Delhi District Court
Sc No: 332/20 State vs . Anish Kumar & Others on 17 October, 2022
SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 332/2020
CNR No. DLSW01-006842-2020
FIR No. 754/2020
Police Station BHD Nagar
Under Section 323/325/341/506/34 IPC &
u/s 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2) SC/ST (POA) Act.
State
Versus
(1) Anish Kumar
S/o Sh. Arun Sharma
R/o RZ-31A, Jai Vihar Phase-II
Gali No. 3, Najafgarh, Delhi.
(2) Deepak Pandey
S/o Sh. Munna Pandey
R/o RZA-198, Gali No. 10
Jai Vihar Phase-II, Nangloi Road
Najafgarh, BHD Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Vishal
S/o Sh. Satyaparkash
R/o RZ-196, Gali No. 10
A-Block, Jai Vihar-II, Najafgarh
BHD Nagar, Delhi.
Judgment Page No. 1 of 9
SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
(4) Ravi Mahto
S/o Sh. Joginder Mahto
R/o RZ-145, Gali No. 10
A-Block, Jai Vihar-II, Najafgarh
BHD Nagar, Delhi.
(5) Harish
S/o Sh. Pooran Singh
R/o B-9, Laxmi Vihar
Near Kishan Dharam Kanta
Najafgarh, BHD Nagar, Delhi. ... Accused Persons
Date of institution 07.10.2020
Judgment reserved on 17.10.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 17.10.2022
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. On 27.07.2020, a PCR call vide DD No. 51A (Ex. P-
4) was received at PS BHD Nagar regarding a quarrel near Dev Hospital, RZA-34-35, Phase-II, Jai Vihar, Najafgarh, which was marked to ASI Raj Singh. Complainant was got medically examined. On 05.08.2020, complainant gave his complaint in PS BHD Nagar along-with his caste certificate. English Translation of complaint reads as under: -
Judgment Page No. 2 of 9SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others " ...... I am doing a private job in Gurugram. On 26.07.2020, at about 8.30 am, when I was at my home, I received a call from my friend Ravi. He informed that its his birthday and asked him to celebrate a party in the fields. Then I went in the birthday party of Ravi, where Deepak Pandey, Anish Sharma, Ravi Sehrawat, Suraj and Ankit were already found present. They ate cake and drunk liquor. During consuming liquor, a scuffle taken place with Deepak Pandey as he made castiest remarks (chamaar-chamaar), however, Ravi Sehrawat made us understand. Ravi dropped me and Suraj and after having meal, I slept. At about 3.00 am, Deepak Pandey called me at my mobile no. 9718304021 from the mobile phone no.
9555560186 of Anish and he called me by names of chude-chamaar and mother-sister. I saved that recordings in my phone. On 27.07.2020, Upender Pandey (elder brother of Deepak Pandey) came to my house and on his asking, I accompanied him in his Baleno car. On the way, he suggested me to patch-up the matter with Deepak Pandey. On the asking of Upender Pandey, I called Deepak Pandey who asked me about my whereabouts to which I informed that I am with his brother Upender Pandey. Thereafter, on the asking of Deepak Pandey, I alone went to Shikshagan School, Jai Vihar Phase-II, Behind B-Block, where Deepak Pandey alongwith 2-3 other persons were already present and they all beaten me with rods, dandas and fists and kicks. During fighting, my wearing gold chain was also fallen somewhere and I escaped from there. My mother called at Judgment Page No. 3 of 9 SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others 100 number. One of the boy also took out a pistol like object to threatened me during the fighting. Deepak Pandey, Anish Sharma, Ravi Mehto and an another boy beaten me, called me by names. Deepak Pandey and Anish Sharma made casteist remarks (chamaar) against me and hurt me.
Appropriate legal action be taken against them. I am making this statement without any pressure. I received injuries on my left hand and other body parts. I have also brought my caste certificate today."
2. On the complaint an endorsement was made. FIR was got registered u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC and under the provisions of Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. During investigations, caste certificate provided by complainant was verified. Result on the MLC of complainant was received from Hospital, as per which nature of injuries inflicted on complainant was opined as grievous. Accordingly Section 325 IPC was added. CCTV Footage in respect of the incident was seized in which complainant was seen being chased by Anish Kumar @ Anish Sharma. Accused Vishal @ Vasu was also seen in the photo frame. Accused persons were arrested and were charge-sheeted to face the trial.
