Delhi District Court
State vs Hori Lal on 19 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05
DISTRICT- NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SARTHAK PANWAR, DJS
State Vs. Hori Lal
FIR No. 469/2016
PS Bawana
U/s. 279/337/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 2316/2018
2) The date of commission of offence : : 30.10.2016
3) The name of the complainant : Parveen Kumar S/o
Sh. Paltan Yadav
4) The name & parentage of accused : Hori Lal S/o Parhlad
5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak Saini
6) Offence involved : 279/337/338 IPC
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquitted
9) Judgment reserved on : 19.11.2024
10) Judgment announced on : 19.11.2024
Digitally
signed by
SARTHAK
SARTHAK PANWAR
PANWAR Date:
2024.11.19
18:09:23
+0530
State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 30.10.2016, at unknown time near Chitra Dharamkanta, at chowk going towards sector 2, Bawana, Delhi, accused was found driving one car bearing no. DL 9CAB 7133 in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place while driving so accused hit against a motorcycle bearing no. DL 33SBT 2865 and caused simple injuries to its driver Parveen and grievous injuries to the pillion rider Dolima and as such accused had also committed an offence u/s 337/338 IPC within the cognizance of this court.
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. The accused was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice for the offences punishable U/s 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, following witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5
Digitally signed
SARTHAK by SARTHAK
PANWAR
PANWAR Date: 2024.11.19
18:09:30 +0530
5. PW-1 Ms. Dolima has deposed that she does not know the day of the accident but in 2016 on the day of Diwali, she alongwith her relative were coming at her house on motorcycle, and near Sector 2 suddenly their bike bot slipped due to speed beaker and they got injuries.
6. Since the PW-1 had turned hostile, thereafter with the permission of the court she was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement. PW-1 denied the suggestion that on 30.10.2016, in the evening she met with an accident alongwith a car while they were coming from market near B and C block mod Sector 2 or that they got injured due to the negligent and rash driving of accused. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that police recorded her statement. PW-1 failed to identify the accused as well as photographs of the offending car. Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross exmained by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
9. Law relating to hostile witness has been categorically discussed by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sat Pal vs Delhi Administration 1976 AIR 294, 1976 SCR (2) 11:
"From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands thoroughly Digitally signed SARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.11.19 State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5 18:09:40 +0530 discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record that part of his testimony which he finds to be credit worthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.".
Since the star witnesses of the present case PW-1 Ms. Dolima i.e. witness/injured has turned hostile in toto, and further, PW complainant/victim Parveen had remained absent despite service of process through DCP concerned and PW Anju i.e. injured had remained unserved despite being service of processes through DCP concerned, therefore, ultimately they were dropped from the list of witnesses, remaining witnesses were also dropped from list of witnesses as they were formal in nature and examining them would have been a futile exercise at the cost of judicial time and resources as their testimonies, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused person. Hence, PE was ultimately closed, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Anr: 1996 JCC 507. Further, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused person, recording of statement u/s 313 CrPC was also dispensed with. Accused person further chose not to lead any DE.
Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.11.19 18:09:48 +0530 State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5
10. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
11. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
12. Since the star witnesses of the present case PW-1 Ms. Dolima i.e. witness/ injured had turned hostile in toto, and further, PW complainant/victim Parveen had remained absent despite service of process through DCP concerned and PW Anju i.e. injured had remained unserved despite being service of processes through DCP concerned, and were ultimately dropped from the list of witnesses. Further since the remaining witnesses were being formal in nature who were not present at the place of incident, therefore, this court does away with the necessity of recording testimonies of remaining formal prosecution witnesses and recording statement of accused (SA). Since no incriminating evidence against the accused has been brought on record by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this court acquits the accused Hori Lal S/o Sh. Prahlad of charges u/s 279/337/338 IPC. Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.11.19 18:09:54 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SARTHAK PANWAR) Court on 19.11.2024 JMFC-05 (North), Rohini Courts New Delhi 19.11.2024 State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5