Delhi District Court
Sc No: 886/18 State vs . Jawahar Lal & Ors. on 7 March, 2023
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 886/18
CNR No. DLSW01-000032-2010
FIR No. 967/2006
Police Station Najafgarh
Under Section U/s 324/509/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Jawahar Lal
S/o Sh. Late Nathu Ram
2. Gulab Singh
Son of Sh. Jawahar Lal
3. Gagan
Son of Sh. Jawahar Lal
All R/o K-37, Angur Bhawan,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi ......Accused Persons
Date of institution 01.09.2007
Judgment reserved on 04.03.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 07.03.2023
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
JUDGMENT
INITIAL COMPLAINT & FIR
1. FIR under section 324/509/34 IPC was registered on complaint (Ex. PW-2/A) of complainant Sharda. It's English translation reads as under:
"... Yesterday on 08.10.2006 Jawahar Lal S/o Late Nathu Ram called me to his house at about 08:30 PM. Previously, our both families are in visiting terms and for this reason I went to the house of Jawahar Lal on his invitation. He made me to sit on the sofa of the inner room and with respect offered me a glass of water. In conversation he stated to sell the vacant plot adjacent to their plot to them instead of selling to Kiran Pal. Since they are owning some part of that land. I objected to his offer and stated if some part of the land out of this plot belonged to you then why you did not constructed boundary wall around it and now our agreement has been completed with Kiran Pal. Hearing this, Jawahar lal and his sons Gulab Singh and Gagan started abusing and misbehaved with me. Gulab Singh pointed out towards me and released his pet dog upon me. Dog bite my left foot. When I raised an alarm, I was pushed due to which I fell on the jali outside the room due to which I sustained internal injury and when I stood up and started walking then all these three persons Judgment 2 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
restrained my way. Even then thinking the matter of neighborhood I went to my house. After that police came at the spot. Legal action be taken against Jawahar lal and his sons Gulab and Gagan."
2. During investigation, it was found that on the complaint of accused Jawahar Lal an FIR no. 1018/06 was registered against the complainant and her husband Lal Singh. On 11.01.2007, investigations were handed over to Crime Branch. It was revealed that accused Jawahar Lal was having a black color dog which had a limp and that dog on pointing out bitten the complainant. It was also revealed that complainant and accused party are neighbors and keep on making allegations against each other. CHARGE
3. On 14.03.2011 charge under Section 324/506/34 IPC was framed against accused persons. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Judgment 3 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In all prosecution examined 9 witnesses.
S Name Nature Deposition
PW1 ASI Surat Duty Officer Proved FIR Ex PW-1/A, his
Singh endorsement on rukka as Ex
PW1/B.
PW2 Sharda Complainant/ Proved her complaint Ex PW2/A
Injured and deposed in respect of incident.
PW3 Lal Singh Husband of Deposed in respect of the incident
Complainant and proved seizure of copy of GPA of plot as Ex. PW-3/A. PW4 Manju Public Deposed that after the incident Thakur complainant showed her left leg which was bitten by the dog of accused. She proved her statement Ex. PW-4/A. PW4A ASI Hukum Duty Officer Proved FIR no. 1018/06 Ex Chand PW-4/A, his endorsement on rukka as Ex PW4/B. PW5 Dr A.K Singh Doctor Proved MLC of injured as Ex PW5/A. PW6 Premwati Public Did not support prosecution case. PW7 Karanpal Public Deposed that after the incident he applied chilli powder and mustard oil on the legs of the complainant who told him that dog of accused has bitten her.
PW 8 Ct. Thakur Police Deposed that the complainant told him that pet dog of accused Jawahar had bitten her.
Judgment 4 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
PW9 Raghunath Public Deposed in respect of the land in
Singh question.
PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS
5. In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused persons stated that the present case has been falsely registered for only saving the complainant from the legal proceedings in arising out of FIR no. 966/06, PS Najafgarh and to grab a Gram Sabha land along with 42 Sq. Yards land of accused Jawahar Lal's land which is passage of his plot. Accused persons did not lead evidence. ARGUMENTS
6. Ld. Additional PP for the State has contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons as not only complainant/injured but also her husband and public witnesses have supported case of prosecution. It is prayed that accused persons be convicted in the present case.
