Delhi District Court
State vs ) Net Ram on 12 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS DEEPALI SHARMA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -04: EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-001466-2013
SC No. 927/2016
FIR No. 98/2010
U/s 307/506/34 IPC
P.S. Kalyanpuri
In the matter of :
State
versus
1) Net Ram,
S/o Tara Chand @ Taru,
R/o Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi,
Distt. Badaun, UP.
2) Chanchal,
S/o Shiv Lal,
R/o Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi,
Distt. Badaun, UP.
3) Lal Bahadur,
S/o Shiv Lal,
R/o Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi,
Distt. Badaun, UP.
4) Veresh,
S/o Room Singh,
R/o Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi,
Distt. Badaun, UP.
Date of Institution : 20.01.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 09.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 12.01.2023
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 1 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
Appearance
For the State : Shri Rakesh Mehta,
Additional Public
Prosecutor.
For accused persons : Shri Vimal Kumar, Adv.,
counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 30.03.2010 an information was received at 7.50 am via a PCR call, which was recorded by the Duty Officer at PS Kalyanpuri that a man was stabbed at Trilokpuri Nalawali Road and the person was being taken to the hospital. DD No. 14B Ex. C-1 was recorded in this regard and it was assigned to ASI Mohd. Ali, who reached the spot i.e. Ganda Nala Road, near Block No. 9 Extra, Trilokpuri, Delhi, alongwith Ct. Samunder Singh. Upon inquiry he came to know that three persons had caused knife injury to one person and robbed him and the injured had been shifted to LBS Hospital. ASI Mohd. Ali went to LBS Hospital where injured Amar Singh was found admitted. He inquired about the fitness of the injured from the doctor, who orally informed that the injured was fit for giving statement. He made inquiries from injured Amar Singh and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. The doctor handed over a sealed pullanda containing clothes of the injured to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A.
2) In his statement Ex. PW2/A, the complainant Amar Singh stated that he was living as a tenant at his residence at Chilla Village, Kalyanpuri, Delhi, and that he was a permanent Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 2 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi resident of Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badayu, UP. He used to run a fruit-cart at Chilla Village and sell fruits. On 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 am he alongwith his son Ram Singh, aged 15 years, was taking his cart towards Gazipur Subzi Mandi from Chilla Village. At about 05.45 am he was going from 18 Block, Trilok Puri Nala and after crossing it and the red light, when he reached the road, at that time three boys came out from the side of drain/Ganda Nala, who were aged about 22 to 25 years. One of them had a knife and as soon as he came, he caused injury on the left side of his chest and caused another injury on his left thigh and the complainant fell down on the road. They took away Rs. 2150/- in cash. His son Ram Singh got scared and ran away after crossing the road. The complainant stated that those boys had caused injuries with a knife and took away his money and he could recognize them upon seeing them. He also stated that some unknown persons took him to the hospital. He wanted strict action to be taken against those three persons.
3) On the basis of the statement of the complainant Ex. PW2/A, rukka Ex. PW6/B was prepared and FIR bearing No. 98/2010 Ex. PW1/A, was registered on 30.03.2010 u/s 394/397/34 IPC.
4) IO/Insp. Shyam Sunder, to whom the investigation was marked, reached the spot. IO prepared the site plan. No eye witness was found on the spot. On 31.03.2010 IO reached GTB Hospital and recorded supplementary statement of injured Amar Singh, wherein he named accused Lal Bahadur as the person, who stabbed him, Veresh as the person who had taken out the Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 3 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi money from him his pocket, Chanchal as the person who was exhorting them to stab the complainant. He also named a boy Net Ram, who was hiding. Complainant also stated that he had no prior enmity with the accused persons and they belonged to his village, however, he did not know why they stabbed him. Thereafter the IO recorded statement of brother of injured namely Tej Pal, who further stated that his brother was not robbed but the accused persons fled away thinking that his brother, the complainant, had died. IO also recorded statement of Chander Pal s/o Ram Singh. On 01.04.2010 another supplementary statement of complainant was recorded wherein he stated that he was stabbed by Lal Bahadur but they had not robbed him of his money. And further that Lal Bahadur and Tej Pal, who was brother of the complainant were having a family feud and that the complainant had been injured due to previous enmity. Thereafter on 30.04.2010 Ct. Kiran Pal alongwith ASI Om Prakash was sent to Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badayu, UP, to make inquiry in connection with the present case and recorded the statement of Village Pradhan and other persons in which they stated that Lal Bahadur s/o Shiv Ram used to reside in the village and used to do farming and he had never been to Delhi and the allegation of stabbing against him was false and baseless and the said fact was verified from other persons of the village. Thereafter HC Beer Singh was also sent to Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badayu, UP, on 22.05.2010, who also inquired about the present case from people of the village and was told that Amar Singh had lodged a false case against Lal Bahadur. On 26.05.2010 the complainant was called at the police station and he informed that the entire village was having enmity Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 4 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi with them and therefore no one used to support them. Subsequently, upon the demise of Insp. Shyam Sunder, the case file was again handed over to ASI Mohd. Ali and upon the transfer of ASI Mohd. Ali, the same was handed over to ASI Om Prakash, who went to Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badayu, UP, and inquired about the present case and upon making inquiries, the village Pradhan and other persons of the village gave their written statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. SI Om Prakash collected the MLC of the injured upon which the doctor opined the nature of injuries as 'grievous'.
