Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish Etc on 8 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Jagdish etc
FIR NO: 502/06
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
Unique ID no. 02403R0685412006
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 484/2 (15.10.2010)
Date of its institution : 31.10.2006
Name of the complainant : Lalit Kumar
Date of Commission of offence : 15.3.2006
Name of the accused : 1. Jagdish @ Jagga
2. Subhash @ Karan
3. Manohar @ Tinku
4. Megh Raj
5. Inderjeet
6. Raj Kumar
Offence complained of : Section 323/341/506/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 7.12.2013
Date of judgment : 8.01.2014
Final Order : ACQUITTED
State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 1/10 FIR no. 502/06
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the aforesaid accused persons upon the police report filed by P.S. Ambedkar Nagar u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).
2. The broad essential facts as put forth by the prosecution are that on 16.3.2006 complainant Lalit Kumar alongwith his children were going to his house at 18/10, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi by a car. In the way the car was stopped by Raj Kumar, Megh Raj, Tinku, Jagga, Karan and Inderjeet. Raj Kumar and Megh Raj caught hold of him and Tinku started beating the complainant by fist and kicks and Jagga, Karan and Inderjit hit him by lathi and dandas. He sustained injuries on his ribs and developed severe pain. At about 5.30 pm his father called at 100 number and complainant's brother took him to the police station. However, the police did not take any action. Consequently, complainant filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the Code") in the court pursuant to which present FIR no. 502/06 was got registered.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency commenced the investigation and in the course of investigation prepared site plan, arrest and personal search memos of the accused persons, MLC of injured, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of other formalities laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
4. Accused persons were formally charged under section 323/341/506/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The prosecution exhibited number of documents which included FIR Ex.PW3/A, site plan Ex.PW6/A, arrest memos as Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/F, personal search memos as State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 2/10 FIR no. 502/06 Ex.PW4/G to Ex.PW4/L.
6. PW 1 Sh. Lalit Kumar deposed that on 16.3.2006 while he alongwith his children were going to his house at 18/10, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi by a car, accused persons whom he identified in the Court met him on the way near a Paan shop at Bus Stand of 521, 580 and came in front of his car and made him to stop his car and asked him to call his brother so that they could see him. They started manhandling him, some of them caught hold him and rest of them started beating him with a danda. They were armed with dandas at that time. He sustained injuries on his ribs and developed severe pain. His wife got down from the car and took his children to his house and informed her brother. Thereafter his brothers Sh. Dev Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar alongwith his father Sh. Prem Nath came there at the spot. They intervened in the matter. Accused persons had run away from the spot after giving him beatings. He was taken to the hospital for his medical examination whereon he remained admitted for about 1112 days. His brother had informed the police station on 100 number and had gone to PS personally. But police did not take any action. Accused persons also threatened to kill him after getting discharged from the hospital if he would report the matter to the police. Finally he made complaint Ex.PW1/A in the Court. He had also given a complaint to the DCP vide complaint Ex.PW1/B. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
7. PW 2 Sh. Prem Nath deposed that he does not remember the date of incident. However it was the day of Holi of 2006. It was 4/5'O clock in the evening while he was sitting at his Sweets shop situated at a distance of 700 meter from the place of occurrence, he saw that accused persons were beating his son Lalit Kumar with a danda and Saria. Some of the boys had also come to him and informed about the State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 3/10 FIR no. 502/06 incident. He alongwith his son Devi Kumar immediately rushed there and saw that accused persons were beating his son Lalit Kumar. As soon as they reached there, accused persons ran away from there. His son Dev Kumar alongwith 23 neighbours took his injured son to AIMS hospital. He sustained injuries on his chest. Some of the accused persons were known to him even prior to the incident. He was interrogated by the police. However, his statement was not recorded. He also made complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police in writing. His cross examination was deferred but later on he reportedly got expired and hence remained uncrossexamined.
8. PW 3 Dr. Ashish proved the MLC and X ray of injured Lalit Kumar prepared by Dr. Madhukar gupta as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite according opportunity.
9. Next witness HC Devender Kumar proved the FIR as Ex.PW3/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite according opportunity.
10. PW 4 Ct. Shyam Lal proved the arrest memos of the accused persons as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F and their personal search memos as Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW4/I, Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/L respectively. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite according opportunity.