Judgment 5 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
7. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of accused persons that accusation made against the accused persons are false and the prosecution has planted false witnesses in order to prove its case. It is stated that the complainant has improved her initial statement just to create a false story and testimony of none of the prosecution witnesses is truthful and reliable. It is argued that the testimony of PW 5 Dr. A.K Singh is specific and concludes that the complainant did not suffer any dog bite and hence, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
8. I have heard Ld. Additional APP for State and Ld. Defense Counsel. I have also gone through written submissions filed on behalf of accused persons. I have perused the material on record.
Judgment 6 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
9. PW2 is complainant and her examination-in- chief reads as under:
I am residing on the above said address along with my family. On 8.10.2006 at about 8.30 PM accused Jawahar Lal called me as we had visiting terms with each other. I went to the house of accused Jawahar Lal, accused offered seat to me and offered water and tea. Accused Jawahar Lal asked me to sell the plot in question to him. Accused asked me that he had some share in that plot. I told the accused to confirm from the person from whom he had purchased the land thereafter he should raise boundary wall. I told accused Jawaharlal that I had made a agreement with one Kiran Pal to sell the said land. Accused Jawahar Lal started abusing me and he asked his son Gulab Singh and Gagan to tear my clothe and to make me nude.On the directions of accused Jawahar Lal Gulab Singh untied the pet dog, who bite my left leg. I fell down and accused Jawaharlal along with his sons Gulab and Gagan scuffled with me and assaulted. I sustained internal head injury. When I tried to go out from the house of the accused Jawaharlal and his sons stopped my way. Anyhow I managed to come out from the house. One of my neighbour Prem informed me thatblood was oozing out from my leg. came to my house. Smt. Manju and Kiran Pal were present at my house. After some time my husband came in the house I aformed him that I was bitten by dog. My husband gave domestic treatment on my wound. After some time police came. Police recorded my statement in RTRM Hospital, My Judgment 7 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
statement is EX PW 2/A bearing my thumb impression at point A. I was administered treatment in the hospital and was discharged. Accused Jawahar Lal killed his pet dog after 4/5 days and the said dog was having some problem in one of his legs while walking. Accused persons namely Jawaharlala and Gulab Singh are present in the court( correctly identified) I can identify accused Gagan also( At this stage it is noticed that accused Gagan is permanently exempted from his personal appearance and his identity is not disputed.
10. Entire case of prosecution rest on the version of complainant/injured who deposed that accused Jawahar Lal not only abused her but he asked his sons Gulab Singh and Gagan to tear her clothes and to make her nude. However, this deposition of complainant is not appearing in the initial statement of complainant Ex. PW2/A. In the entire body of complaint Ex. PW2/A allegations in respect of tearing clothes of complainant is not appearing.
11. During course of her cross examination conducted on 15.04.2014 complainant deposed that on the Judgment 8 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
date of incident she was wearing suit and she also stated to the investigation officer regarding presence of blood stains on her salwar. Complainant further testified that she kept the blood stained salwar in her custody.
12. In her further cross-examination conducted on 17.12.2014, complainant took a different stand and deposed that in her statement Ex. PW2/DA that accused Jawahar Lal told his sons to remove her saari and make her nude. Complainant deposed that she was wearing saari on that day and the saari was got torn due to dog bite. She further deposed that investigation officer did not seize her saari.
13. It evident that complainant has given two versions of incident. In the first version complainant states that she was wearing a suit and her salwar got torn and then deposed that she was wearing a saari and that saari got torn.
Judgment 9 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
14. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is the clothes of the complainant were not seized during the investigation of the case despite the fact that the complainant testified that the clothes were torn due to dog bite. No explanation is forthcoming that why the salwar or saari was not seized by the Investigation Officer and the non explanation creates the serious doubt over the version of the complainant.
15. In respect to the treatment given to her just after the incident, complainant deposed that when she reached home Smt. Manju (PW4) and Kiran Pal (PW7) were present at her house and after short time her husband came in the house. She informed her husband that she was bitten by a dog and her husband gave domestic treatment on her wound.
16. In this regard PW3 Lal Singh who is husband of the complainant deposed that Kiran Pal did not apply red Judgment 10 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
chilli and mustard oil on the wound of his wife as domestic treatment but the same was applied by Manju Thakur.
