.
8. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Initially, both accused opted to lead defence evidence but later on they declined to lead defence evidence.
FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 9 of 37
9. I have heard Ld. Amicus Curiae for both accused and the Ld. APP for State and have perused the written submissions/ arguments & the reported judgements and entire records.
10. The Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case by PW1 and PW2 as the accused Radhika worked as a domestic help in their house and she was demanding the dues of Rs. 1200/ of her work from Veena for the services which she had rendered as domestic help in their house but the said money was not paid to her. No public witness was joined despite their availability during investigation. The phone and mobile numbers as alleged do not belong to the accused and not obtained by them. No blood group of accused persons, complainant was got checked by the IO from the doctor/ Lab to ascertain whether it was human blood or not and belongs to whom. There is violation of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and PP Rules 24:1. The TIP was delayed and accused T. Ramesh was shown to complainant and his photographs were also taken and published in newspaper. Section 392/394/397 and 452 IPC are not attracted against the accused. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. The investigation has been not been fairly conducted. All the writing work was done while sitting in the PS. In support of his FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 10 of 37 arguments, Ld. Amicus curiae relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Ajmer Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana II1989 (1) Crimes 424; Raj Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2011 [4] JCC 2818; Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of MP (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 744; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Teja Singh and Ors., 2001 II AD (SC) 125; Ajesh Kumar Vs. State, 2010 (1) Crimes 320 (Del.); Jafar Malik Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 160 (2009) DLT 224 and N. J. Suraj Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2005 (2) ACR 2141 (SC).
11. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has proved on record through its witnesses that the accused persons committed robbery and accused caused grievous injury by hitting the head of Veena Guglani on the floor and also glass, waling stick and wiper on the head and other parts of body of Smt. Shanti Devi. The accused cannot take benefit of faulty investigation, if any. The accused persons can even be convicted on the sole testimony of a witnesses/ injured if their testimony is trustworthy and reliable and corroborates with the other evidence. Even otherwise, PW1 and PW2 have also identified both the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by way FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 11 of 37 of oral testimony of PWs as well as the medical and forensic evidence. The Ld. APP for State, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhanda, AIR 2011 SC 200; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).
12. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons had committed the offence as charged or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW1 Smt. Shanti in her examinationinchief stated that she used to reside at A35, Lok Vihar, Delhi along with her son Ramesh Guglani and his wife Veena Guglani on the ground floor. On 11.7.2011, accused Radhika came to their house at about 9.00/10.00 am who was employed by her daughterinlaw Veena for domestic household work for few days in her absence. At that time, PW1 was staying with her younger son in Delhi. Accused Radhika asked for water from Veena and she gave her a glass of water. Accused Radhika left her mobile phone under the centre table which was lying in the lobby of their house. Thereafter, she left from their house. Accused Radhika came to their house after some time and FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 12 of 37 told Veena that her mobile was left in the house. Her daughter in law Veena told accused that her mobile was not left at their house. Accused Radhika told that she left her mobile under the table. On search, the mobile was found from under the table and Veena after opening the gate handed over the mobile to accused Radhika. Thereafter, accused left from there. After some time, accused Radhika again came to their house and demanded cold water from her daughterinlaw Veena but same was not given to her. Thereafter, accused Radhika left.
13. PW1 further stated that at about 6.00 pm, on the same day, accused Radhika again came to their house when they were sitting in the lobby after finishing the tea. Accused Radhika told them that she was going to her house and again demanded cold water while sitting on stairs in front of gate of their house. Accused Radhika was visible to her. PW1 also stated that her daughterin law Veena gave her water to accused Radhika after opening the door of their house. Accused Radhika again demanded water from them. In the meantime, accused Radhika gave signal to somebody from outside. The said person entered their house and stood behind PW1. Both the accused blocked the gate of their house. Accused Radhika blocked the net door ( jali ka darwaja) and the other person FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 13 of 37 blocked the wooden door. Accused Radhika demanded a glass of water for the said person. The said person remained standing there behind PW1. PW1 further stated that she could not properly see his face. Accused started making inquiry at what time her son would come as she was interested in the employment but Veena informed her that her son will come late to the house and asked accused to leave the house. PW1 further stated that said person caught hold neck of her daughterinlaw Veena and accused Radhika bolted both the doors of their house. Accused Radhika gave fist blows on her face, head and left shoulder as well as hit the glass on her head and pushed her forcefully due to which PW1 fell down. The lights of their house were off at that time. Blood started oozing out from her head. Accused Radhika entered in the bedroom of their house. PW1 remained keep quiet but she was watching the same. Accused opened the drawer of the TV trolley and asked PW1 for keys of almirah. Accused Radhika took out the keys from the drawer and went in the room. The jali door of her bedroom was slightly opened by chance. The other associate of accused Radhika was giving beating to Veena. When PW1 tried to move towards the said jali door to raise alarm, accused Radhika came to her (PW1) and beaten her with a stick badly due to which her hand got multiple FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 14 of 37 fracture and thereafter got operated and during operation, rod was inserted in her left hand. PW1 also deposed that even, she could not lift a glass of water with her left hand. During her examinationin chief, the Court observed that the left hand of the witness particularly all the fingers were not properly moving and seemed to be not in working condition.
