Delhi District Court
State vs . Praveen Goyal on 22 May, 2012
1 FIR No:329/2000
State Vs. Praveen Goyal
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 329/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 288/338 IPC
State V. Praveen Goyal
Date of institution of the case : 10/01/2001
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 22/05/2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 723/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 02.04.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : Smt. Ram Murti Devi
W/o Ex.Cap. Ram Lal
Rathore
R/o RZ11C/12A, Gali No.8,
2 FIR No:329/2000
State Vs. Praveen Goyal
Mangla Puri, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Praveen Goyal
S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass
R/o RZ11C/2A, Gali No.8,
Kailash Puri, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : u/s 288/338 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 22.05.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case was registered against the accused on the complaint of complainant Smt. Ram Murti Devi in which she stated that on 01.04.2000 at about 1.30 pm when she was going on the roof of her house, suddenly boundary wall of neighbouring house No. RZ11C/2B 3 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal fall upon her and due to which she received injuries over her head, left leg and other parts of the body and she was taken to hospital by her husband. On the basis of this complaint the present case was registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused Praveen Goyal for the offence u/s 288/338 IPC.
2. And after taking cognizance the accused Praveen Goyal was summoned. Thereafter, notice for the offence u/s 288/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and trial started.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Five witnesses and has examined all the Five witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Ram Narayan stated that on 02.04.2000 he received 4 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal rukka at about 1.15 pm from SI Neeraj Chaudhary through Ct. Surinder on the basis of which he recorded the FIR of the present case, the copy of which is Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 Smt. Ram Murti Devi stated that on 01.04.2000 while she was climbing bamboo ladder for going on the roof of her house. The boundary wall of the house of the accused fell on her, following which she sustained severe injury on her head and leg. Her leg was also fractured. She had already requested several times to the accused to make pillers to support the said wall. Following the said injury, she fell unconscious, she was taken to the hospital. The house of the accused is built up adjoining of her house. However they have a separate wall. She had put the bamboo ladder along with her wall and the wall of the house. The incident had happened at about 1.30 pm. She was discharged from the hospital on the same day evening but she do not remember the exact time. Police had come 5 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal to her house on the next day and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A . Her house was also damaged. She had also pointed out the place of occurrence to the police.
6. PW3 SI Neeraj Chaudhary stated that on 02.04.2000 in pursuance of DD No.19A he along with Ct. Surender visited the spot i.e. H.No.11C/2A Kailash Puri, Gali No.8, Sagarpur at about 11.45 am, whereon complainant met him and gave her statement Ex.PW2/A and he after making endorsement got the case registered through Ct. Surender. Incident had already occurred on 01.04.2000 at about 1.30 pm however the complainant was met on the next day. True copy of the DD entry No.19A is markedX which was given to him at the PS by the DO. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A at the instance of complainant. He also arrested the accused Parveen Goel vide memo Ex.PW3/B & Ex.PW3/C. Accused Parveen Goel was the owner of the building which was under construction 6 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal and he was the one who was looking after the construction work. He had collected the photocopy of the GPA and receipts with regard to the ownership of the said building, the copy of the same are marked 'Y' collectively. He recorded the statements of witnesses and thereafter he was transferred and handed over the file to MHC(R).
7. PW4 Ct. Surender stated that on 02.04.2000 he accompanied the IO/SI Neeraj Chaudhary to the spot i.e. Gali no.8 Kailash puri. He do not remember the house number. One lady met them. IO recorded her statement and got her medically examined from the hospital but he do not remember the name of the hospital. Thereafter IO prepared the rukka and sent him for the registration of the FIR. He came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and also arrested the accused from the spot vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW3/B and 7 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal Ex.PW3/C.
8. PW5 Subedar Mahadev stated that he is working in the Base Hospital since last 3 years and I have brought the original record pertaining to MLC No.1688 of one Smt. Ram Murti Devi. Carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW5/A (OSR).
9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. Statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he do not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused and he be given maximum punishment. Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against accused. 8 FIR No:329/2000
State Vs. Praveen Goyal The story of the prosecution is concocted. Statements of witnesses are contradictory and unreliable. He further argued that infact the complainant sustained injuries due to falling from the roof of her house and thereafter she implicated the accused falsely. Accused is falsely implicated in the present case and is liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statement of witnesses.
