Delhi District Court
Sate vs . Umesh Mandal on 5 October, 2010
FIR No. 56/02
PS Narela
U/s. 279/337 IPC
Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURT: DELHI.
FIR No. 56/02
PS Narela
U/s. 279/337 IPC
Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal
Date of Institution of case:- 13.05.02
Date of Judgment reserved:- 05.10.10
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 05.10.10
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of Case :753/2
Date of commission of offence :17.02.02
Name of complainant :Sh. Mohan Singh
Name and address of accused :Umesh Mandal
S/o Sh. Bhuchan Singh,
R/o Village Mahichanda,
PS Pipra,
District Sipol,
Bihar.
Offence complained of :279/337 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of order :05.10.10
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused Umesh Mandal, S/o Sh. Bhuchan Singh has been sent to face trial under Section 279/337 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on Pg no. 1 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 56/02PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal 17.02.02 at about 2:00 p.m, the accused was found driving the vehicle i.e truck having registration no. HR- 10GA-0226 in rash and negligent manner and by doing so, he caused simple injuries on the person of complainant Sh. Mohan, S/o Sh. Pratap Singh and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 56/02 was registered at Police station Narela.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused & after supplying the copies to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C), a charge U/s. 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused on 04.06.03, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is a matter of record that prosecution referred as many as 7 witnesses and examined only 3 witnesses.
4. In support of its version, the prosecution examined PW1 Retd. SI K. P. Singh, PW2 SI Kartar Singh & PW3 Sh. Mohan Singh.
5. PW1 is Retd. SI K. P. Singh. He has deposed that on Pg no. 2 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 56/02PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal receiving DD no. 16 A, he alongwith Ct. Daya Nand went to the spot i.e Main Crossing, Village Sannoth, Delhi and found one truck bearing registration no. HR-10G-A-0226, which was loaded with bricks in an accidental condition and one bicycle was also lying near the truck. On inquiry, he came to know that injured had already been shifted to Balmiki Hospital, Village Pooth. He has further deposed that he left Ct. Daya Nand at the spot and he himself went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of injured and received his emergency card Ex. P1 and came back at the spot and requested 2/4 passers by to join the investigation but none agreed and left away the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He has further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW1/A and handed over the same to Ct. Dayanand, who went to the PS and got the case registered and came back at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he again requested 4/5 passers by to join the investigation but none agreed. He has further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B, seized the truck and bicycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D, seized the D/L and RC of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F Pg no. 3 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 56/02PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/G and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/H. He has further deposed that they brought the accused and case property to PS and case property was deposited in malkhana and on producing surety, accused was released on bail. He has further deposed that he got the mechanical inspection of the said truck and on 18.02.02, he received the mechanical inspection report of the truck Ex. PW1/I and collected the MLC no. 5057 in respect of injured Mohan and after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court through SHO for Judicial Verdict. He was cross examined by the accused.
6. PW2 is SI Kartar Singh. He is the Duty Officer, who has registered the present FIR no. 56/02, under section 279/337 IPC. He has proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW2/A. He is formal in nature. He was not cross examined by the accused.
7. PW3 is Sh. Mohan Singh. He is the complainant in the present matter and had deposed regarding the incident in question. He was also not cross examined by accused.
Pg no. 4 Contd/-..... FIR No. 56/02 PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal
8. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 16.07.10, last opportunity was granted to the prosecution to lead entire evidence and summons were ordered to be issued through DCP Office and matter was fixed for 27.08.10 and on 27.08.10, one witness was present and he was examined and discharged and at the request of Ld. APP, one more opportunity was given to the prosecution to lead entire evidence and again summons were ordered to be issued through IO as well as through DCP Office and matter was fixed for 05.10.10 i.e today and on 05.10.10, one witness was present and he was examined and discharged and accordingly, P.E was closed and thereafter statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record.
Pg no. 5 Contd/-..... FIR No. 56/02 PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal
7. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/337 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove all the above ingredients of the above Sections.
8. In the present case, eye witness / complainant has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile and despite lengthy cross examination by Ld. APP, he has not said anything incriminating against the accused. He has specifically deposed that he cannot identify the driver of the said truck and even in his cross examination he denied the suggestion that the truck was having registration no. HR-10G-0226. He is the only material witness in this case, who could have deposed regarding the incident in question, however, he has totally demolished the case of the prosecution and has exonerated the accused from any offence.
9. Other witnesses are of formal in nature and admittedly, they have not witnessed the incident.
10. In these circumstances, where the complainant / eye Pg no. 6 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 56/02PS Narela U/s. 279/337 IPC Sate Vs. Umesh Mandal witness has not supported the prosecution case and the other witnesses cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses are formal in nature, in my view, no amount of evidence can lead to conviction of the accused. Hence, I hereby acquit accused for the said offence U/s. 279/337 IPC, for which he has been charged with.
11. Bail bond of accused is extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
12. File be consigned to Record Room.
(DEEPAK WASON) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Announced in open court today, Dated 05th October, 2010 Pg no. 7 Contd/-.....