5) An application was filed by the complainant before Ld. M.M. to add Section 307 IPC against the accused persons. Vide order dated 26.06.2010 Ld. M.M. directed the IO to proceed as per law and in case during investigation material with respect to the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is collected, he shall proceed in accordance with law and section 307 IPC may also be added.
6) After completion of necessary investigation charge sheet was filed u/s 307/506/34 IPC against the accused persons. On the basis of charge-sheet and the documents submitted with it, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Karkardooma Courts took cognizance of offences under Section 307/506/34 IPC and after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 04.01.2014 committed the case to the Court of Session for 20.01.2014.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 5 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Charge :
7) Vide order dated 29.04.2014 charge was framed against accused Net Ram, Chanchal, Lal Bahadur and Veresh under section 307/506/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :
8) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses.
(i) PW1 HC Nar Singh - Duty Officer, who registered the FIR Ex. PW1/A and after its registration handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Const. Samunder, who delivered the same to ASI Mohd. Ali.
(ii) PW2 Amar Singh, complainant. (iii) PW3 Ram Singh, son of complainant. (iv) PW4 Dr. Rajni Lohia, who identified handwriting and
signatures of Dr. Shashikant Chaudhary on MLC of injured Amar Singh Ex. PW4/A.
(v) PW5 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Debajit on MLC of injured Amar Singh Ex.
PW4/A at Point-X1, who opined the nature of injuries as 'grievous'.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 6 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
vi) PW6 retired SI Mohd. Ali - first IO of the case. He reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 14B alongwith Ct. Samunder Singh. He went to LBS Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Amar Singh vide Ex. PW2/A. He seized the exhibits of the injured from the doctor vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. He made an endorsement on the statement of complainant and prepared a rukka Ex. PW6/B. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Samunder Singh for registration of the FIR and subsequently handed over the rukka, copy of FIR and sealed pullanda to IO/Insp. Shyam Sunder. Subsequently, on 05.06.2010 he was again assigned the investigation of the case and on 11.06.2010 he filed progress report before the court of Ld. M.M. On 10.11.2010 he handed over the case file to MHC(R) upon his transfer.
vii) PW7 ASI Samunder Singh, part of investigation, who reached the spot alongwith SI Mohd. Ali upon receipt of DD No. 14B. Upon reaching the spot they came to know that the injured had been taken to the hospital. He remained at the spot and IO went to LBS Hospital. After some time IO returned to the spot and handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR. After registration of FIR, PW7 returned to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to ASI Mohd. Ali. Insp. Shyam Sunder also came at the spot and prepared the site plan.
viii) PW8 SI Om Prakash, third IO of the case, who filed the charge sheet.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 7 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
9) During trial, on 21.03.2022, ld. Counsel for the accused persons admitted DD No. 14B dated 30.03.2010 Ex. C-1 and as such PW Ct. Karambir was dropped from the list of witnesses.