11. PW 5 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 15.3.2006, after receiving information, he went to the bus stand near SectorV, Ambedkar Nagar of bus no. 521 and had found his younger brother Lalit in injured condition and he had taken him to AIIMS hospital as he had received injuries in a quarrel. At that time, his brother could not tell the names of the persons who had beaten him as he was in critical condition. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 4/10 FIR no. 502/06
12. PW 6 SI Jeet Singh deposed that on 4.7.2006, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, the FIR was registered on the direction of the Court as the injured/complainant Lalit Kumar had filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC. After the registration of FIR, the investigation was marked to him. During investigation, he met the complainant and visited the place of occurrence i.e bus stop of route no. 521, Dakshin Puri and at his instance, he prepared the site plan being Ex.PW6/A and recorded the statement of the injured/witness/complainant. Thereafter, he searched for the accused persons. However, they could not be found and on 13.7.06, he formally arrested all the accused persons on different dates vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/F as the accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the Court and also conducted their personal search. He also collected the opinion/result of the injuries from the hospital and placed the same on record. He recorded the statement of witnesses and the charge sheet was filed in the Court after the completion of investigation. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
13. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case. Prosecution evidence stood closed vide order dated 13.3.2013.
14. The accused persons were examined under the provision of section 313 of the Code and all the incriminating evidence were put to them which they denied and answered that complainant has falsely implicated them. They also chose to lead defence evidence.
15. DW 1 Sh. Jwala Parshad deposed that on 15.3.2006 at about 4 pm, accused Inderjit, Megh Raj, Raj Kumar and Jagga came to his house in order to celebrate Holi as it was a day of Holi festival and they remained with him upto 6 pm and in between they State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 5/10 FIR no. 502/06 celebrated the Holi festival with him. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. Defence evidence stood closed vide order dated 19.8.2013.
16. Ld. APP for the State has not addressed any arguments on behalf of the State.
17. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has claimed their innocence and false implication on the ground that the complainant in his initial complaint alleged that the incident is dated 15.3.2006 whereas in his examination in chief he told the date of incident as 16.3.2006. It is further his argument that accused persons are stated to be known to the complainant but in his examination he had not named any of them neither any specific role of any accused is mentioned who caught hold and who hit danda. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that weapon of offence i.e lathi has also not been recovered. Lastly that the MLC of the injured does not reveal any visible injuries on his body which is highly mystifying given the fact that he allegedly received beatings at the hands of the accused persons from lathis and dandas. All these circumstances taken cumulatively throw grave doubts on the credibility of the complainant.
18. Accused persons have been made to stand trial for offences u/s 341/323/506/34 IPC.
19. After carefully scrutinizing and analysing the prosecution's evidence including the testimony of key prosecution witnesses as well as documents on record, I am of the confirmed opinion that the story propounded by the prosecution is incredulous and eventually fails to inspire the confidence of this Court. The reasons for holding this view are contained in the following part of the judgment.
20. PW 1 Lalit Kumar is the star witness of the prosecution. The relevant fragment of his testimony before the Court is as follows;
"On 16.3.2006 while I alongwith my children was going to my house at 18/10, Dakshin State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 6/10 FIR no. 502/06 Puri, New Delhi by a car accused persons present in the Court met me on the way near a Pan Shop at Bus Stand of 521, 580 and came in front of my car and made me to stop my car and started saying that "you call your brother, we will see him". They started manhandling me, some of them caught hold me and rest of them started beating me with a danda. They were armed with dandas at that time. I sustained injuries on my ribs and develop severe pain. My wife got down from the car and took my children to my house and informed my brother. Thereafter my brothers Sh. Dev Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar alongwith my father Sh. Prem Nath came there at the spot. They intervened in the matter. Accused persons had ran away from the spot after giving me beatings. Accused persons are know to me prior to this incident and they also running RTV vehicles."
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the abovesaid examination in chief of PW 1 Lalit Kumar is not materially in consonance with his initial complaint u/s 156 (3) of the Code on the basis of which order for registration of the FIR was made by the then Ld. MM. He has also taken me through the cross examination of PW 1 to bring home the point of false implication of the accused persons.
