Delhi High Court
Smt Sita Devi & Anr. vs State Of Delhi & Anr on 5 November, 2009
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 3rd November, 2009
Judgment Delivered on: 5th November, 2009
CRL. R.P. NO.650/2003 & CRL.M.A. NO.1146/2003
SMT SITA DEVI & ANR. ..... PETITIONERS
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Amicus Curiae.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
On 5.3.2003, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had
convicted Sita Devi and Uma Rani for the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC; vide order of sentence dated
10.3.2003, they had been sentenced to be released on
probation of good conduct for a period of 6 months on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one
surety of the like amount as also to keep peace and good
behavior.
2. This judgment had become a subject matter of an
appeal filed before the Additional Session Judge. The
Additional Session Judge vide impugned judgment dated
5.8.2003, had confirmed the conviction of both the petitioners
under Section 323 of the IPC; no modification had also been
made in the sentence of probation which had been granted to
them.
3. The present revision petition has assailed this
conviction. It has been argued that no medical evidence have
been produced by the prosecution to show that the
complainant had suffered any injury; the doctor had not been
examined; the necessary corollary is that the complainant
had in fact not sustained any injury; as per the version of the
complainant the accused i.e. Sita Devi and Uma Rani had
been accompanied by their respective husbands when they
entered the house of the complainant; why the husbands
have not been examined has not been answered by the
prosecution; Avtar Singh son of the complainant was present
at the time of the incident; he has also not been examined.
The conviction qua the petitioners suffers from these inherent
defects which had resulted in a miscarriage of justice;
conviction is liable to be set aside.
4. There are two concurrent findings of fact by two Courts
below; this Court in its revisional power would interfere only
when there is a palpable error of law or a wrong view taken or
where the lower Court mis-appreciated the evidence which
has resulted in a failure of justice and not otherwise.
5. Adjudged on these parameters the statement of eye-
witness PW-1 has been examined; she is the complainant
Bachan Kaur; on oath she has deposed on 24.5.1999 at about
11.30AM Vidya Sagar along with his wife Sita Devi and Uma
Rani wife of Madan Mohan and daughter-in-law of Vidya
Sagar had come to her house for the purpose of getting
possession of this house; PW-1 had objected to their
presence; they started beating her; Sita Devi caught hold of
her while Uma Rani gave a blow with a sharp edged object on
her right hand; PW-1 sustained injuries; she was removed to
S.D.N. hospital; her statement PW-1/A was recorded.
6. In her cross-examination PW-1 has admitted that both
Uma Rani and Sita Devi were accompanied by their husbands
when they entered the house; the entire house is in her
possession. Accused persons had entered her house with
their personal articles; her son Avtar Singh had called the
police; she denied the fact that no such incident had taken
place.
7. From this version of PW-1 it is clear that Avtar Singh had
called the police, his presence in the house has not been
testified.
8. Version of PW-1 is clear, consistent and cogent;
discrepancies which are of an inconsequential nature were
rightly ignored by both the Courts below. It is further borne
out that there were disputes and a litigation pending between
the complainant and accused persons; this has also been
fortified by the version of the Investigating Officer SI Kumar
Jeveshwar PW-2. DW-1 had also come into the witness box
to establish that a suit for specific performance, possession,
damages and mense profits had been filed by Rohtash Kumar
against the complainant. DW-2 had produced the certified
copy of the complaint case filed by Rohtash Kumar against
the complainant. The said documents have been proved as
DW-2/A to DW-2/C. Rohtash Kumar is the son of Vidya Sagar
and Sita Devi.
9. Petitioners before this Court i.e. Sita Devi and Uma Rani
are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law of one and another.
The enmity between the complainant and the petitioners
stands proved which has rightly been attributed by the Trial
Court as the motive for the act of the petitioners.
10. The MLC of the victim have been collected by PW-2
which had evidenced injuries as simple and sharp. The doctor
had not come into the witness box and the MLC of the victim
has not been exhibited. Yet the injuries opined are simple
and in these circumstances it was not incumbent for the
doctor to testify to the nature of the injuries as it was a case
of simple hurt.
11. In a case of simple hurt it is not sine qua non that a
medical certificate must be forthcoming. The medical
evidence is a corroborative and not a substantive evidence.
For an allegation under Section 323, medical report may not
be required if the fact of 'marpeet' could be established by
cogent and reliable evidence; Sarita Devi and Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar and Ors. (1997) 2 BLJR 1483 (Pat).
12. The conviction of the petitioners calls for no
interference. Revision petition is without any merit.
Dismissed.
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
5th November, 2009
`ns'