Statement of accused persons :
10) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons namely Net Ram, Chanchal, Lal Bahadur and Veresh were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant at the instance of his brother Tej Pal as a case bearing FIR No. 676/2008, PS Bilsi, was registered u/s 307 IPC by accused Chanchal and Lal Bahadur, who are brothers, against Tej Pal, brother of the complainant. In the said case Tej Pal stabbed Lal Bahadur with a knife and caused injuries to him. In the said case Tej Pal was convicted. Since accused Veresh and Net Ram were also related to Chanchal and Lal Bahadur, they were also implicated in the present case alongwith them. They also stated that the police had also gone to the village to verify the facts, however, since the version of the complainant was concocted therefore nothing was found to corroborate his version even by the police. Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence, however subsequently vide the statement of ld.
Counsel for the accused persons DE stood closed without leading any defence evidence.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 8 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
11) I have heard the arguments of ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and perused the record.
Testimonies of material witnesses :
12) PW2 injured Amar Singh in his deposition recorded on 09.03.2015 deposed that in the year 2010 he alonwith his family was residing at the house of Chander Pal at Chilla Village, Kalyanpuri, on rent. On 30.03.2010 at about 05.15 am, he alongwith his son namely Ram Sewak was going to Sahibabad Subzi Mandi to purchase vegetables in a rehri rickshaw. At about 05.30 am when they reached near 18 Block, Trilokpuri pull, and after crossing the drain/nala they reached on the road. In the meantime accused Lal Bahadur, Net Ram, Veresh and Chanchal came to them. Accused Lal Bahadur had a knife in his handed.
He stabbed on left side of his chest and left thigh with a knife. They robbed Rs. 2150/- from his pocket. Accused Net Ram Exhorted other accused persons to kill PW2. Thereafter PW2 became unconscious. PW2 identified all the accused persons before court. PW2 deposed that the accused persons belonged to his village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badaun, UP. He stated that there was enmity between the accused persons and his brother Tej Pal.
13) PW2 further deposed that later on he regained consciousness in the hospital and the IO recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. Subsequently, he also made complaints to the senior police officials i.e. DCP - Mark PW2/X2 and CP as his case was Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 9 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi not being properly investigated. His further examination-in-chief was deferred for certain clarification from the IO.
14) In his examination-in-chief recorded on 04.01.2016 PW2 deposed that he could not narrate complete facts in his complaint Ex, PW2/A as he was not fully conscious and he forgot to tell the same to the IO. On 31.03.2010 he was again interrogated by the IO and his supplementary statement was recorded by the IO in which he told the names of the accused persons as assailants and their specific roles. He deposed that on 10.05.2010 he was again interrogated by the IO and he told the IO that at the time of occurrence, the money which he was having with him was not taken away by the accused person. He also told the IO that there was prior enmity between his brother Tej Pal, who was living in the village and accused Lal Bahadur, due to which accused Lal Bahadur had stabbed him. He also stated that in his statement recorded before the court on 09.03.2015 he had inadvertently mentioned that he was going with his son Ram Sewak to Sahibabad Subzi Mandi, while infact it was Gazipur Mandi. He stated that he had also moved an application before the Ld. M.M. on 07.06.2010 for adding section 307 IPC against the accused persons and copy of the same was exhibit Ex. PW2/B. PW2 also identified the blood stained clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident being vest Ex. P-1, Shirt Ex. P-2 and pant Ex. P-3.
15) Ram Singh, Son of PW2 Amar Singh, was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 am he alongwith his father Amar Singh was going to Gazipur Subzi Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 10 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Mandi after taking their rehri/cart from Chilla Village and reached 1-Block, Trilok Puri. When they reached on the road ahead of red light after crossing the nala/drain, three boys came to them from the side of nala/drain. One of them had a knife with him and he hit with the knife on the chest of his father and again hit the knife on the thigh of his father due to which his father sustained injuries and fell down on the road. He deposed that at that time those persons also took away Rs. 2150/-. On seeing the occurrence, due to fear, PW3 ran away from the spot and went back to his house. He told about the incident to his uncle Chanderpal. Thereafter PW3 alongwith his uncle again reached the spot and took his father to LBS Hospital from where his father was referred to GTB Hospital where he was operated upon and he regained consciousness. His father told him that he was stabbed by Lal Bahadur and Chanchal, who were residents of his village and that at that time Net Ram had caught hold of his legs. His father also told him that the fourth person was Veresh, who was resident of their village, was exhorting others to kill him. PW3 deposed that his father also told him that no money was robbed from him at that time. PW3 correctly identified all the accused persons, present in the court and he also identified the clothes which his father was wearing at the time of incident i.e. vest Ex. P-1, shirt Ex. P-2 and pant Ex. P-3.
