Delhi High Court
State vs Maya Dahiya on 25 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 25th September, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 683/2016
STATE .... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for
the State with W/SI
Harjinder Kaur, PS
NDRS
Versus
MAYA DAHIYA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. M.M. Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.20290/2016 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application delay of 110 days in filing
the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 683/2016
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27th May, 2016 whereby the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent Maya Dahiya
for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, the State has preferred the
present leave petition.
2. Process of law was set into motion on receipt of a complaint on
100 number wherein Ashu Verma stated that on 14th August, 2008, when
she and Maya Dahiya (respondent herein) were travelling in ladies coach
of Ballabgarh-New Delhi EMU Train, Maya Dahiya had beaten her by
fist blows and kicks due to which she sustained grievous hurt on her right
hand. When Maya Dahiya deboarded the train at Tilak Bridge, Ashu
Verma and her mother chased Maya Dahiya and with the help of police,
she was apprehended. Statement of Ashu Verma was recorded vide
Ex.PW-2/A and after receiving her MLC, FIR No. 290/2008 was
registered at PS NDRS for the offence punishable under Section 325
IPC. Maya Dahiya was arrested on 17th September, 2008. After the
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. Ashu Verma was examined as PW-2. During her cross-
examination, she stated that Maya Dahiya not only started quarrelling
with her but also abused her besides using physical force to vacate her
seat by pushing her.
4. Saroj Verma (PW-3), mother of Ashu Verma deposed that she
along with Ashu Verma was travelling from Mathura to Delhi and some
passenger boarded the train from Faridabad. She asked them to vacate
the seat. Maya Dahiya threatened them stating that she was working in
police department and pushed her daughter violently from the seat. She
further deposed in sync with Ashu Verma. During her cross-
examination, she stated that no male member of the family was travelling
with them on the day of the incident.
5. Seema (PW-5) deposed that she boarded the train from Palwal and
took her seat in ladies compartment. When the train reached Ballabgarh,
there was a lot of rush in the ladies compartment and one male person
was also present in the compartment. She stated that one lady passenger
requested the said male passenger to get down from the ladies
compartment and give the seat to some other lady passenger. The said
male passenger refused to do so and the two lady passengers who were
accompanying him started arguments with other lady passengers
including her. Thereafter, the said male passenger and accompanying
ladies passengers got up from their seats and stood near the gate of the
train. Quarrel ensued between lady passengers and said persons and
apart from that nothing happened in her presence as she had got down at
Okhla Station. During her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion
that Maya Dahiya had pushed Ashu Verma in ladies compartment and
she sustained injury on her right hand and also she was an eye witness to
the said incident.
6. Dr. Amit Verma (PW-7) deposed regarding the x-ray report
Ex.PW-7/A of right wrist of Ashu Verma wherein he found fracture of
proximal phalanx on little finger. However, he admitted that x-ray plate
on record of the case does not show any fracture and x-ray of Ashu
Verma was not conducted in his presence.
7. Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1992) 3 SCC
204 Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey observed:
"34. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is
not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer
is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the
symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to
put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which
induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on
the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science
so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own
judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's
opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the
opinion of the medical officer but of the Court."
8. From the X-Ray plate so exhibited no fracture having been found,
Maya Dahiya could not have been convicted for offence punishable
under Section 325 IPC.
9. There are vital improvements in the testimony of Ashu Verma
(PW-2). She failed to explain as to why she did not use her mobile
phone to make a complaint on 100 number and used the mobile phone of
some other passenger. Furthermore, EMU train stopped on each and
every station coming on the way and there were so many stations falling
between Ballabgarh and Tilak bridge where Ashu Verma could have
informed the police and got requisite medical help. Conduct of Ashu
Verma defies the prudence of a reasonable human being in a given
situation. Ashu Verma failed to explain how she got the name and
profession of Maya Dahiya. Further, presence of father of Ashu Verma
in the ladies compartment cannot be denied as Ashu Verma stated that
her father read over statement Ex.PW-2/A to her and Seema (PW-5) also
testified about the presence of a male passenger with two lady passengers
in the ladies compartment which was the reason of argument among the
lady passengers. Lastly, there are material improvements in the
testimony of Saroj Verma (PW-3) and the prosecution case has not been
supported by the sole independent witness that is Seema (PW-5).
10. Thus, Maya Dahiya cannot be convicted for offence punishable
under Section 323 IPC as well in view of lacunas and inconsistencies in
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
11. Findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are based on the
evidence on record and view formed is a plausible view. Hence, the
impugned judgment acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be
perverse warranting interference of this Court.
12. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
'rk'