14. PW1 also stated in her examination in chief that some lady from the upper floor came down and after hearing some noise from their house, she asked "Kaun hai". After hearing the noise of said lady, both the accused ran towards the back courtyard of their house and her daughterinlaw Veena bolted the door of bed room from inside. Both the accused started breaking the back gate made of iron of their house to escape but they could not succeed. Her daughter in law called the police from landline number for help and also informed about the incident to son and daughter of PW1 and her brother. Police immediately came to their house along with Ambulance. Public persons of the locality also gathered outside their house. Veena took the police officials to backside of their house to show both the accused but they escaped from their house after breaking the door. One another house from the backside of their house was under construction where labour was working. Accused FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 15 of 37 Radhika stood between the labour of the said house where construction work was going on and stated that she was one of the labourer. Police apprehended both the accused persons in the gali. Police made inquiry from her and recorded her statement. Police took PW1 and Veena to hospital for medical examination, where stitches were put on her injuries. Son of PW1 also reached in the hospital and requested the police to shift PW1 and Veena to a private hospital. Thereafter, they were shifted to a Private hospital at Punjabi Bagh. PW1 was admitted in ICU Ward and she remained admitted there for about 10 days. Her left hand was got operated and steel rods were inserted in her left hand. Her hand was also got plastered. PW1 also stated that she did not know whether accused persons took away any article from their house.
15. During crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae, PW1 stated that nobody except her, Veena and her husband used to reside at her house. PW1 stated that she is owner of only ground floor premises whereas the building is upto four storeys and different families reside there. PW1 stated that she was sitting in the lobby and used to sit in the lobby mostly. Veena was inside the room whereas, PW1 was sitting in the lobby. PW1 further stated that Radhika had worked for about a month at their house in her FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 16 of 37 absence and she used to take leaves frequently and because of that she was discontinued from work. PW1 denied the suggestion that Radhika did not inflict blow of glass on her head or that she fell on the broken glass and aluminium stick lying on the ground and she received injuries. PW1 stated that all the neighbours came at their house after the incident. Construction work was going on just opposite the house of PW1 in the gali and it was just close to their house. PW1 denied the suggestion that Radhika and T. Ramesh did not visit even once in their house for drinking water or else or she did not left her mobile phone under the table. PW1 further denied that she can lift glass of water from her left hand or that her fingers were in proper working condition. PW1 further denied that Radhika and her husband were falsely implicated in this case by her and her daughter in law as accused Radhika had worked as a domestic help in their house and was repeatedly demanding the due money of Rs. 1200/ of her work from her daughter in law for the services rendered as domestic help in their house and the said money was not paid by her daughter in law. PW1 further denied that Radhika neither gave any signal to anybody nor any person entered their house. PW1 denied that Rahika did not give fist blow on her face, head and shoulder or that hit any glass on her head. FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 17 of 37 PW1 further stated that after beating given by accused Radhika, she fell on the ground. PW1 also denied that she fell down of herself and no beatings were given by accused Radhika to her. PW1 denied that accused Radhika did not ask her for keys of almirah or she did not take out the keys from the drawer. PW1 denied that other associate of accused Radhika did not give any beating to Veena as he was not present at the spot. PW1 further denied that her daughter in law Veena attacked on accused Radhika first with knife and accused Radhika received knife blow on her hand as accused Radhika was demanding her dues for rendering domestic work in their house. PW1 denied that her daughter in law received injury during scuffle between her and Radhika. PW1 further denied that other associate of accused Radhika was not present at the spot. PW1 also denied that accused Ramesh visited the spot when he received the call from his wife Radhika who went to Veena for taking her due money and she started fighting and gave knife blow upon accused Radhika. PW1 denied that when the other associate of accused Radhika visited the spot, police in connivance with her son and dever falsely implicated accused T. Ramesh in this case after giving beatings to him.
