Umesh Latta v. The State & Anr.

1. These are appeals filed impugning a judgment dated 17.11.2016, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Sections 308/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Appeal NO. 2019:DHC:7012 1412/2019 has been filed by the victim and Appeal No. 1413/2019 has been filed by the State.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that victim Umesh Latta (complainant) had been struck by her husband (respondent). It is alleged that the complainant had been beaten by the respondent several times in the past. It is alleged that on 08.11.2006, while at home, the respondent had threatened to kill the complainant and had beaten her up with danda. However, she was saved by the timely intervention of his son and daughter in law and in the process, the respondent also gave some beating to his son. The matter was duly reported to police and medical examination of the complainant and her son was conducted. It is further alleged that on 18.02.2007, the complainant was again given a blow by danda on her hand by the respondent, however, the complainant managed to enter in her room and lock it from inside. The respondent started hurling abuses towards the complainant and started hitting the door of the room. Thereafter, the respondent broke the glass of the window and insisted to kill the complainant. Consequently, the complainant raised and alarm and as a result, the neighbours came to rescue her. Thereafter, due to the presence of the neighbours, the complainant came out of the room. It is alleged that while she was moving towards her room, the respondent forcibly pushed her on the floor and gave a danda blow on her head. As a result, the complainant started bleeding and there was a major discharge of blood from her head. The respondent landed some more blows on the complainant but she was saved by the neighbours and her son. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the police station, from where she was taken to the hospital (Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi).

3. The complainant and the respondent had been residing on the second floor of the house bearing No. A-36, Panchvati, Azadpur, Delhi-

110033. It is also brought on record that prior to the date of the incident, there have been various disputes relating to the property between the complainant, her son and his wife on one hand and the respondent on the other. This case relates to FIR No. 161/2007, which was registered at the instance of the complainant. The charges were framed and the respondent pleaded not guilty and the case was sent for trial.

4. During the course of the trial, the complainant deposed as PW

11. She had deposed that on 18.02.2007, at about 5.00 p.m., she had returned to her home and her maid had opened the door of the house. She stated that as soon as she was about to enter the house, the respondent had pushed her and hit her on head with his wooden walking stick. She stated that she rushed inside the room and locked herself inside the same. She stated that the respondent stood outside the door and had broken the window panes with the stick. She stated that respondent also stated that “aaj tumeh main jaan se hi mar dalunga”. She started screaming for help and on hearing her cries, her neighbours had come and tried to counsel and advise the accused. She stated that thereafter, she came out while her neighbours were still advising the respondent but he continued to hurl abuses. In the meantime, her son, who deposed as PW 2, and her daughter-in-law, who deposed as PW 9, also came home. She stated that despite the intervention and advise of the neighbours, he did not relent and therefore, she went back to her room. At this stage, the respondent again entered her room after opening the door and thereafter, he held his stick (Danda) from the reverse side and hit her on the head from the top of the danda and she received injuries on her head. She started bleeding and fell down. She stated that the respondent did not stop but continued to hit her with stick/danda but somehow, she was saved by her son, daughter-in-law, maid Mithilesh and neighbour Rajesh Arora. She stated that her son rushed her to the police station, from where she was taken to BJRM Hospital. She was kept in observation and thereafter, she was discharged.

5. The prosecution examined two neighbours of the complainant (Sh Rajesh Arora, PW 7 and Sh Kamal Kumar Gupta, PW 8). PW 7 Rajesh Arora also deposed about the incident. He stated that he was present in his house on 18.02.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., when he heard some noises from the house of respondent (A-36, Panchvati, Azadpur, New Delhi). He immediately reached there and he saw that the respondent was abusing his wife and was hitting her by his aluminium stick. The complainant was inside the room. He testified that the respondent had broken the glass windows with his aluminium stick. He tried to pacify him and tried to make him understand and took him to his drawing room. In the meantime, two other persons also came there and they also tried to make respondent see reason, thereafter, they left. The son of the respondent also reached there and tried to pacify the respondent, however, the respondent still kept abusing his wife (the complainant). He stated that the complainant came out of her room and stood outside her room. Subsequently, when she was entering into her room, the respondent had followed her with the aluminium stick and as soon as she was closing the door of her room, the respondent had pushed the doors of the room and gave blows by hitting stick on the head of the complainant from the bottom of the stick. The complainant had fallen down and blood was coming out of her head. He stated that he, along with maid Mithilesh and son of the complainant, immediately reached there and caught hold of the respondent while he was giving second blow. Thereafter, the complainant’s son had taken her to the hospital.

6. The complainant’s daughter-in-law – Mrs Charu, deposed as PW

9. She testified that on 18.02.2007 at about 5.00 p.m., she along with the complainant reached their house. At that stage, her father-in-law (respondent) had pushed the complainant and had given her a blow on her head. She stated that she heard the respondent abusing her motherin-law (the complainant). She further testified that she was hearing the respondent abusing her mother-in-law but she did not go there. She stated that about 5.30 p.m., she heard voices of her husband and thereafter she reached on the second floor, where she saw that one of the neighbours Rajesh Arora, her husband Naval Kishore and the respondent Jugal Kishor were present in the drawing room. Her motherin-law, the complainant was also present at the door of the drawing room. She stated that while she was going back to her room, the respondent had followed her and when she was closing the room, respondent pushed the door forcibly, entered the room and had struck a blow on the head of the complainant from the top portion of the stick, by holding the stick from the bottom. She stated that respondent was about to give a second blow on the complainant but he was caught hold of by her husband (Naval Kishore) and Rajesh Arora. She stated that Mithilesh (the maid servant) also reached the spot.