Judgment Page No. 4 of 9SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
4. On 28.04.2022, charge u/s 325/341/34 IPC and u/s 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act was framed against accused persons Anish Kumar and Deepak Pandey, charge for the offence punishable u/s 325/341/506(II)/34 IPC was framed against accused Harish and charge for the offence punishable u/s 325/341/34 IPC was framed against accused persons Vishal and Ravi Mehto, to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 (complainant) who did not support the prosecution case. He deposed that he is "Jatav" by caste which is a scheduled caste. On 26.07.2020, accused Ravi called him in the fields to celebrate his birthday. In the said birthday party, Deepak, Anish, Ravi, Suraj and Ankit were also present. They celebrated birthday of Ravi. During the said birthday party, they all ate cake and drink liquor. After consuming liquor, a scuffle took place between him and accused persons and nothing else happened. PW1 was declared hostile witness.
6. During cross-examination by ld. Additional PP for State, complainant admitted that he made statement Ex.PW1/A to police but deposed that it was on the advise of Judgment Page No. 5 of 9 SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others his family and friends. Complainant admitted that he was medically treated at RTRM Hospital. He proved his caste certificate as Ex.PW1/B-1 and also proved arrest of accused Deepak and Anish vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/C & D.
7. PW2 Sunil Kumar deposed deposed that on 08.08.2020, he handed over a DVR of Arun Tiwari, placed in one of the rooms of his house to the IO. DVR was not in working condition. Seizure memo of DVR is Ex.PW2/A.
8. PW3 Ravi deposed that on 26.07.2020, at about 8.00 pm, he was celebrating his birthday with his friends namely Prince, Suraj, Deepak Pandey and Anish near Dhichaun Kala drain. After cutting cake, they had a drinking session. At that time a scuffle took place between complainant and Deepak Pandey and thereafter Deepak abused complainant. After his intervention, everybody went to their home and police recorded his statement on 09.08.2020. PW3 was also declared hostile to the case of prosecution. During his cross examination by ld Additional PP no incriminating fact could be elucidated. He denied that accused persons Deepak and Anish passed casteist remarks against complainant.
Judgment Page No. 6 of 9SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
9. PW4 Suraj deposed that on 26.07.2020, at about 8.00 pm, he along with other friends were celebrating birthday of Ravi with his friends namely complainant, Ankit, Deepak Pandey and Anish. After cutting cake, during drinking session a scuffle took place between complainant and Deepak Pandey and thereafter Deepak and complainant abused each other. Ravi intervened and matter got settled and everybody went to their home. Police recorded his statement. This witness was also declared hostile to the case of prosecution. During his cross examination by ld Additional PP no incriminating fact could be elucidated. He also denied that accused persons Deepak and Anish passed casteist remarks against complainant.
10. Vide their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused persons admitted registration of FIR as Ex. P-1, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act in respect of computerized record of FIR as Ex. P-2, scaled site plan as Ex. P-3, GD No. 51A & 55A dated 27.07.2020 and GD No. 97A dated 07.08.2020 as Ex. P-4 to 6, MLC of complainant dated 27.02.2020 as Ex. P- 7, caste certificate of complainant as Ex.PW1/B-1 and arrest memos as Ex.PW1/C & D. Judgment Page No. 7 of 9 SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
11. Since material witnesses PW1, 2 & 4 did not support case of prosecution recording of further prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed. As no incriminating evidence came on record against accused persons recording of statement u/s 313 CrPC of accused persons was dispensed with.
12. I have heard State through Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Additional PP for State and ld. defence counsel for accused persons. I have also perused entire material on record.
13. PW1 is complainant and PW3 and PW4 are cited as eye witnesses. All of them did not support case of the prosecution. It is observed that witnesses have deposed that on the date of incident some heated arguments/ scuffle took place between complainant and accused persons. Complainant and other material witnesses specifically deposed that no casteist remarks were passed against the complainant not any injuries were inflicted to him by accused persons. Since, no allegations are appearing against the accused persons in the testimony of material witnesses, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
Judgment Page No. 8 of 9SC No: 332/20 State Vs. Anish Kumar & Others
14. For the above reasons, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused persons. Accordingly, accused Anish Kumar, Deepak Pandey, Vishal, Ravi Mehto and Harish are acquitted. Their personal bonds are canceled and surety are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the surety.
15. In terms of Section 437(A) CrPC accused persons are directed to furnish personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each for period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 17th day of October 2022.
Digitally signed by GAUTAM GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2022.10.17 15:53:20 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN Additional Sessions Judge-02 South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. Judgment Page No. 9 of 9