16) Accordingly, from perusal of testimony of PW2 it emerges that on the date of incident i.e. on 30.03.2010 at about 05.15 am, he alongwith his son Ram Singh was going to Gazipur Mandi to purchase vegetables in a rehri/rickshaw. When they reached the spot the accused persons came to them and accused Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 11 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Lal Bahadur, who was having a knife in his hand, stabbed him on left side chest and left thigh with the knife. The accused persons also robbed him of Rs. 2150/- from his pocket and accused Net Ram exhorted others to kill him. Subsequently PW2 Amar Singh also stated that he could not narrate complete facts in his complaint Ex. PW2/A and forgot to tell the names of accused persons as he was not fully conscious and therefore his statement was again recorded on 31.03.2010. The statement of PW2 was again recorded by the IO on 10.05.2010 when he told the IO that his money was not taken away by the accused persons and that there was prior enmity between his brother Tejpal, who was living in the village and accused Lal Bahadur, due to which accused Lal Bahadur had stabbed him. He also moved an application before ld. M.M. on 07.06.2010 to add section 307 IPC against the accused persons.
17) PW3 Ram Singh also deposed regarding the incident that on 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 am when he was going alongwith his father PW2 to Gazipur Subzi Mandi with the cart/rehri and when they reached the spot three boys came to them. One of them had a knife with him and he hit his father on the chest and again on his thigh due to which his father sustained injuries and fell down on the road. Those persons also took away Rs. 2150/-. Due to fear he ran away from the spot. When his father regained consciousness he told him that he was stabbed by Lal Bahadur and Chanchal, who were residents of their village. His father also told him that Net Ram caught hold of his legs and fourth person was Veresh, who was resident of their village and he was asking others to kill his father.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 12 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
18) PW1 Amar Singh was medically examined at LBS Hospital vide MLC No. 2968/2010 Ex. PW4/A. PW4 deposed that injured Amar Singh was brought with the alleged history of assault at 06.15 am on 30.03.2010. As per MLC Ex. PW4/A one incised wound was found on the left side of chest of 2x1 cm and another incised wound was present on left thigh of 5x2 cm with oozing of blood. PW5 Dr. Vijay Kumar identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Debajit and proved the opinion as regards nature of injuries given by Dr. Debajit to be 'grievous' in nature. As per MLC the injuries were given with a 'sharp' object.
19) Accordingly, the MLC of injured PW2 Ex. PW4/A corroborates his testimony that the injuries were inflicted to him on left side of his chest and left thigh with a knife.
20) As regards evidentiary value to be attached to testimony of an injured witness, in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the law on the same and observed as follows:
"Injured witness
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1972 SC 2593], Malkhan Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 13 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Singh v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12] , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606B-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472],Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under : (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-
29) "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 14 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." (Emphasis supplied)
21) The testimony of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined in light of law discussed hereinabove. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have taken the defence that they had been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant at the instance of his brother Tej Pal as a case bearing FIR No. 676/2008, PS Bilsi, was registered u/s 307 IPC by accused Chanchal and Lal Bahadur, who are brothers, against Tej Pal, brother of the complainant. In the said case Tej Pal stabbed Lal Bahadur with a knife and caused injuries to him. In the said case Tej Pal was convicted. Since accused Veresh and Net Ram were also related to Chanchal and Lal Bahadur, they were also implicated in the present case alongwith them. They also stated that the police had also gone to the village to verify the facts, however, since the version of the complainant was concocted therefore nothing was found to corroborate his version even by the police.
