Delhi High Court
State vs Amar Pal on 24 July, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24th July, 2019
+ CRL.L.P. 426/2016
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Raju Yadav, P.S.
Sultan Puri.
versus
AMAR PAL ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.S.P. Rana and V.V Arya,
Advocates along with
Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No.12560/2016 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application delay of 152 days in filing the
leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 426/2016
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th November 2015 whereby the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent Amar Pal for the
offence punishable under Section 323/354 IPC, the State has preferred the
present leave petition.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3rd April 2013, at
around 1:20 P.M., when the complainant returned home from work she
found that there was mud in front of her house which was caused due to
water that was coming out from the house of the respondent. When she
objected to it the respondent replied saying that "maine kar diya, ab tu mera
kya karlegi". When she requested him to remove the mud, the respondent
came towards the complainant and insulted her. He put his hands on her
breast and when she tried to remove his hand, he got annoyed, picked up a
stone and hit her. She sustained injury on her head and started shouting due
to which her husband who was inside the house came out. She then made a
call to 100 number and was taken to the Hospital in a PCR Van.
3. On the basis of the above statement, FIR No. 241/2013 (Ex.PW-1/A)
was registered at PS Sultan Puri for offences punishable under Sections
354/323 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge
for offences punishable under Sections 323/354 IPC was framed against the
respondent.
4. Prosecution examined six witnesses.
5. Complainant was examined as PW-2 wherein she deposed in sync
with the complaint made to the police. In her cross-examination she stated
that there were several quarrels between her family and the family of the
respondent.
6. Husband of the complainant appeared as PW3 and stated that he was
inside his house when he heard some noise from the street. He came outside
and saw that the respondent was quarrelling with his wife and blood was
oozing out from her head. In his cross-examination he stated that his family
was not in talking terms with the family of the respondent.
7. Dr. Rajesh Dalal (PW-5), deposed that he had examined the
complainant with alleged history of physical assault. On examination, her
vitals were found stable and on local examination, abrasion was present over
her forehead. He opined the nature of injury as simple in nature. In his cross-
examination he stated that the nature of weapon has not been mentioned in
the MLC but abrasion could be caused by hitting or falling.
8. Amarpal examined himself as DW-1 and his neighbours, Mithlesh as
DW-2 and Malkhan Singh as DW-3.
9. Amar Pal (DW-1), the respondent stated that there were several
quarrels between the complainant and his family members. On 3rd April
2013 at around 1:15 P.M. he was cleaning some mud/dirty water which was
present in front of his house. Suddenly the complainant told him as to why
he was doing so and started abusing him. Husband of the complainant after
hearing the noise came out and tried to hit him with a stone, however, it hit
the complainant who was injured by her own husband. He did not touch the
complainant in any manner and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The complainant used to fight with him and other neighbors also.
10. Mithlesh (DW-2), neighbour of the complainant and respondent
corroborated the statement of the respondent. He stated that on 3rd April,
2013 at about 1.15 pm, she heard the noise of quarrel and came out. There
was some mud/dirty water in front of the house of Amarpal regarding which
'R' was quarelling. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant took a stone
and tried to hit Amarpal but unfortunately the stone hit the complainant.
11. Malkhan Singh (DW-3), neighbour of the complainant and respondent
corroborated the version of DW-1 and DW-2 and also deposed that on
hearing the noise of quarrel he came out and thereafter when the husband of
the complainant tried to hit Amarpal with a stone, it hit the complainant.
12. From the evidence as noted above, it is clear that the version of the
respondent/accused is duly supported by two independent witnesses who are
the neighbours of both the parties. Though the claim of the complainant is
that the bleeding started from her forehead, however, MLC notes an
abrasion on the forehead and there is no observation in the MLC that there
was bleeding from the wound. The weapon of offence i.e. stone which is
claimed to be of one feet size by the complainant was neither pointed out
nor seized by the police. There is some delay in recording of the statement
of the complainant.
13. Considering the facts noted above, findings of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be
perverse warranting interference of this Court.
14. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
15. Trial Court record be sent back.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 24, 2019
sk
