Delhi District Court
State vs . Ved Pal Hudda Etc. on 26 June, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM07,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. VED PAL HUDDA ETC.
FIR No. 97/1997
PS: PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S: 338/304A IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 1542/2/98
Date of commission of offence : 12.02.1997
Date of institution of the case : 18.02.1998
Name of the complainant : Kailash Kumar
Name of accused and address : 1. Ved Pal Hudda S/o Sh.
Maya Chand Hudda
R/o 4283/5, Tri Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Ram Maggu
S/o Sh. Pishori Lal
R/o 9/6 Punjabi Bagh
Extension, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 338/304A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 26.06.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.02.1996 at an unknown time at A2/61, Complainant Sh. Kailash Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Sagar sustained grievous injuries FIR No.97/1997, PS Paschim Vihar Page 1/5 and Sh. Bhagwan Dass died at the spot due to the falling of wall and mud upon them while they were digging near the wall which was caused due to the negligence/carelessness on the part of accused persons Ved Pal Hudda and Ram Maggu being the Builder/JE of the area concerned and despite being alert/noticed to accused persons by the injured/deceased several times.
2. The prima facie case U/s 338/304A IPC was found to be made out against both the accused persons. Accordingly, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon them. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined eight witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:
(1) PW1 Dr. Kamal Singh, who conducted the postmortem over the body of the deceased.
(2) PW2 Dr. Amitabh Bhasin, who examined the xray plates of injured.
(3) PW3 Dr. Shiv Lata Gupta, who proved the signature of Dr. Preeti over the MLC.
(4) PW4 HC Harinder, who took the rukka to the PS for registration of the case.
(5) PW5 Sh. Chajju Ram, who identified the body of the deceased. FIR No.97/1997, PS Paschim Vihar Page 2/5 (6) PW6 Sh. Gopi Ram, who identified the body of the deceased. (7) PW7 Sh. Kailash, the complainant/injured/eye witness. (8) PW8 Retired HC Sube Ram, who took the injured to the hospital.
4. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to both the accused persons. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilty of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal. FIR No.97/1997, PS Paschim Vihar Page 3/5
6. Sh. Kailash (PW7) is the complainant/injured as well as the sole eye witness in this case. It was deposed by the witness that on the day of accident, he alongwith his brother namely Bhagwan Dass were working on the directions of contractor i.e. accused Pratap. It was further deposed by the witness that at about 03:00 PM, while they were digging/constructing the Nali, suddenly the side wall of the house collapsed and due to which Bhagwan Dass sustained severe injuries. It was further deposed by the witness that he also sustained injuries in his right leg.
The witness did not sat anything about the role of the accused persons for sustaining injuries to him and also to his deceased brother. The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State after having permission from the Court on the ground that the witness was resiling from his previous statement. Nothing came out of crossexamination of the witness done by the Ld. APP. The witness incorrected to all the suggestions put up by the Ld. APP. The witness also incorrected to the suggestions that he and his deceased brother namely Bhagwan Dass had sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent conduct on the part of the accused persons.
7. Sh. Chajju Ram (PW5) and Sh. Gopi Ram (PW6) are the witnesses who identified the body of the deceased. Apart from FIR No.97/1997, PS Paschim Vihar Page 4/5 complainant/injured, there is no other material witness in the present case and all remaining witnesses are formal witnesses whose role came into play only after the commission of alleged offence. The evidence led by the aforesaid PWs is not suffice to held guilty the accused in this case.
8. In view of the above, any rash and negligent act on the part of the accused persons not proved on the day of incident. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I acquit the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER KUMAR)
COURT ON 26.06.2012 MM07(WEST)/DELHI
FIR No.97/1997, PS Paschim Vihar Page 5/5