Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

The State vs ) Rakesh Kumar S/O Sh. Rajbir on 18 August, 2010

                                   1

           IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
    ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE­04, NORTH­EAST DISTRICT
              KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI


FIR No. : 15/2009
SC No. : 140/09
PS : Gokalpuri
U/s : 308/341/506/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02402R0164592009 
In the matter of 
The State
Versus
1) Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o : V­951, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi.

2) Praveen S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o : V­951, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi.

3) Sohan Pal S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o : V­951, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi.

4) Monu Kumar S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o : V­951, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi.
                                                ...ACCUSED
Date of Institution : 30.05.2009
Date of committal : 03.08.2008
Date of reserving judgment/order : 18.08.2010
Date of pronouncement : 18.08.2010.


FIR No. : 15/2009                                  Page 1 of 6
                                           2

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

1.

Accused Rakesh Kumar, Praveen, Sohan Pal @ Sonu and Monu Kumar were sent up for trial by police of PS Gokalpuri for offence punishable U/s 308/341/506/34 IPC on the allegations that complainant Satprakash made a complaint that on 17.01.2009, at about 10 PM, he was present at Wazirabad road, near Ambedkar College, Bus Stand and in the meantime, accused Sohan Pal @ Sonu and Monu came to him and stopped him on the way. The complainant Satprakash was held by them and they said to him that "Aj bach kar kahan jayega". Both the accused persons were having danda in their hands. They hit the complainant on his legs and body with danda. Accused Sonu and Monu beaten him with fists and slaps and threatened him to kill. The complainant escaped with the help of his driver. The complainant was medically examined and the doctor gave the opinion regarding nature of injury as simple. As per the MLC, the complainant was found having swelling on the left parital region, tenderness on left hip and abrasion on vertex. The nature of injury as per the Senior Neurosurgeon was given as grievous and opinion regarding nature of other injuries present on his body was given as simple. After the investigation of the case, FIR was registered against the accused FIR No. : 15/2009 Page 2 of 6 3 persons and charge­sheet was filed against them. The complainant has also filed a complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C alleging therein that accused persons had also extorted him of Rs. 12,000/­, one wrist watch and one golden ring by putting him in the fear of death but the IO has deliberately not mentioning the same. The complainant stated that he remained admitted in the hospital for ten days in Neuro­Surgery ward. He got 15 stitches on his fore­head and was operated and he is still getting the treatment. The said complaint was clubbed with the charge­sheet.

2. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 03.08.2008 by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. Vide order dated 06.01.2010, after finding prima­facie, accused persons were charged for offences punishable U/s 308/34 IPC, U/s 392/34 IPC, U/s 394/34 IPC, U/s 397/34 IPC and U/s 506/34 IPC, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as three material witnesses namely PW­1 Sh. Satprakash Sharma, PW­2 Sh. Suresh Kumar and PW­3 Sh. Vineet Kumar.

5. All the material witnesses have turned hostile and they did not FIR No. : 15/2009 Page 3 of 6 4 support the prosecution version. The complainant i.e PW­1 Satprakash failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants and other material witnesses i.e PW­2 Sh. Suresh Kumar and PW­3 Sh. Vineet Kumar also denied the suggestion that accused Rakesh, Sonu, Monu and Praveen are the persons who gave beatings to Sh. Satya Prakash and caused him injuries by danda blows on his head, hand and other parts of the body. Since all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, therefore, no useful purpose would have been served in continuing the trial as the prosecution could not have succeeded even after examining the remaining witnesses who are formal in nature. Hence, the prosecution evidence was closed by order.

6. Since, there is nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, the statements of accused persons are dispensed with.

7. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. G.S Singh, Advocate for accused persons. I have gone through the record.

8. PW­1 Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma is the injured and the complainant. He testified that on 17.01.2009, at about 10.00 PM, he FIR No. : 15/2009 Page 4 of 6 5 was present at Wazirabad road, near Ambedkar College, Bus Stand and in the meantime, 3­4 persons came there and started abusing him and when he objected, one of them hit some blunt object on his head and due to which, he sustained head injuries. Blood started oozing out from his head. The other assailants had also gave him beatings by leg blows and punch blows and thereafter, they ran away from there. Some one called the police. PCR police reached there and took him to GTB Hospital. IO of this case met him in the hospital and he recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He further testified that he does not know the assailants who gave me beatings and caused him head injuries.

9. PW­2 Sh. Suresh Kumar testified that he does not know anything about this case.

10. PW­3 Sh. Vineet Kumar testified that Sh. Satya Prakash is his father. Their two buses are used to ply on the route of Nand Nagri to Ajmeri Gate. He is driving one of the buses on the same route. The buses of Rakesh also used to ply on the same route. There is no dispute between Rakesh and his father. He stated that he does not know anything else.

11. All the material witnesses namely PW­1 Sh. Satprakash Sharma, FIR No. : 15/2009 Page 5 of 6 6 PW­2 Sh. Suresh Kumar and PW­3 Sh. Vineet Kumar were declared hostile on behalf of the prosecution and they were cross­ examined by Ld. Addl. P.P for the State at length. Despite their cross­examination by Ld. Addl. P.P, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons. They could not identified the accused persons being assailants.

12. Since all the material witnesses have turned hostile, they did not support the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their case against the accused persons i.e Rakesh Kumar, Praveen, Sohan Pal and Monu Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Rakesh Kumar, Praveen, Sohan Pal and Monu Kumar are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, accused Rakesh Kumar, Praveen, Sohan Pal and Monu Kumar are accordingly acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stands cancelled. Sureties discharged. Case property, if any, be destroyed after the period of appeal. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 18.08.2010 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ­04/NE/KKD/18.08.2010 FIR No. : 15/2009 Page 6 of 6