16. PW2 Veena Guglani in her examinationinchief stated FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 18 of 37 that on 11.07.2011 at about 11.00-11.30 am, accused Radhika who had worked at their house for about one month, came to her house along with her daughter aged about 12/13 years. She asked her to give a glass of water and also requested her to provide employment to her daughter in some house. PW2 offered her water and also told her that she could not provide any job to her daughter permanently. Radhika kept her mobile under a table in their house. Thereafter, both of them left the house. PW2 further stated that again, she visited her house at around 1.30/2.00 pm. She told her that her mobile phone was left inside the room of her house. PW2 searched mobile lying under the table and handed over the same to her. Thereafter, she left. Again she visited around 2.45/3.00 pm to her house and asked for water. PW2 also deposed that she got annoyed upon her and asked why she was coming again and again to her house and told her that she should take water from elsewhere. PW2 did not open her door and thereafter she left. PW2 further deposed that at around 6.15 pm, Radhika again came and rang the door bell. PW2 asked her why she had come again. She told her that she had not talked with her properly, so she had come again. She again demanded glass of water from her. Radhika sat in the staircase and PW2 opened the door of lobby and handed over FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 19 of 37 a glass of water to her. She again demanded one more glass of water. PW2 again went inside the house to fetch a glass of water, but did not bolt the door of the lobby. Accused Radhika along with one other person entered her house. PW2 asked Radhika about the relation of that person with her on which she told her that he was her husband and also asked PW2 to bring a glass of water for him. PW2 also offered him a glass of water. PW2 asked Radhika to leave the house as she had to perform pooja. They remained stood there. Radhika requested PW2 to arrange a job for her husband in their factory. PW2 told her that she would talk with her husband in this regard when he will return in the evening. Radhika talked to that person in her own language, which PW2 could not understand. PW2 asked Radhika to leave her house as her husband was not at home and will return at about 8.30 pm.
17. PW2 further deposed that the accused who was present in the court, dragged her inside the room and started hitting her head with the floor of the house. He hit her head with the floor 34 times. PW2 could not understand what was happening with her at that time. Thereafter, accused Ramesh put his hand in her mouth and opened her mouth forcibly. Her two front teeth got broken at that time and the third one was removed in the hospital. When PW2 FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 20 of 37 tried to shut her mouth to save herself, accused took out his hand from her mouth. Thereafter, accused Ramesh started strangulating her from her neck by making pressure. PW2 started raising alarm 'bachaobachao'. Someone from upstairs heard her noise. Some one from upstairs came down and peeped through the door of the jali and asked who was that one. The said person raised alarm and persons of the gali gathered outside her house. Accused Radhika brought walking stick of her motherinlaw and she hit on her forehead, head and near her ears. When persons of the locality started collecting there, both of the accused entered in the back side of her house to conceal themselves. PW2 stood up immediately and bolted the door of both the rooms, so that accused persons could not enter inside the room. PW2 made a call to the police from her landline number. PW2 also made a call to her husband and her daughter. When PW2 bolted the door of her room, she saw that her motherinlaw was lying in the lobby in the pool of blood. PW2 opened the door and called for the help from the persons of locality. In the meantime, a police gypsy reached at their house. PW2 brought the police inside her house. When PW2 went inside the house with the police, she found the latches of the door in the uprooted condition and saw that both the accused fled away from FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 21 of 37 their house. PW2 along with police persons made search for the accused persons in the gali. She noticed Radhika was standing amongst the labours in some under construction building in their gali. PW2 pointed out towards Radhika to the police. Radhika informed the police that she was saving her and she had also received injuries. Police apprehended Radhika. Police called ambulance from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and shifted her mother inlaw to the hospital. Police had took her to the hospital in the gypsy. PW2 was given first aid treatment in the hospital. SHO of police station also reached there. Statement Ex.PW2/A of PW2 was recorded by the police in the hospital itself. Her family members along with relatives also reached in the hospital and they requested the doctors to shift them to some other hospital for better treatment.
18. PW2 further stated that thereafter, both of them were shifted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. PW2 along with her mother inlaw were admitted in the Emergency Ward of the said hospital. PW2 remained admitted in the Emergency Ward of the said hospital for four days, whereas her motherinlaw remained admitted for about six days. PW2 also deposed that on 19.07.2011, she was discharged from the hospital and her motherinlaw was discharged on 20.07.2011. On 19.07.2011, police came to her house and she FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 22 of 37 pointed out the place of occurrence to the police. When PW2 made search of household articles, jewellery as well as cash amount, she found missing one plastic box containing gold ring and around Rs. 8000/ in cash, which were lying in the kitchen. Police also took photograph of the blood marks on the almirah as well as other place of the house. PW2 identified one aluminium chowki as Ex.P1, one aluminium stool as Ex.P2, one walking stick as Ex.P3, one plastic wiper/pocha as Ex.P4, one white dupatta, one red shirt and one bra, all smeared with blood as Ex.P5 (colly.), one double bed sheet of yellow and white colour and one sofa cover, both smeared with blood as Ex.P6 (colly.), one printed saree of white and blue colour, one blue colour blouse, one white colour petticoat and one multi dupatta, all smeared with blood as Ex.P7 (colly.) and pieces of glass as Ex.P8. PW2 further identified one lock make Laxmi as Ex.PW2/P9. PW2 stated that she and her motherinlaw were initially taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi and her MLC Ex. PW2/B was also prepared there, wherein she had put her LTI & RTI. PW2 also stated that both accused had robbed at her house and assaulted her and her motherinlaw Smt. Shanti Devi Guglani and had taken away the cash and other valuable which she had stated earlier.
FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 23 of 37
19. During crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae, PW2 stated that on 11072011, Radhika came to her house thrice prior to the time of incident on the same day and she came total four times. PW2 gave employment to Radhika in her house as maid servant in the month of March/ April, 2011. PW2 volunteered that Radhika had only worked for a month in their house. PW2 stated that her mother in law was not living with her at that time and she was residing with her another son when maid was engaged. PW2 stated that when accused Radhika came to her house in the evening, there was light in their house. PW2 stated that she along with her husband and mother in law resided in her three storeyed house. PW2 stated that there are 23 houses in the street in which their house is situated. When PW2 was shouting 'bachaobachao', some person from the upper floor came down after hearing her screams but she could not tell their names and descriptions. PW2 denied the suggestion that photographs of the accused persons published in the newspaper were shown to her by the IO on 20072011. PW2 stated that at the time of incident, she along with her mother in law were sitting in the lobby. PW2 stated that her mother in law can see correctly without spectacles. PW2 stated that in her statement to the police Ex. PW2/A, she did not state that her FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 24 of 37 cash of Rs. 8,000/ and one ring were taken away by the accused persons, however, on 20072011, when she was discharged from the hospital, she found missing the aforesaid articles and she told to the IO in her subsequent statement. PW2 denied that both the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case by her and her mother in law as accused Radhika had worked as maid in their house or she was repeatedly demanding the due money of Rs. 1200/ of her work from her for the services she rendered as maid or that they had not paid the said amount to her. PW2 also denied that accused Radhika did not give fist blow on her head and shoulder. PW2 also denied that accused Ramesh did not give any beating or that he was not present at the spot. PW2 further denied that she attacked accused Radhika first with knife blow or that she received injury on her head.
20. PW1 and PW2 both the injured in the occurrence are the relatives. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It cannot FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 25 of 37 be said that a witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1). Similarly, in the case of Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 2989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that the relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. Reason has to be shown when plea of partiality is raised to show that witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
21. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence for determining if the accused is convicted or acquitted. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 26 of 37 Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 has not only inspired confidence but also trustworthy which can be relied upon and the same has also been supported by MLC Ex. PW2/B and PW7/A of the injured.
22. PW13 Dr. Manideepa, Medical Officer, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital in her examinationinchief stated that on 11.07.2011, she was posted at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital as CMO. On that day, she medically examined one Veena vide MLC Ex. PW2/B who was brought by Ct. Surender with alleged history of physical assault and observed multiple injuries on her face, hands and mouth. The injured was referred to SR surgery, SR ortho and Dental specialist for further management. PW7 Dr. Sanjay, SR (Surgery), Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi in his examinationinchief stated that on 11.07.2011, Smt. Veena was brought in the Casualty by SI Surender at about 7.11 pm with FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 27 of 37 alleged history of physical assault and she was referred to his Surgery department by Dr. Mani Deepa. On local examination, PW7 found following injuries:
1. CLW of 2 x .5 cm over left pinna;
2. CLW of 2 x .5 cm over left forehead;
3. CLW of 1 x .5 cm over right forehead;
4. Swelling bruises as well as blackening were found on the left eye;
5. Lower central incisors (teeth) were found missing;
6. Right and left lateral incisors (teeth) were found loosening;
7. Scalp haematoma was found present on right fronto parietal region;
PW7 further stated that after treatment in his department, the injured was referred to high centre for neurosurgical opinion and further management as patient was having head injury. PW7 proved MLC Ex. PW2/B.