11. In the present case there is only one eye witness who is the complainant herself and therefore her statement must be uncontradictory, corroborative to become reliable. In her examination in chief she repeated the identical version of the complaint. But during her cross examination, many contradictions came out.
12. In her cross she stated that she was taken to the hospital for treatment on 01.04.2000 and in her chief examination she also stated that 9 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal she was discharged from the hospital on the same day. But when MLC Ex.PW5/A is perused, the date and time of her admission at hospital is shown as 04.04.2000 and after overwriting it is seen as 06.04.2000. The nature of injury earlier written as simple and then after cutting word grievous is written. Therefore, the fact stated by the complainant that he went to hospital on 01.04.2000 becomes unreliable.
13. The allegations against the accused is that he had not taken proper care and caution in providing the safeguard of his building or his part and due to it the said wall of his house fallen and injured sustained injuries. The complainant alleged in her complaint as well as in her statement before the court that when she was climbing Bamboo ladder, the boundary wall of the house of accused fell on her. Whereas in MLC Ex.PW5/A, the alleged history is stated as fall from roof. In her examination in cross she stated that she only told the police that she 10 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal sustained injury and she had not told any other fact to the police officer as she was not able to speak but in her complaint Ex.PW2/A all the facts are mentioned. It made doubtful the complaint itself. In her further cross examination she specifically admitted that IO obtained her thumb impression on some papers and she do not know what were contents of those documents. She further stated that on 01.04.2000 she was in hospital and were not feeling well therefore police was not called on that day but as per MLC Ex.PW5/A she was admitted in the hospital either on 06.04.2000 or on 04.04.2000 but there is no document proved on record to show that she was admitted to hospital on 01.04.2000. Therefore, the story stated by her comes under the doubt. It is also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sikandar Kumar Vs. State 1998 (3)Crimes 69 that material contradictions in the statements of witnesses creates doubt in the prosecution version and it would be unsafe to place total reliance on their testimony. 11 FIR No:329/2000
State Vs. Praveen Goyal
14. There is no any other documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence placed on record by the IO in support of prosecution version. No photograph of the scene of occurrence taken by the IO. Site plan Ex.PW3/A is also vague and uncertain. In the site plan no place is shown where the alleged wall of accused house was. As per the IO and PW4, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant but on the site plan there is no name or signature of the complainant as a witness showing her presence.
15. As per complainant herself, incident occurred on 01.04.2000 but the matter reported to the police on 02.04.2000. There is delay of about one day in lodging the FIR. The reason given by the complainant that on 01.04.2000 she was in hospital and not feeling well and therefore not informed the police, is not a sufficient or reliable reason. She admittedly stated that she was discharged from the hospital on the same day and she was also accompanied by her husband and therefore delay of one day in 12 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal reporting the matter to police also fatal to prosecution. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 3247 that a deliberate delay of six hours to lodge FIR at PS when one of the sons of the deceased was available to go to police station immediately, delay was held to be deliberate and delay casts a doubt on the veracity of prosecution story. Again while discussing about the importance of fact of delay in lodging the FIR the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Dass Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155 observed that the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant factor of which the court must take notice.
16. Due to these discrepancies, contradictory statements of only eye witness and I.O. of the case, the prosecution version becomes doubtful and the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused 13 FIR No:329/2000 State Vs. Praveen Goyal are not proved. The version of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubts, the benefit of which goes to the accused as per the settled principle of criminal justice. Therefore, the accused Praveen Goyal S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass stands acquitted for the offence u/s 288/338 IPC in FIR No.329/2000, PS: Dabri. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 22nd day of May' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 13 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
14 FIR No:329/2000
State Vs. Praveen Goyal FIR NO: 329/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 288/338 IPC State V. Praveen Goyal 22/05/2012 Present: APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail with counsel Sh. H.S.Sharma. Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Praveen Goyal is acquitted for the offence u/s 288/338 IPC in the present case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI