Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr. on 29 September, 2020
SC No.53594/16
State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 53594/16
State Versus 1) Anil Kumar @ Bhawani
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o 84, P1 Block, Sultanpuri,
Delhi
2) Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Satpal
R/o J2/3, Budh Vihar, Phase1,
Delhi
FIR No.1041/14
PS Sultanpuri
under Section 308/34 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 26.10.2016
Reserved for judgement : 19.09.2020
Date of judgement : 29.09.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are like this. DD No. 89B dated 16.09.2014 regarding quarrel was handed over to SI Mukesh who alongwith Ct. Vijay reached on the spot where no one including the FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 1 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
complainant met him. Complainant Manju Beniwal alongwith her friend Pooja and auto driver Sonu came to the PS and gave her statement to the police to the effect that she is running a factory of sports shoes at Budh Vihar. On 16.09.2014 she was at her house. At 8.30 pm her known auto driver Bhola called her at auto stand Kanjhawala. She reached there after 1015 minutes where Bhola resident of Budh Vihar met her. She asked him the reason for calling her who told that a quarrel has taken place with his friend and he needs her help due to links in Delhi Police. She was talking to Bhola. Mukesh alongwith Bhim, Bhawani and Pawan came there. Mukesh told her that why she is harassing Raju Madrasi. Raju Madrasi is resident of Mangol Puri and known to Mukesh. Mukesh started quarrel with her but she did not pay heed to it and kept on talking to Bhola. Mukesh hit a danda on her head from the back side. She tried to flee in order to save herself. Bhawani stopped her way and did not allow her to flee. Mukesh gave her beatings with danda with the help of Bhawani. Vinod and Sonu I.e auto drivers from the auto stand came to her rescue. She snatched the danda from the hands FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 2 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
of Mukesh. All of them fled from the spot. Bhawani is an auto driver who resides at Sultanpuri. She called the police. Sonu and Vinod brought her to Jaipur Golden Hospital for first aid. She was taken to BSA Hospital after first aid where she called her friend Pooja. She has come to PS after taking medical treatment. Her statement was recorded which led to the registration of the FIR. Usual investigation was carried out. The charge sheet was filed u/s 308/34 IPC against the accused.
5. The accused have put their appearance. The copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the accused. On 18.10.2016, the case file was committed to the court of sessions by learned MM, North West, Delhi.
6. On 03.01.2017 the charge u/s 308/34 IPC was framed against the accused after hearing learned Addl. PP for the State and ld. Defence counsel. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused were examined u/s FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 3 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
313 CrPC. On 20.12.2019 the charge was amended. Charge u/s 341/308/34 IPC was framed against the accused. Ld. Additional PP for the State submitted that statements of all the witnesses have been recorded so there is no need to call any further evidence and this fact is clear from the order sheet dated 20.12.2019 recorded by my ld. Predecessor. The defence of the accused is of denial simpliciter. However, no defence evidence has been led.
7. PW1 Puneet stated that he does not remember the exact date but it was 15 or 16th September 2014. At 99.30 pm he was sitting in his auto bearing no. DL1R 1374 at auto stand, Budh Vihar. He heard the noises of quarrel upon which he went there and saw one lady Manju in an injured condition. He knew the lady prior to the incident as she used to hire his auto from stand. He alongwith Vinod shifted her to Jaipur Golden Hospital and thereafter to Ambedkar Hospital. He does not know anything about the incident. He was declared hostile and crossexamined at length by the prosecution. During crossexamination by prosecution he stated that he has not given FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 4 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
the statement Ex.PW1/A dated 17.09.2014 to the police. He has not stated to the police that on 17.09.2014 at 9.00 pm he alongwith Vinod was sitting at auto stand and quarrel has taken place at some distance. He did not tell to the police that Manju was beaten with danda by Mukesh or Bhawani @ Anil was taking the side of accused Mukesh. He did not tell to the police that he tried to extricate Manju from the accused Mukesh or Manju has snatched danda from accused Mukesh or accused alongwith their associates fled from the spot on seeing them. He is confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where it is so recorded.
8. It is correct that Manju was bleeding from the head. They took her to Jaipur Golden Hospital and thereafter to Ambedkar Hospital. Manju has called her friend Pooja. They came to PS, Vijay Vihar after the treatment and thereafter went to PS, Sultanpuri as incident has taken place within the jurisdiction of PS, Sultanpuri. He does not know whether Manju has snatched danda from accused Mukesh and brought the same to PS and handed over the same to the FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 5 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
police. He did not tell the above stated fact to the police. He is confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where it is so recorded. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bears his signature at point A. The place of occurrence was shown by Manju to the police. The site plan Ex.PW1/C bears his signature at point A. The suggestion is denied that on 17.09.2014 the accused alongwith their associate gave beatings with danda to Manju or danda was seized by the police in his presence which was produced by Manju. Danda Ex.P1 is produced and shown to the witness. The danda was produced by Manju before the police by stating that accused have given beatings to her. During crossexamination by accused Anil @ Bhawani he stated that danda Ex.P1 was seized on the day of incident. Many dandas were lying at the place where danda Ex.P1 was also lying. No crossexamination was done by accused Mukesh though opportunity was given.
9. PW2 ASI Sohan Lal has proved FIR Ex.PW2/B, endorsement Ex.PW2/A on the rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 6 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
Act Ex.PW2/C issued regarding correctness of FIR.