22) In this regard, PW2 in his cross-examination deposed that his complaint Ex. PW2/A was recorded at LBS Hospital. He did not tell the names of the assailants to the doctor who treated him. He affirmed that Tej Pal is his real brother and Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 15 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Attar Singh is the son of his real uncle. He knew that Chanchal is the real brother of accused Lal Bahadur. He deposed that he was not aware if Chanchal had lodged any FIR against Attar Singh, Geeta and Tej Pal at PS Bilsi, Distt. Badaun, UP. However, he affirmed that in that case Attar Singh, Geeta and Tej Pal were convicted by the court. His brother Tej Pal had come to him in Delhi 2-3 days after the incident. He denied that he alongwith his son were robbed by some unknown person or lateron he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case at the instance of his brother Tej Pal. He further denied that the accused persons were residing in their village Ghanori, Distt. Badaun at the time of incident or that they were not residing in Delhi at that time. PW2 deposed that Tej Pal had come to meet him at the hospital. He was discharged after about 7-8 days and after he was discharged, Tej Pal had come to visit him from the village. He stated that he was taken to LBS Hospital by his son Ram Singh. He volunteered that his son initially took him to his room and from there he took him to LBS Hospital in a TSR. He regained full consciousness after 2-3 of the incident. He could not tell whether his statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded 2-3 days of the incident or not. He stated that there was a gap of 2-3 days between his two statements. He denied that he had given the subsequent statement at the instance of his brother Tej Pal or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons because Chanchal had lodged a case against his brother Tej Pal regarding stabbing of Lal Bahadur.
23) PW3 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and he deposed that the assailants were aged Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 16 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi around 25-30 years. They were four in numbers. He stated that all the accused persons were residents of his village. He did not know them prior to the incident as he never lived in the village and used to visit the village for 1 or 2 days in 2-3 years. He later came to know that the houses of accused persons were situated at a distance of 15-20 steps from his house at the village. He had seen the accused persons in the village prior to the incident but he did not know them by their names. The accused persons reside in the village and also come to Delhi for earning their livelihood. He did not know their local addresses and their working place in Delhi. He affirmed that Tej Pal was his real uncle and Attar Singh was the son of his uncle Tej Pal. He also knew that Chanchal was the real brother of accused Lal Bahadur. He affirmed that Chanchal had lodged a case against Tej Pal, Geeta w/o Tej Pal and Attar Singh at PS Bilsi, Distt. Badaun, in which case they were convicted.
24) PW3 further deposed in his cross-examination that after 2-3 days of incident, his uncle had come to Delhi to meet them. He denied that the incident was caused by some other boys and the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case by his father due to prior enmity. He denied that those boys had also taken away Rs. 2150/- from his father or that he had given a false statement to the police on 21.12.2011 at the instance of his father to falsely implicate the accused persons. He denied that the accused persons were permanently residing in the village or that they had never worked in Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 17 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
25) Tejpal, brother of PW2, was dropped from the list of witnesses as he remained unserved as he was untraceable despite efforts. It is stated by ld. Counsel for the accused Tejpal deliberately did not appear before the court for recording of his testimony as he was the reason why the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that as per the version of PW Tej Pal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. he had visited the hospital and met his brother Amar Singh PW2 on 30.03.2010 itself and it is only thereafter that the complainant entirely changed his version at the instance of his brother Tej Pal and gave an entirely different version in his statement recorded by the police on 31.03.2010. It is stated that perusal of the charge sheet itself revealed that many villagers had given in writing in front of father of complainant Amar Singh that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case and that accused Lal Bahadur resides in the village and does farming. He had never left his house to go to Delhi. As per the charge sheet the case file alongwith said affidavit was handed over to the IO, however, the said affidavit has not been placed on court record. It is further contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that though in the initial complaint, the complainant had mentioned the age of assailants to be between 22 to 25 years, however, presently accused Net Ram, Veresh, Lal Bahadur and Chanchal are aged about 62, 47, 43 and 48 years old respectively, and as at the time of incident none of them was young boy of age 22-25 years.
26) As discussed hereinabove, from the cross- examination of PW2 and PW3 it emerges that a case had been lodged by accused Chanchal, brother of Lal Bahadur, against Tej Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 18 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Pal, his wife Geeta and son Attar Singh at PS Bilsi, Distt. Badaun, UP. In the said case they were convicted. It is also revealed that Tej Pal, brother of injured Amar Singh, came to meet him at the hospital.
