Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Singh on 17 December, 2014
FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 250/1/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0337012014 State Vs. Inder Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh R/o H. No. F6/189, Sector16, 2nd Floor, Rohini, Delhi. FIR No. : 640/14 Police Station : KNK Marg Under Sections : 308 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 03.11.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 17.12.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 17.12.2014 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused namely Inder Singh had been sent to face trial in respect of offence U/s 308 IPC on the allegations that on 26.07.20.14 at about 11.30 pm at F6/189, 2nd Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS K.N. Katju Marg, the accused had caused dangerous injuries on the person of Ms. Nisha D/o Sh. Kishan Singh with bathroom glass as well as by TV set up box under such circumstances and knowledge that if by said act, he would have caused the death of said Ms. Nisha, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 7
FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 The case of prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is that on receipt of call vide DD No. 87B at about 11.55 pm on 26.07.20.14, ASI Rawat Singh alongwith Ct. Ladhu Ram reached the place of occurrence i.e. H. No. F6/189, 2nd Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi where one girl in severally injured condition was found lying in one room of said house. After leaving Ct. Ladhu Ram at the spot, ASI Rawat Singh removed the injured girl to BSA Hospital with the help of her brother where she was medically examined vide MLC no. 9178/14 and her name was revealed as Ms. Nisha who was declared unfit for statement by concerned doctor.
It is claimed that ASI Rawat Singh recorded statement of Neeraj who was brother of injured. In the said statement, he alleged that injured Nisha and accused Inder Singh consumed liquor at about 11.15 pm on that day and they entered into quarrel on some issue on which accused removed glass of bathroom and gave blow with said piece of glass on her head. Not only this, he also inflicted blow on her head and jaw with set up box of TV on which he made PCR call at 100 number.
On the basis of said statement, FIR U/s 308 IPC was registered at PS K.N. Katju Marg and investigation was entrusted to ASI Rawat Singh.
It is further alleged in the chargesheet that IO ASI Rawat Singh arrested the accused herein, recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, prepared rough site plan at the instance of complainant and seized the case property, during the course of investigation.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 7 FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court was pleased to frame the charge u/s 307 IPC against the accused vide order dated 03.11.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as three witnesses namely PW1 Ms. Nisha, PW2 Neeraj and PW3 Smt. Heera Devi during trial till 17.12.2014.
Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on any material point, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
In a case tilted "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996 JCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled out :
"In a case, where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with. State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 7 FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and ld. counsel on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
Before discussing the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief the testimonies of the aforesaid star witnesses examined by prosecution during trial.
PW2 namely Sh. Neeraj is the complainant in this case. According to the prosecution story, his sister namely Ms. Nisha was assaulted with bathroom glass and TV set up box by accused at the time of incident in question in his presence.
However, he has not supported the case of prosecution on any material point whatsoever. Rather he deposed that when his sister Nisha and his brother i.e. accused consumed liquor, his parents objected to the same on which an altercation had taken place between his sister Nisha, accused and his parents. His sister Nisha went inside the bathroom and due to the influence of liquor, she slipped inside the bathroom. His sister Nisha tried to balance herself and also tried to catch hold of the bathroom glass, due to which said glass fell over her head as a result of which she sustained injury on her head with that glass. Due to said impact, she also bleeded from her head. Thereafter, she came outside the bathroom to a room. Since she was bleeding and was also under the influence of liquor, she was not able to walk properly and when she tried to balance herself and to catch hold of the TV set up box, the said set up box also fell over her head.
State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 7 FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 PW2 categorically deposed that his brother i.e. accused Inder Singh had not caused any injury to his sister Nisha. He explained that police met him in the hospital and made enquiries from him but police had not recorded his statement. However, police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers. He simply told to IO that his sister and accused Inder Singh were consuming liquor.
This witness was cross examined at length by Ld Additional PP who put all the relevant suggestions to this witness on the lines of prosecution story but same were denied by him. Although he admitted his signature on his police statement Ex.PW2/A but claimed that he had not made any such statement to the police.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW1 Ms. Nisha is the injured herself and PW3 Smt. Heera Devi is mother of the said injured. However, they have also not supported the case of prosecution on any material point. Both the said two witnesses also narrated the same story as deposed by PW2 Neeraj.
Both the abovesaid two witnesses have also been put to cross examination by Ld Additional PP on behalf of State but still, they did not support the prosecution story and denied all the relevant suggestions put to them on the lines of prosecution story. They also denied to have made statements mark P1 and P3 before the police during the course of investigation.
State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 7 FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 However, both the said witnesses have not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED & CASE LAW CITED It has been argued by Ld Additional PP that injuries have been sustained by PW1 Ms. Nisha on her head as is quite apparent from her MLC available on record. Ld Additional PP further argued that injured, her mother and complainant may have been won over by the accused as he is their real brother and son but no benefit should be given to the accused on this ground.
On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel of accused vehemently argued that all the three star witnesses of prosecution namely PW1 Ms. Nisha, PW2 Neeraj and PW3 Ms. Heera Devi did not support its case on any material point and thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is important to note that all the three key witnesses i.e PW1 to PW3 named above, have failed to support the case of prosecution on any material point. Rather, they categorically testified that since PW1 Nisha had consumed liquor, she went inside the bathroom and due to the influence of liquor, she slipped inside the bathroom. In other words, all the said three star witnesses of prosecution including injured herself deposed during trial that she had sustained injuries of her own and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of accused.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the depositions made by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the entire case of prosecution has fallen State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 7 FIR No. 640/14 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. KNK Marg D.O.D.: 17.12.2014 down like a pack of cards. According to the case of prosecution, the aforesaid three public witnesses alone had witnessed the incident. Thus, all three of them alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial. However, none of them deposed on the lines of prosecution case as mentioned in the chargesheet. In view of testimonies of said public witnesses, Court is of the view that the entire case of prosecution has become doubtful.
The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something would have come on the surface in the deposition of said eye witnesses, but all three of them turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination on behalf of State connecting the accused with the offence charged against him.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accused namely Inder Singh is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 17.12.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Inder Singh etc ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 7