Delhi District Court
State vs . Subhash Chander Thakur on 3 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA, M. M. OUTER
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Subhash Chander Thakur
P. S. Bawana
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR no. of the case : 84/2001
(b) Unique Identification No. : 02401R0196712001
(c) The date of commission of offence : 10.03.2001
(d) The name of complainant : Sh. K. V. Panwar S/o Sh.
Krishna Pillay, R/o 91/5051,
Sector11, Rohini, Delhi.
(e) The name and parentage of accused : Subhash Chander Thakur S/o
Sh. Hirday Narain Thakur,
R/o A44, Amar Jyoti
Colony, Delhi.
(f) The offence complained : U/s 323/341/34 IPC
(g) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
(h) Date of Institution : 21.11.2001
(i) The date on which : 03.03.2012
judgment was reserved
(j) The final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana
2
(k) The date of such order : 03.03.2012
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 10.03.2001 at about 3.00 pm in front of Gali No. C9, Amar Jyoti Colony, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P S Bawana, the accused alongwith co accused(unknown) and not arrested in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Sh. K. V. Panwar and voluntarily caused hurt to his person by physical assult and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC for which FIR No. 84/2001 was registered against the accused.
2. After supply of copies U/s 207 Cr.P.C, notice u/s 323/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution has examined 02 witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Anand deposed that on 10.03.01 he was posted at PP Shabad Dairy, P. S. Bawana as Constable. He further deposed that on that day on receipt of DD No. 9 Ex. PW1/A, he alongwith IO HC Om Prakash reached at the spot i.e. opposite Gali No. C9, at Amar Jyoti Colony, near Shahbad Village, where the victim/injured i.e. Sh. K Vijay Panwar was found present and he was examined about the FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana 3 incident and whatsoever he had stated about the incident, the same was reduced into writing and after that he alongwith IO took the injured to BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri for his treatment where he was medically examined. He further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of the FIR. He accordingly went to P.S. and got registered the present case and returned at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He further deposed that during investigation of this case the place of incident was inspected and site plan was prepared at the instance of the said complainant. He further deposed that sincere efforts were made by the IO to search the accused but he could not be traced out.
5. During his cross examination by Sh. R R Raju and Sh. A K Jha, Ld. Counsels for the accused, witness stated that IO received DD No. 9 at about 3.16 pm and within 15 minutes they reached at the spot. He further stated that he alongwith IO went to the spot on the scooter of the IO. He did not remember the registration number of that scooter. He further stated that except the complainant 23 persons were also found present at the spot. He also deposed that IO might have made inquiries from the public persons. He could not tell as to whether IO FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana 4 had recorded their statements or not. He further stated that prior to the registration of this case the injured/complainant was got medically examined and they left for the Hospital at about 5.40 pm and they reached at the Hospital at about 6.00 pm. He further stated that he alongwith IO HC Om Prakash took the injured to the Hospital on the scooter of the IO. He could not tell the name of the Doctor who had conducted the medical examination of the injured. He further stated that they reached at the spot after the medical examination of the injured at about 6.15 pm. He took the rukka to P. S. at about 6.15 pm and he returned at the spot after the registration of the FIR at about 8.45 pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in the present case or that accused was falsely implicated in this case or that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW2 HC Mahabir Singh deposed that on 10.03.2001 he was posted at P. S. Bawana as Head Ct. and was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00(night). He further deposed that at about 7.10 pm he received a rukka through Ct. Anand, sent by HC Om Prakash and on the basis of the same he registered the present case FIR. Carbon copy of the same is Ex. PW2/A (O.S.R.). He further deposed that he also made endorsement on rukka from point X to Y which is Ex. PW2/B FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana 5 and thereafter he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Anand for giving it to IO.
7. Opportunity to cross examine the above said witness was given to Sh. R R Raju and Sh. A K Jha, Ld. Counsels for the accused but to no avail.
8. In this case the public witness i.e. complainant Sh. K. V. Panwar and PW Vinod remained untraceable. All remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and their testimonies are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. No other relevant or eye witness to the incident has been mentioned by the IO in the list of the witnesses. Therefore PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 281 Cr. PC was recorded in which accused pleaded innocence and denied all the charges made against him and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case and he denied for leading the Defence Evidence.
9. I have heard Ld. APP for State and counsel for the accused and perused the record.
10. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana 6
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
12.In this case the public witness i.e. PW Vinod and complainant Sh. K. V. Panwar who is also the injured in this case remained untraceable despite best efforts and they had left the given address and moved to an unknown destination. Repeatedly summons were sent even through IO and also through DCP(O) but despite that presence of injured Sh. K. V. Panwar and that of PW Vinod could not be procured by the prosecution. All remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature and are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. No other relevant witness has been cited by the FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana 7 IO in the list of witnesses.
13. Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Subhash Chander is accordingly acquitted for the offence u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 03.03.2012 (MANISH KHURANA )
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI DELHI
FIR No. 84/01 P. S. Bawana