27) In this context it is relevant to note that initially the complaint Ex. PW2/A was made by Amar Singh PW2 on 30.03.2010 wherein he stated that on 30.03.2010 at about 05.30 am he alongwith his son Ram Singh, aged 15 years, was taking his cart towards Gazipur Subzi Mandi from Chilla Village. At about 05.45 am he was going from 18 Block, Trilok Puri Nala and after crossing it and the red light and when he reached the road, at that time three boys came out from the side of Ganda Nala, who were aged about 22 to 25 years. One of them had a knife and as soon as he came, he caused injury on the left side of his chest and caused another injury on his left thigh and the complainant fell down on the road. They took away Rs. 2150/- in cash. His son Ram Singh got scared and ran away after crossing the road. The complainant stated that those boys had caused injuries with a knife and took away his money and he could recognize them upon seeing them.
28) Accordingly, in his initial complaint Ex.PW2/A, the complainant Amar Singh made allegations of robbery against three boys, one of whom had a knife and caused injuries to him on his chest and thigh. They robbed him of Rs. 2150/- in cash. On the basis of his complaint Ex. PW2/A, FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered u/s 394/397/34 IPC. Thereafter another statement of injured Amar Singh was recorded on 31.03.2010 wherein injured Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 19 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Amar Singh named four accused persons to be Net Ram, Lal Bahadur, Chanchal and Veresh and their specific roles. He also explained in his testimony that he could not give the details in his complaint Ex. PW2/A as he was not fully conscious on that day. Another statement of the complainant was recorded on 10.05.2010 when he told the IO that his money was not robbed by the accused persons and that he was stabbed by them due to prior enmity between his brother Tej Pal and accused Lal Bahadur.
29) Hence, it is manifest on record that the complainant has entirely changed his version in his statements recorded before the police. Though in the initial statement Ex. PW2/A he made allegations of robbery against three unknown persons, in his subsequent statement on 31.03.2010 he alleged that he was injured by four accused persons, who also took away his money and subsequently in his statement recorded on 10.05.2010 he retracted from his earlier statement that any money was taken away from him by the accused persons and further stated that he was injured by the accused persons due to prior enmity between his brother Tej Pal and accused Lal Bahadur, which version he had not stated before. In his testimony recorded before the court, initially PW2 deposed that the accused persons had robbed him of Rs. 2150/-. He also stated that he had told the police that at the time of incident his money was not taken away by the accused persons. Accordingly, PW2 gave contradictory version even at the time of recording of his testimony as to whether his money was taken away by the accused persons at the time of incident.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 20 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi 30) PW3, son of PW2, who was accompanying his
father at the time of incident deposed that he saw three boys come from the side of drain and one of them had a knife with him. The boy, who had a knife, hit his father on the chest and thigh. Those persons also took away Rs. 2150/-. He further deposed that later when his father gained consciousness he told him about involvement of four persons and also that no money was robbed from him.
31) Accordingly, PW3 was also an eye witness of the incident, who saw three boys at the time of incident and that they had robbed his father of Rs. 2150/- and also caused injuries to his father. It is only after his father regained consciousness that he told the names of accused persons to him and their roles and further that no money was robbed from him by those persons. It is intriguing that despite the fact that PW3 was also an eye witness to the case and deposed regarding the incident, he had to be told by his father about involvement of four persons and not three and also that no money was robbed from him. In his deposition recorded before the court, PW3 has emphatically deposed regarding robbing of Rs. 2150/- from his father by the accused persons and later stated that his father told him that no money was taken from him.
32) It is also to be noted that it is deposed by PW2 Amar Singh that Tej Pal had come to meet him at the hospital. Thereafter he stated that he was discharged from the hospital after about 7-8 days and after his discharge, Tej Pal had come to see him from the village. PW2 also stated that his brother Tej Pal Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 21 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi had come to meet him in Delhi after 2-3 days of the incident. He also stated that his statement was recorded twice and there was a gap of 2-3 days between his two statements. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith his son was robbed by some unknown persons and he falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case at the instance of his brother Tej Pal.
33) It is also relevant to note that IO/SI Om Prakash PW8 deposed that during investigation when the case was being investigated by Insp. Shyam Sunder, PW8 alongwith Ct. Kiran Pal were sent to Village Dhanoli, PS Bilsi, Distt. Badaun for the purpose of inquiry in the present case and to verify the facts mentioned in the complaint against the accused persons. He deposed that the villagers did not corroborate/verify the version of the complainant. They apprised Insp. Shyam Sunder about the same, however, no statement of Ct. Kiran Pal and PW8 was recorded by Insp. Shyam Sunder as the facts mentioned in the complaint were not corroborated. He deposed that later HC Bir Singh was also sent to verify the version of the complainant by Insp. Shyam Sunder and he also did not find anything to corroborate the version of the complainant and therefore, his statement was also not recorded by IO.