7. The complainant’s son Naval Kishore deposed as PW 2. Apart from making other allegations against his father, the respondent, PW 2 also deposed regarding the incident. He stated that on 18.02.2007, while he returned home, he had seen that the window panes of her mother’s room were broken and his father (respondent) was abusing his mother. He stated that the neighbours were also there. His mother, the complainant, respondent, maid servant Mithilesh and other neighbours were present in the drawing room. Thereafter, her mother went to her room but the respondent had forced the door open and hit her on the head with the stick from the handle side with an intention to kill her. He stated that the complainant had fell on the ground and had started bleeding. He stated that the respondent continued to hit his mother with the stick and in the meanwhile, his wife also arrived there. However, somehow all of them saved his mother (complainant). He also stated that while saving his mother, he also sustained injuries.

8. The maid servant Mithilesh, who deposed as PW 12, also described the incident. She stated that she had brought the complainant (referred to as Mumiji) to the house and when she was about to go to her room the respondent had hit her with his walking stick. She had rushed into the room and had shut the door from inside. She deposed that thereafter, she had heard respondent hitting the door with his danda but the door did not open. She stated that there was a window adjoining the door and the respondent had broken the same with his Danda. She stated that the complainant was screaming and shouting and on hearing the notice, one neighbour Sh Rajesh came and took the respondent towards the drawing room. On hearing the voices of Rajesh, the complainant opened the door of the bed room and came to the drawing room. In the meantime, the son of the complainant came there and his wife followed (referred to as Bhaiya and Bhabhi) and started talking to each other. She stated that they tried to advise and counsel the respondent but he was adamant. She stated that the complainant started entering the room and was about to shut the door, when the respondent had forcibly pushed open the door and he entered the bed room and hit the complainant with the head portion of his walking stick by holding its lower portion. She stated that the complainant started bleeding and fell down. However, the respondent continued to hit her. She stated that all of them – Rajesh, herself, Naval Kishore and Mrs Charu Kishore – rushed to stop the respondent.

9. In addition to the above witnesses, the prosecution had also examined one other neighbour Sh Kamal Kumar Gupta. He deposed as PW 8. He stated that on 18.02.2007 at about 1.30 p.m.-2.00 p.m., he was present in his house and was sleeping when his wife had awakened him up and stated that a quarrel had taken place between the respondent and his wife (the complainant). He stated that he went to the house of the respondent and there were some heated arguments between the respondent and his wife (complainant). He stated that he tried to pacify both the persons and, in the meanwhile, their son Naval Kishore also reached there. However, the respondent objected to the presence of his son Naval Kishore and thereafter, Naval Kishore had gone away. He stated that Naval Kishore came back again, however, the respondent had caught hold of Naval Kishore and forcibly pushed him outside the door. He stated that thereafter, the respondent and his wife continued to quarrel with each other. They both went outside the room and after one or two minutes, he heard cries of the complainant and he saw blood was oozing out from her head and she informed him that the respondent had struck her on her head. However, he stated that he heard the respondent stating that Naval Kishore had given danda blows to him.

10. Dr Shakuntla Rani was examined as PW 10. She exhibited the MLC Ex. PW 10/A. She testified abrasions and swelling over right side of parietal bone of skull and right forearm in the local examination of the complainant. She also testified that the injuries were simple in nature.

11. The Trial Court had evaluated the evidence and found that there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of various witnesses. The Trial Court noted that the testimony of PW 8 was found to be wholly inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses. He had indicated the time of the incident as 1.30 p.m.-2.00 p.m., but none of the other witnesses had deposed the time of the incident as 1.30 p.m. or 2.00 p.m. His description of the incident also does not confirm with the testimony of other witnesses. In view of the above, the Trial Court did not accept that the PW 8 was present at the time of the incident. In addition to the above, there are other loose ends in the prosecution’s case as well. PW 7 had deposed that there were other neighbours present, however, there is no mention as to who those persons were. Interestingly, none of the other witnesses had mentioned the presence of any other neighbour other than Rajesh Arora.

12. The Trial Court also doubted the presence of PW 7 at the spot since the court examined the site plan and found that the site plan did not reveal any access to the rear side of the room. The Court reasoned that since there was no window on the rear side of the wall, the neighbours could not hear the cries of PW 11, the complainant. The Court noted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the complainant (PW 11) and PW 7 as to how he had reached the spot. There are several other minor discrepancies in the testimony of other witnesses, however, this Court is of the view that the same are not material. The Court also finds no infirmity with the view of the Trial Court that PW 8 (Sh Kamal Kishore) was not present at the site. However, the testimonies of other witnesses are consistent. Each one – PW 2, PW 7, PW 9 and PW 12 – have described the material incident and their description is consistent in almost all material aspects. Although, PW 2, PW 11 and PW 12 have stated that the respondent had given more than one blows to the complainant before he was contained; PW 9 and PW 7 have deposed that the respondent had given only one blow and he was contained before striking another one. Although, PW 2 and the complainant have deposed that the respondent was also threatening to kill the complainant, the said testimony is not corroborated by other witnesses.