22. First and foremost is the date of the incident in question which as per the initial complaint of PW 1 Lalit Kumar before the Court u/s 156 (3) of the Code is 15.3.2006 whereas in his examination in chief, he stated the date of the incident as 16.3.2006. Although that can be said to be an inadvertent or typographical error but no such explanation has been tendered by the prosecution. Secondly, in the initial complaint, PW 1 had etched out the specific role of all the accused persons that they all stopped the car in which he and his family members were travelling. Accused Raj Kumar and Megh Raj caught hold of the complainant and accused Tinku started beating the State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 7/10 FIR no. 502/06 complainant by fist and kicks and accused Jagga, Karan and Inderjit hit him by lathi and danda. On the other hand his examination in chief is devoid of the categorical role of the accused persons wherein he had merely stated that some of them caught hold of him and rest of them started beating him with danda. Thirdly, in his examination in chief, witness PW 1 has improvised his story by deposing that when all the accused persons intercepted his car, they said "you call your brother, we will see him". But this aspect has not been mentioned by him in his initial complaint u/s 156 (3) of the Code. These glaring defects in the version of the complainant/PW 1 are too significant to be ignored.
23. Additionally, PW 1 has also claimed to have suffered serious injuries in the incident at the hands of the accused persons. It is his claim that the accused persons had beaten him with danda and he sustained injuries on his ribs and also suffered severe pain. He also deposed that he remained admitted in AIIMS hospital for 1112 days and thereafter he was referred to Safdarjung hospital. In his initial complaint u/s 156 (3) of the Code, he had also claimed to have undergone major surgery for the injuries suffered by him on 16.3.2006 and remained confined in the hospital for about 2 months. But as per the MLC Ex.PW2/A proved by PW 2 Dr.Ashish, Senior Resident Surgery, AIIMS hospital, the nature of the injuries has been opined as simple. Perusal of the said MLC reveals no apparent injuries on the person of PW 1 except that he has been advised voveron and tetanus injection and chest x ray. Although one xray is on the judicial record but there is no finding that injured PW 1 suffered any fracture or bone dislocation. Had the version of the injured that the accused persons battered him with lathis and dandas been correct, he would have certainly received some bruises or some major injuries upon his body which is not so in the instant case thereby casting serious doubts on the State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 8/10 FIR no. 502/06 credibility of this witness.
24. It is also worthwhile to note that as per the testimony of PW 1 Lalit Kumar at the time of the incident his wife and children were with him but prosecution has neither examined his wife nor her name is found mentioned in the list of witnesses. In the facts and circumstances, his wife could have been a natural eye witness whose testimony would have lent some credence to the story of the prosecution but in the absence of her being associated as the prosecution's witness, further mars the case of the prosecution. The incident is also alleged to have taken place at the populated area, which fact has also been conceded by witness PW 1 in his cross examination but no independent/public witness has been joined in the investigation by the investigating agency. Furthermore, in his cross examination PW 1 has claimed to have apprised the concerned doctor of the persons who had assaulted him but the MLC Ex.PW2/A is devoid of the names of the assailants. As per the deposition of PW 5 Sh. Sunil Kumar who is shown to be the older brother of the injured PW 1, he had taken the injured to AIIMS hospital after receiving the information on 15.3.2006. In his examination in chief, he has stated that at that time his brother could not tell the names of the brother who had beaten him as he was in critical condition whereas in his cross examination, he has stated that his brother was oriented, they had conversation on the way but his brother did not disclose the names of the accused persons to him neither did he disclose the same during his medical examination. All these circumstances further takes the wind out of the sail of the prosecution.
25. Although prosecution has examined PW 2 Sh. Prem Nath in support of the testimony of PW 1 but on the date of his examination in chief i.e on 11.7.2007 his cross examination was deferred and later on he did not appear for his cross examination as State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 9/10 FIR no. 502/06 he got expired. The fact of his death is found mentioned in the order dated 5.7.2011 of Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Without according opportunity to the accused persons to cross examine the said witness, his testimony cannot be read in evidence. Therefore examination in chief of witness PW 2 recorded by the prosecution is of no avail to its case.
26. Prosecution has also cited one witness Dev Kumar but he could not be examined as he was not found residing at both the addresses mentioned in the charge sheet.
27. In view of the above narrative, it is observed that prosecution has miserably failed to build a credible case against the accused persons so as to held them liable for the offences they have been charged with. Testimony of its star witness PW 1 Lalit Kumar suffers from infirmities and appears to be inherently improbable as discussed hereinabove. The wife of witness PW 1 Lalit Kumar who could have been the natural eye witness has not been cited as a witness for the reasons best known to the investigating agency. These circumstances coupled with the medical report of the injured which is bereft of any apparent injuries go to to falsify the entire case of the prosecution. Accused persons stand acquitted for the offences with which they have been charged. They are set at liberty.
Announced in the open Court (Navjeet Budhiraja)
on 08.01.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
State Vs. Jagdish @ Jagga etc 10/10 FIR no. 502/06