34) In his cross-examination PW8 deposed that when he had gone to verify the correctness of the version of the complainant, they found from the villagers that Tej Pal, brother of the complainant Amar Singh, who used to live in the village had stabbed accused Lal Bahadur and a criminal case about the said incident was registered against Tej Pal and his wife. He Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 22 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi affirmed that by the time charge sheet was prepared in the present case, Tej Pal and his wife were held guilty in case bearing FIR No.676/2008, PS Bilsi, u/s 307/506/504 IPC. He affirmed that Tej Pal had come to meet his injured brother in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that after Tej Pal met his brother Amar Singh, the complainant, they cooked a false story to implicate the accused persons in this case due to prior enmity. He also affirmed that the villagers had stated in the presence of TejPal and his father that accused Lal Bahadur resides in the village and had never gone to Delhi at any point of time. He could not recollect if the villagers had given an affidavit in writing about false implication of accused persons by the complainant.
35) Accordingly, from the testimony of PW8, IO/SI Om Prakash, it is revealed that the brother Tej Pal of the complainant had gone to meet him at the hospital. He also stated that the villagers had stated that accused Lal Bahadur resides in the village and had never gone to Delhi at any point of time, though he could not recollect if the villagers had given an affidavit to this effect.
36) From the aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that an FIR bearing no. 676/2008, PS Bilsi, u/s 307/506/504 IPC was registered against Tej Pal, his wife Geeta and his son Attar Singh, in which the accused persons were convicted. The said FIR was lodged by accused Chanchal for injuries caused to accused Lal Bahadur by Tej Pal. It is also proved on record that Tej Pal had visited his brother at the hospital. Though PW2 has given different versions as regards time of visit of his brother Tej Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 23 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Pal and has stated that his brother had visited him after he got discharged from the hospital after 7-8 days/after 2-3 days of incident. He also stated that his brother came to visit him at the hospital. Hence, PW2 has contradicted his version as regards visit of his brother Tej Pal at the hospital. Complainant, however, stated that there was a gap of 2-3 days between his two statements. He however denied the suggestion that he had given his subsequent statement naming the accused persons at the behest of his brother Tej Pal or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons because accused Chanchal had lodged a case against Tej Pal regarding stabbing of Lal Bahadur.
37) As discussed hereinabove, both PW2 and PW3 have initially deposed regarding the incident of robbery and later changed their version to state that an amount of Rs. 2150/- was not taken away by the accused persons. There are improvements and contradictions in the statements of PW2 recorded during investigation. Initially the complaint Ex. PW2/A mentioned about three unknown persons. In the subsequent statement, he stated about four accused persons and their roles and in his last statement he completely changed his version to state that he was not robbed by the accused persons but he was stabbed due to prior enmity between his brother and the accused persons. The testimony of PW2 therefore is not consistent. Even PW3, who was an eye witness to the incident and deposed that he had seen three boys coming from the side of drain and one of them had a knife with him with which he stabbed his father and they took away Rs. 2150/-. He later changed his version in his testimony recorded before the court and stated that his father told him about Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 24 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi the involvement of fourth person also, names of the accused persons and further that no money was robbed from him. Accordingly, on one hand PW3 deposed that the accused persons took away Rs. 2150/-, on the other hand he deposed that his father told him that no money was robbed. Hence, despite being an eye witness he did not give a consistent version of the incident and gave two versions before the court at the time of recording of his testimony. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 hence contain improvements and contradictions and thus do not inspire confidence of the court. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 seen in the light of the fact that brother of the complainant Tej Pal had been convicted in a case lodged by accused Chanchal for stabbing of accused Lal Bahadur, do not rule out the possibility of false implication of the accused persons in the present case. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of all accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
38) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused persons namely Net Ram, Chanchal, Lal Bahadur and Veresh are acquitted of the offences they have been charged with. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
39) After compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C by the accused persons, file be consigned to record room .
Announced in the open Court (Deepali Sharma)
th
on this 12 January, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-04
East District/KKD Courts/Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 927/2016 Page 25 of 25 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi