Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar on 13 June, 2008
State Vs. Manoj Kumar
FIR No.: 118/01
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar
FIR No.: 118/2001
PS : Janak Puri
U/s 324 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
(a) Sl. No. of the case : 662/2 of 2006
(b) Date of commission of the offence : In the intervening
night of 6-7.04.2001
(c) Name of the complainant if any : State
(d) Name of the accused person,
and his parentage and Address : Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar
R/o C 56 Kiran Garden
Uttam Nagar
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 324 IPC.
(f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order : Acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 13.06.2008
Date of institution of case: 05.04.2002 Date on which judgment reserved: 13.06.2008 Date of judgment : 13.06.2008 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No.: 118/01 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION:
The prosecution case in brief is, that in the intervening night of 6-7.04.2001 at about 11.30 pm Near C-2 Bus Stand, Janakpuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Janak Puri accused Manoj Kumar voluntarily caused simple hurt with sharp edged weapon i.e a razor to complainant Anand and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 324 IPC.
2. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined two witnesses namely PW 1 HC Dharamvir and PW-2 Ct. Raj Kumar.
3. Statement of accused Raj Kumar was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
5. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that no corroborative, consistent, reliable and sufficient evidence to make up the State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No.: 118/01 edifice of the prosecution case has been produced by the prosecution.
6. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined two witnesses namely PW 1 HC Dharmvir and PW-2 Ct. Raj Kumar.
PW 1 HC Dharmvir, who is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of the FIR No. 118/01 Ex.PW-1/A and his endorsement at Point-A on the rukka.
PW 2 Ct. Raj Kumar, who deposed that on 04.05.2001 he was posted at PP Matiala PS Uttam Nagar and on that day accused Manoj Kumar was arrested by HC Daya Nand in case FIR No. 296/2001 PS Uttam Nagar and he has made a disclosure about his involvement in the present case. IO of the present case arrived at PS Uttam Nagar and while he was interrogating the accused, the complainant K.S. Anand also arrived there and identified the accused Manoj Kumar and accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and proved the pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/B. Ld. APP stated that the complainant/ injured K.S. Anand could not be served despite issuance of the summons many times and also through DCP/West and through the IO as he has left the given address.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No.: 118/01 Undisputably the complainant / injured K.S. Anand has not been produced and examined. Non-examination of the complainant / injured K.S. Anand has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution.
This is the entire evidence on record. This evidence nowhere suggests the complicity or involvement of the accused for the offence charged.
In view of the above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Manoj Kumar. He is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 324 IPC. Accused is on bail. His bailbond cancelled and surety stands discharged. Announced in the open Court This on the 13th Day of June, 2008 (Two spare copies attached) (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI : DELHI.