Delhi District Court
Fir No.112/12 Ps- Pul Prahlad Pur State vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors. on 30 November, 2015
FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO. 112/12
PS- Pul Prahladpur
STATE
Vs
SURENDER SINGH BHATI & ORS.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 CrPC
a) Date of offence : 26.04.2012
b) Date of Institution of case : 08.10.2012
c) Date of judgment : 30.11.2015
d) Offence complained of : 323/341/354/34 IPC
c) Name of accused, :(1) Surender Singh Bhati
S/o Mehar Chand Bhati
(2) Sunita Bhati
W/o Surender Singh Bhati
(3) Pramod Bhati
S/o Mehar Chand Bhati
(4) Sarjeet Bhati
S/o Mehar Chand Bhati
All R/o H.No. D-15,
Gali No. 17, Mittal Colony,
Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 1 of 14
FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
e) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Rina Rai had made a complaint that on 28.04.202 at around 8 pm when she was coming towards her home after buying vegetables, accused Surender Bhati started abusing her verbally. She asked him to stop abusing but he continues. Sunita W/o Surender came out of the house and she also started abusing her verbally. When the complainant asked her to stop, Sunita fought with her and continued the verbal abuses. In the meanwhile, Pramod and Sarabjeet, both brothers of accused Surender Bhati also came at the spot. Sarabjeet is said to have kicked the complainant with his leg and when she tried to run away, accused Sarabjeet came with an iron pipe and hit her on the head, due to which, she started bleeding and became unconscious. Somebody informed her husband. Her Husband reached at the spot and took her to AIIMS Trauma Centre.
2. The matter was investigated and charge Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 2 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
sheet was filed against all the accused u/s 354/341/323/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken by the court of Ld. Predecessor against all the accused and they were summoned accordingly.
3. After hearing the parties, formal notices under Section 354/34 IPC and u/s 341/323/34 IPC were framed against all the accused vide order Dated 23.02.2013. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution had named 12 witnesses but examined only 11 of them. P.E. was closed. Statement of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 read with section 281 CrP.C. All the accused claimed to have been falsely implicated by the complainant. However, they did not produce any independent evidence in defence despite several opportunities. Finally Defence evidence was closed on the statement of Ld. Counsel for accused vide order dated 02.09.2015. The matter was Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 3 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
then listed for final arguments.
5. Final arguments have been heard. Record alongwith written arguments of the accused has been carefully perused.
6. SI Kishor Kumar recorded the DD entry on that day. He was examined as PW3. Ct. Pramod Kumar was examined as PW11. HC Arvind Kumar accompanied the IO to the spot and was examined as PW8. Head Constable Vijay Kumar was on emergency duty on the date of the incident and had accompanied the IO to the spot. He was examined as PW10. Apart from this Complainant was examined as PW1,
7. Complainant/PW1 reiterated the averments of her complaint. She improved upon her previous statement by stating that the accused Surender had also uttered the words "tu randi hai andar chali jaa, tera uske sath chhakkar chal raha hai, maine samne wali factory ke sare workers ko kah rakha hai." She also stated that Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 4 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
when Sunita abused her verbally, she also retaliated and abused her in returned by saying "mai randi hun, to tu bhi randi hai" and then went to her house. This material improvement in the testimony of PW1 which has not been explained by the prosecution. The alleged victim has not been able to explain why this was not disclosed by her to the police at the time of recording of her previous statement.
8. PW1 had further deposed that she kept sitting at the gate of her house and accused Surender Bhati came with an iron rod to her house and accused Pramod and Sharabhjeet also came by jumping roof of their houses and they also had iron rods in their hands. Whereas, in her complaint she did not state anything about sitting at the gate of her house. Rather she had stated that she was returning home after buying vegetables. This is a material contradiction in her testimony which has gone unexplained. Furthermore, in her deposition PW1 had stated that she was hit on her head by the rod by Surender Bhati. Whereas in her Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 5 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
complaint she had stated that accused Sarabjeet had hit her on her head with iron rod.
9. There are several other material contradictions in the testimony of PW1. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that at the time of entering the gali, her house is the first one situated at the street and the house of the accused persons is at the end of the street. Rahul Rai/husband of the victim also admitted that his house is the first house situated on the very front of the street and the house of the accused persons is situated at the end of the street. He also admitted that road is closed after the house of the accused and only 4 houses are situated on the street. Then Victim would not have had the occasion of passing by the accused (who was sitting outside his house) or his house at least on her way back to her house after buying vegetables. Prosecution had not been able to shed any light as to how the victim reached in front of the house of the accused persons. This loophole has not been explained by the prosecution.
Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 6 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
10. PW1 denied having any knowledge as to whether Sunita or her mother in law had also suffered injuries in the scuffle or that whether they had also gone to the hospital. She denied that her husband, Kaushal and other factory workers had beaten Sunita and her mother in law Sharbati, due to which, they sustained injuries. The IO, SI Raghunath Prasad was examined as PW 9. He deposed that when he reached at the spot, he got to know that a quarrel had taken between Surender Bhati and Reena Rai and that injured had been taken to the hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. He deposed that Reena Rai alongwith accused Surender Bhati, Sunita Bhati and Sharbati Bhati were found admitted at the hospital. He recorded the statement of Reena Rai at the hospital itself and obtained her MLC and returned back to the spot. The defence of the accused is also that they had been beaten by Rahul Rai, Kaushal and other factory workers and had sustained injuries and were admitted in the hospitals. PW1 had also admitted that that police was first called by accused persons and then by them at a later stage. The testimony Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 7 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
of the IO corroborates the defence taken by the accused persons and contradicts the testimony of the complainant wherein, She denied having any knowledge as to whether Sunita and her mother in law also suffered injuries in the scuffle or that whether they had also gone to the hospital. She denied that her husband, Kaushal and other factory workers had beaten Sunita and her mother in law Sharbati, due to which, they sustained injuries.
11. As far as the head injury allegedly sustained by Reena Rai is concerned, the same is in consonance with the defence of the accused that a scuffle took place between them and factory workers and Rahul Rai. It is very probable that the complainant intervened in the quarrel and sustained injury. Otherwise also MLC of the complainant has not been duly proved as the concerned doctor has not been examined by the prosecution.
12. Rahul Rai/ the husband of the victim / PW5 deposed that when he returned back to his house, he Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 8 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
saw Reena lying on the ground and blood was oozing from her head. He also saw accused Surender, Surjeet, Sunita, Pramod and their family members and some neighbours being present there and that Surender was abusing. He also deposed having taken her to the Hospital. Whereas the complainant had deposed that all the accused had run away from the spot when blood started oozing out of her head. This is a material contradiction in the testimony of complainant and her husband which raises a serious doubt on the prosecutions case. As per the deposition of the IO all the accused and the complainant had been taken to the police station when he reached they spot and no one was found there.
13. The remaining part of the deposition of Rahul Rai is based on what was told to him by his wife . Even as per prosecutions case he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. Thus, the same is inadmissible in evidence being hearsay in nature. Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 9 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
14. PW6 Smt. Sushila Devi could not remember anything during her deposition and was declared hostile by the APP who sought permission and cross examine this witness. During cross examination, she admitted to have heard voices of the quarrel while she was sitting inside her house. She admitted that Sunita was present at the spot but denied having seen anything else.
15. PW 7 Raju Ram admitted that there was no electricity in the area at the time of alleged incident and some one had switched on the generator at the factory situated in front of his house. He deposed that a quarrel had taken place between factory workers and accused persons but he did not see as to who gave beatings to whom. He deposed that he had seen one of the accused persons causing injury to Reena Rai but could not tell his name. He deposed about having informed the husband of the complainant from her mobile phone. This witness was declared hostile by the Ld. APP. During cross examination, he denied having seeing any of the accused persons giving beatings to Reena Rai but did not tell as Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 10 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
to who had beaten her. During cross examination he admitted that factory persons were also present at the spot at the time of the quarrel.
16. PW4 Hanimunisha was examined as PW4.
She turned hostile and deposed in favour of the accused persons. She deposed that she was accompanied Reena after purchasing vegetables. She deposed that the generator of the factory had been switched off by accused Surender and Reena Rai had started abusing the family members of the accused. When the male members of the family members of accused came out, Reena Rai abused them as well. Reena Rai caught hold of the collar of accused and then had hit with the vegetable basket. When factory owner Kaushal came out and started hitting accused persons with a danda. She deposed that the police arrived at the spot and Reena Rai took her to the police station. She was cross examined by Ld. APP after seeking permission. During such cross examination, she denied the suggestions given by Ld. APP and deposed that Reena was shouting Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 11 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
and not crying when she had come out of the house. She denied that Reena was hit by the accused persons. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, she admitted that Reena Rai had intimidated and pressurized her to depose against the accused persons. She also deposed that Reena Rai had threatened PW Raju Ram due to which he also has left his place of abode with his mother Sushila Devi and had gone to reside elsewhere. She admitted that Reena Rai and her husband have created nuisance for the entire locality and that she had also threatened to implicate her husband in false case of molestation.
17. As discussed above, there are several material contradictions in the testimony of victim, her husband and the investigating officer which shake the very foundation of the prosecution case and demolish it. PW 4 Hanimunisha, PW 6 Sushila Devi, PW7 Raju Ram were the only independent witnesses but none of them supported the case of Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 12 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
the prosecution. As the facts alleged are not proved, any discussion about legal ingredients of offence charged against accused is not made out. It is a settled law that the primary onus to prove the case is upon the prosecution and the offence against the accused should be proved beyond the pales of reasonable doubt and there should not be any iota of suspicion in the same. In the present case, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and contradictions pointed out above, benefit of doubt goes in the favor of accused. Thus, all the accused namely, Surender Singh Bhati, Sunita Bhati, Pramod Bhati & Sarjeet Bhati are hereby acquitted for the offence U/s Section 354/34 IPC and u/s 341/323/34 IPC
18. Now to come up for compliance of S. Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 13 of 14 FIR No.112/12 PS- Pul Prahlad Pur State Vs Surender Singh Bhati & Ors.
437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan) court on 30.11.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate Manila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/ 30.11.2015.
Pronounced in open court on 30.11.2015 Page no 14 of 14