17. PW4 Manju Thakur in this respect deposed that when complainant came back to her house, she was sitting there and the complainant showed her left leg which was bitten by the dog of the accused. PW4 advised complainant to tie red chilli with mustard oil over the said dog bite. PW7 Kiran Pal in this regard deposed that he along with his wife (PW4) applied chilli powder and mustard oil on the legs of complainant.
18. Testimonies of complainant, her husband, PW4 & 7 are different in respect of applying home remedies on the injury of complainant. Depositions of prosecution witnesses have material contradiction and does not clear the air as to who treated the complainant just after the incident.
Judgment 11 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
19. It is further matter of record that though the date of incident is 08.10.2006 but no complaint and police call in respect of the dog bite was made on the said date. None of the witnesses have been able to explain as to why the matter was not immediately reported to the police. Specially when there was a quarrel between the parties on 08.10.2006 itself.
20. PW5 Dr. A. K. Singh has proved the MLC of complainant as Ex. PW5/A and deposed that as per the MLC the injury was found to be simple and a dog bite. During course of his cross examination PW5 admitted that initially it was written in Ex.PW5/A that no fresh injury in dog bite. He further admitted that the type of injury was found simple and its depth is not mentioned in Ex. PW5/A nor the number of marks of teeth in the wound are not mentioned. PW5 further deposed that there was possibility that the injury mentioned in MLC may be because of bite of squirrel, mongoose or cat and Judgment 12 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
further deposed that there was no mentioning of application of chilli powder or mustard oil on the injuries. PW5 also mentioned that the request for medical examination bears the date 08.10.2006 whereas the MLC bears the date 09.10.2006.
21. From the testimony of PW5 Dr. A .K. Singh three facts emerge. Firstly, there is material cutting on the MLC Ex. PW5/A. Word 'no' is cut on the MLC there by resulting that 'no fresh injury in dog bite' is reduced to 'fresh injury in dog bite'. Secondly, there is no mention about the particulars of the bite as to whether there was any impression of teeth of the dog on the body of the complainant or not and lastly the examined Doctor is himself not sure whether the bite was of dog, squirrel, mongoose or cat.
22. There is another aspect of the matter. Initially a DD No. 55A Ex. PW1/DA was received at PS Najafgarh on Judgment 13 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
08.10.2006 at 23.55 hours that at E-37, Gopal Nagar, behind Yadav Dharmshala, wife of Lal Singh S/o. Subhash along with three persons entered in the house of accused Jawahar Lal and gave beating to him and also broke the household goods and threatened him.
23. PW8 Ct. Thakur Dass deposed that he along with ASI Raghubir Singh (since expired) went at E-37, Gopal Nagar and found a parked car with broken wind screen and also the household articles were scattered and while coming from the said house he saw complainant was standing in the street having bandage on her leg who told them the pet dog of accused Jawahar had bitten her.
24. Admittedly, there is no mention of the fact regarding complainant was bitten by the dog of accused nor PW8 reduced this information in writing anywhere. It is also Judgment 14 of 16 SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
evident that even after coming to know that the complainant was bitten she was not taken to the Doctor. As stated above, the complainant or her husband themselves did not give any complaint to the police at that point of time when PW8 met complainant in the night itself. No explanation is forthcoming in the testimony of complainant that why she immediately lodged the complaint at that very moment specially when accused had already reported the matter to the police.
25. In view of the discussion above, I find that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, torn clothes of injured/complainant were not seized, medical evidence is inconclusive in respect of injury sustained by complainant, there is substantial delay in reporting matter to the police and thus, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to produce any credible evidence against accused persons so to convict them.
Judgment 15 of 16
SC No: 886/18 State Vs. Jawahar Lal & Ors.
CONCLUSION:
26. In the light of above discussions, accused Jawahar Lal, Gulab Singh and Gagan are acquitted for lack of credible evidence for the offence punishable under Section 324/506/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish a personal bond U/s 437A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with the surety in the like amount. Bond shall remain in force for period of six months.
Announced in the open court on 7th day of March, 2023. Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2023.03.07 16:14:38 +0530 Gautam Manan Additional Sessions Judge-02 South-West, Dwarka, Delhi Judgment 16 of 16