Delhi District Court
State vs . Satyanand Etc. on 25 March, 2014
"IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA , M.M (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI"
FIR No. : 21/09
U/s : 325/34 IPC
P.S : Shastri Park Metro
State Vs. Satyanand etc.
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0307662009
J U D G E M E N T
1. Sl. No. of the case : 45/2013 (RBT) 2. Date of institution of the case : 21.10.2009 3. Name of complainant : State 4. Date of commission of offence : 21.06.2009
5. Name of accused, parentage & address : 1) Satyanand s/o Sh. Pawan Singh r/o Village and P.O. Pakri Dayal, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
: 2) Sri Ram s/o Sh. Kripa Shanker Dubey r/o Majhuwa Dubey, P.O. Shankarpur, PS Chhavani Tehsil, Distt. Basti, U.P. : 3) Ravinder Singh s/o Ram Mangal Singh, r/o Village Ambria, P.O. Roophara, PS Shikarganj, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
6. Offence complained of or proved : 325/34 IPC FIR No. 21/2009 1 of 6
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of which order was reserved : 25.03.2014
10.Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2014 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.06.2009 at about 5.25 pm at Tis Hazari Metro Parking, Delhi, accused persons namely Satyanand, Sri Ram and Ravinder Singh, voluntarily caused grievous hurt with the help of one big screw driver to the complainant Munna s/o Shri Prithvi Singh. Consequently, the FIR in this case was registered on the complaint of complainant Munna on 21.06.2009 for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC.
2. After the registration of FIR the IO investigated the present case and filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons on 21.10.2009. After supplying of documents and hearing the accused persons, charge was framed by the Court on 06.11.2012 against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty in respect of the allegations contained in the charge and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution has examined only one witness in all.
PW1 is Const. Sunil Kumar. He has deposed that on FIR No. 21/2009 2 of 6 31.07.2009, he joined the investigation of the instant case with HC Dilbag. He further deposed that he alongwith complainant Munna accompanied with IO HC Dilbagh Singh went to Tis Hazari Metro Parking at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening and upon enquiry, complainant Munna informed the IO about his quarrel with accused Satyanand, Ravinder and Sri Ram. He further deposed that all the three accused persons were present in the metro station parking. IO made inquiries from them. Accused Sri Ram got recovered a screw driver after drawing it from a table which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that IO prepared rough sketch of the screw driver Ex.PW1/B. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Shri Ram Ex.PW1/C, his personal search memo Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that accused Satyanand was also arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that accused Ravinder was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/G and his personal search was carried out vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/H. This witness has identified the screw driver Ex.P1, but he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State with respect to recovery FIR No. 21/2009 3 of 6 of screw driver. In the cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, on the one hand, he admitted that the screw driver was produced by accused Ravinder Singh but on the other hand he stated that he did not remember as to who produced the same.
4. Thereafter, the PE was directed to be closed by the Court vide order dated 21.03.2014. Statement of accused persons has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as per procedure prescribed under Section 281 Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the material on record.
6. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed innocent until he is held guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The onus to prove the case against the accused lies upon the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 as under : " In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the FIR No. 21/2009 4 of 6 accused."
In this case, there are total 9 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, and only one witness has been examined as such. It is to be seen that the accused persons has been charged with for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC. Complainant PW Munna is the only material witness to prove the charge against the accused persons. Regarding the injuries received by the complainant Munna, he himself could have deposed. Also, the witness aforementioned could have testified substantially regarding the commission of the alleged offence but he has not been examined despite sufficient opportunities given to the prosecution. The only witness examined by the prosecution, is merely a witness to the arrest of the accused persons. He is not a witness to the crime in question. Nothing happened in his presence relating to offence. The recovery of screw driver could not be connected with the offence in question.
7. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record the material evidence against the accused persons for the alleged offence. The evidence which has come on record is far short of the evidence required for proving the ingredients of the offence complained off against the accused.
FIR No. 21/2009 5 of 6
8. As not even an iota of incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons, the perspicuous conclusion is a resounding acquittal of the accused persons namely Satyanand, Sri Ram and Ravinder Singh for the offence under Section/325/34 Indian Penal Code. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dictated & Announced in the open Court on 25.03.2014 ( SUNIL GUPTA ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE(NE) KKD COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI FIR No. 21/2009 6 of 6