23. PW7 further stated that on the same day, at about 7:12pm Smt. Shanti Devi aged 80 years was brought in the Casualty of the hospital by ASI Kaptan Singh with alleged history of physical assault. The patient was referred to Surgery department by Dr. Mani Deepa. On local examination, PW7 found following injuries:
1. Bilateral haematoma present on scalp on occipital region;FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 28 of 37
2. CLW measuring 6 x 1 cm present on bilateral parito occipital region;
3. CLW measuring 2 x .5 cm present on leave parietal region;
4. CLW measuring 3 x 1 cm over left hand;
5. Deformity found present on the left hand;
PW7 further stated that after treatment in his department, the injured was referred to high centre for neurosurgical opinion and further management as she was having head injury. PW7 proved the MLC as Ex. PW7/A bearing his writing and signatures at encircled portionA and signatures at pointB.
24. PW15 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi in her examinationinchief stated that on 08.09.11, Eleven sealed parcels in case FIR no. 273/11, PS Subhash Place were received in FSL, Rohini, Delhi. The parcels were tallied with the specimen seals forwarded along with the parcels. On opening the said eleven parcels, their contents were examined and PW15 found blood on exhibits 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6,7,8,9,10, 11a, 11b and 11c. On serological examination of above mentioned exhibits, blood of Group B was found on Ex.1, 2a, 4b, 5b,5c, 9, 10 & 11b. PW15 proved his detailed biological report as Ex. PW15/A and detailed FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 29 of 37 serological report as Ex. PW15/B. After the examination, the said exhibits were again sealed with the seal of FSL MU Delhi. PW6 Vijay Kumar Jha (DJS), MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi also conducted TIP of accused T. Ramesh in Rohini Jail. Accused refused to participate in the TIP.
25. During crossexamination, PW8 stated that one hand of accused Radhika was smeared with blood. PW8 denied the suggestion that Radhika and T. Ramesh were falsely implicated in this case by the IO at the instance of Hansraj Guglani, complainant's husband, complainant Veena and Shanti Devi. PW8 further denied that T. Ramesh was not arrested as alleged or that he came to the spot on receiving call from his wife Radhika that she was beaten by Veena and her mother in law or that Veena had given knife blow to her. PW8 also denied that T. Ramesh was beaten by them and by the family of complainant. During crossexamination, PW11 did not find the victim at the spot. PW11 volunteered that he handed over the custody of accused to the IO outside the said house. PW11 denied the suggestion that neither he with the help of his staff apprehended the accused nor handed over the custody of accused to the IO. PW11 also denied that he did not visit the spot on the relevant day or that he was deposing at the instance of IO be a FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 30 of 37 police official. In crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, PW12 denied that the wireless information received by him was to the effect that one lady was given a knife blow. PW12 reached at the spot i.e. A35, within 57 minutes after receiving the wireless information. PW12 stated that when after apprehending accused Radhika, they reached at the spot, IO SI Surender along with Ct. Kuldeep had already reached there and H. No. A35, Lok Vihar was three storey at that time. PW12 stated that rear side door was not in broken condition and only lock was found broken. PW12 denied that accused Radhika told him that she had sustained bleeding cut injury on her right hand palm due to knife blow inflicted by Veena. PW12 further stated that his statement recorded by the IO was read over to him by IO. PW12 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or did not join the investigation or that no accused was apprehended by him or in his presence or that nothing was recovered from the spot or that no information was received by him on wireless regarding the incident that one lady was beaten at A35, Lok Vihar. PW12 denied that he received information by wireless that one lady was stabbed with knife. PW12 also denied that accused Ramesh was beaten by IO and relatives of the victim or that clothes of Ramesh and Radhika bear their own blood. PW12 FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 31 of 37 denied that he had signed all the documents while sitting at PS or that deposing falsely at the instance of IO being interested witness or that accused Ramesh was arrested from the spot itself as he came to save his wife from the clutches of Veena. In cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW14 stated that his statement was recorded at the spot after 9:30 pm. Statement of Ct. Shri Krishan and HC Parveen were also recorded in his presence after recording his statement. PW14 stated that he had entered H. NO. A35, Lok Vihar and there were 2/3 rooms in the said house and it was having three storeys. PW14 denied the suggestion that Radhika had told the IO that the said injury was inflicted to her with a knife by Veena. No knife was recovered from the spot. PW14 stated that IO did not recover anything else except wooden stick, plastic wiper, pieces of glass, wooden stool and gloves in his presence. PW14 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot along with SI Surender.
26. During crossexamination, PW16 denied the suggestion that she did not visit the spot or that Radhika @ Kalima was not arrested in his presence or that she did not conduct her personal search. During crossexamination, PW17 did not know Hansraj Guglani, brother in law of Shanti Devi. PW17 denied the suggestion FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 32 of 37 that he knew personally to Hansraj Guglani or that Veena Guglani's family. PW17 denied that he used to visit to the house of Veena Guglani before the incident also. PW17 stated that he along with Ct. Kuldeep reached to the spot at about 7:05 pm on his private motorcycle. PW17 stated that DD no. 68B was pertaining to stabbing some lady. PW17 volunteered that during investigation, it was observed by him that there was no stab incident. PW17 also stated that no knife was recovered at the spot since it was a robbery incident. No knife blow was received by accused Radhika. PW17 denied that Radhika disclosed him that she had received knife blow given by Veena Guglani on her hand or that on her screaming some lady had come who made a call to police on the instructions of Radhika. PW17 stated that two calls were made at 100 number pertaining to this incident. Statement of complainant was recorded at hospital at about 7:30 pm. PW17 denied that photographs of accused persons were published in newspaper. PW17 further denied that he had shown the photographs of accused persons to the complainant before conducting the TIP. PW17 had lifted and seized all the material from the spot in the presence of Ct. Sri Krishan, W/Ct. Anju and HC Praveen. PW17 stated that statement of Anju was recorded subsequently. PW17 denied that blood was FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 33 of 37 oozing out from Radhika's palm after inflicting knife blow given by Veena. PW17 also denied that Radhika and T. Ramesh were falsely implicated in this case by him at the instance of Hansraj Guglani, complainant's husband, complainant Veena and Shanti Devi or that PW17 had good relations with them and used to visit each others houses occasionally. PW17 also denied that Radhika shouted while they were beating her and on her shouting, some lady came and on the instruction of Radhika, she made a call at 100 number or that call/ DD no. 68B, he reached at the spot. PW17 denied that T. Ramesh was not arrested as alleged or that he came to the spot on receiving call from his wife Radhika that she was beaten by Veena and her mother in law and also given knife blow to her. PW17 also denied that T. Ramesh was beaten by him and by the family of complainant.
27. In view of the above testimonies of PWs, the Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that the police has not done the investigation fairly and the investigation is defective. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused persons cannot get the benefit of it. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused persons cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 34 of 37 State of UP Vs. Hari Mohan and others., AIR 2001 SC 142, it was held that if the investigation is defective in nature, it cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused. In Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920, the appellants had been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC. It was held that accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation. To do so, would tantamount to playing into the hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.
28. In the present case, the Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials who conducted the investigation, therefore, their testimonies cannot be believed. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that the contradictions in the testimonies of police official witnesses as well as the other witnesses are minor which do not go to the root of the case. I have also found that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this context, a reliance is placed upon the judgement reported as State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 35 of 37 touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
29. Ld. Amicus Curiae argued that no public person was joined in the investigation, therefore, in the absence of public witnesses during investigation, the investigation conducted by the police cannot be believed as trustworthy. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that generally public persons do not come forward to join investigation in such criminal cases. I am of the view that as far as public witnesses joining the investigation are concerned, the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officials apart from the testimony of victims/ injured is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because independent public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for non joining of independent public witnesses. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgements reported as State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 36 of 37 (7) SCC 194.
30. In view of the my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The aforesaid judgements relied upon by the Ld. Amicus Curiae are distinguishable of the facts and circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, hold both the accused namely Radhika @ Kalima and T. Ramesh guilty and convict them u/s 452/34 IPC and 394/397 IPC. Copy of judgement be given to the convicts free of cost.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 28022014 FIR No. 273/11; State Vs. Radhika @ Kalima & Anr. Page 37 of 37