10. PW3 Ms. Manju Beniwal stated that she has filed a complaint Ex.PW3/A. On 16.09.2014 at 8.309.00 pm, Bhola made a phone call to her and told that he had a quarrel with someone so she should come at auto stand, 957 bus stand, Kanjhawala Road, Budh Vihar, Delhi. He has called her as she has links in the Delhi Police. She reached there where Bhola met her. Bhola told her that he had quarrel with someone and he needs her help. She was talking to Bhola. Mukesh came there and told her that why she is harassing Raju Madrasi and thereafter started quarrel with her. She did not pay heed to it and kept on talking to Bhola. Mukesh hit a stick on her head from behind as a result she fell down. Vinod and Sonu came to her rescue. Mukesh fled from the spot. She called the police. Sonu and Vinod brought her to Jaipur Golden Hospital for first aid. She was taken to BSA Hospital after first aid where she called her friend Pooja. She has come to PS, Vijay Vihar and thereafter went to PS, Sultanpuri as incident has taken place within jurisdiction of PS, FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 7 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
Sultanpuri. The site plan Ex.PW1/C was prepared at her instance. She has taken the police to the house of Mukesh who was not available there. They have also visited the house of accused Bhawani but he was also not available. Only accused Mukesh has assaulted her. She was declared hostile and crossexamined by the prosecution. During crossexamination by the prosecution, the suggestion is denied that Bhim, accused Anil @ Bhawani and Pawan were also present with accused Mukesh. She is confronted with portion X to X of statement Ex.PW3/A where it is so recorded. She was told by Vinod and Sonu that Bhim, accused Anil @ Bhawani and Pawan were also present on the spot and thereafter she gave her statement. The suggestion is denied that accused Mukesh alongwith associates fled from the spot or she snatched danda from accused Mukesh and produced the same before IO. She is confronted with portion Z to Z, S to S of statement Ex.PW3/A and mark A to A of statement dated 17.02.2014. She has identified the accused Bhawani. The suggestion is denied that accused Bhawani has also assaulted her. Danda Ex.P1 is produced in the FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 8 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
court. She stated that she is not sure whether the same stick was used by the accused Mukesh or not. During crossexamination by accused Mukesh, she stated that number of public persons were present there. Bhola met her on the spot. Accused Mukesh was also present there. She does not know accused Mukesh prior to incident. She only knew that accused Mukesh used to ply auto from the stand. Accused Mukesh was alone at that time. She become unconscious after the incident. Puneet and Vinod remained in the hospital. She went to PS with her friend Pooja and parents. Her statement was recorded by SI. She is complainant in six FIRs of PS, Vijay Vihar, one each of PS, South Rohini and PS, Mangol Puri and three of PS, Sultanpuri. The suggestion is denied that accused Mukesh did not hit her with danda or he has been falsely implicated in order to extort money from him or she has sustained injuries by fall as she was heavily drunk. She does not know as to with what object she was hit by accused Mukesh as she was hit from the back side. No crossexamination was done by accused Anil though opportunity was given.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 9 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
11. PW5 Vinod Sharma stated that he does not know about the facts of the case. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the prosecution but prosecution has failed to bring incriminating material against the accused. He has admitted that seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bears his signature but his signatures were taken on blank papers. He has failed to identify the danda. No cross examination was done by the accused though opportunity was given.
12. PW6 HC Vinod Kumar is MHCM. He stated that on 17.09.2014 SI Mukesh has deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal MK with him in the malkhana qua which entry was made at Serial No. 7284 of register no. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A.
13. PW7 Ct. Arun Singh has proved the DD No. 89B Ex.PW7/A which was handed over to SI Mukesh for taking action. FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 10 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
14. PW11 SI Mukesh stated that on 16.09.2014 he was posted at PS, Sultanpuri. DD No. 89B Ex.PW7/A was handed over to him upon which he alongwith PW4 Ct. Vijay went to auto stand, Main Kanjhawala Road where complainant was not found. They came back to PS. At 11.00 pm, complainant Manju alongwith her friend Pooja, drivers Puneet @ Sony and Vinod came to PS and gave her statement Ex.PW2/A. He has collected MLC of the injured from BSA Hospital. He prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A and handed over to Duty Officer for registration of the case upon which FIR was registered. The complainant has handed over one wooden danda measuring 2.503.00 feet which was kept in a pullanda and sealed with seal MK and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. They went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/C at the instance of the complainant. The accused were searched but in vain.
15. On 14.10.2014 accused Anil Kumar @ Bhawani surrendered in the court upon which he moved an application Ex.PW11/B in the FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 11 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
court for interrogation of the accused. The accused was arrested whose disclosure statement Ex.PW11/E was recorded. His personal search and arrest memo Ex.PW11/C and D were prepared. The pointing out memo Ex.PW11/F of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of accused Anil. He has identified the danda Ex.P1. He was transferred thereafter. During cross examination, he stated that no one was found on the spot though they remained there for 15 minutes. The complainant has brought danda to PS. The suggestion is denied that the complainant has not brought the danda to PS and such dandas are easily available in the market or they did not visit the spot. They did not call the public persons from the nearby locality of the accused. The suggestion is denied that the accused are falsely implicated in this case.
16. PW4 Ct. Vijay Singh has corroborated the version of PW11 and further added that he has collected MLC of injured from Dr. BSA Hospital. He has identified the danda Ex.P1 produced in the court. During crossexamination by accused Mukesh, he stated that they FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 12 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
had made enquiries from the passersby who told that they did not witness the incident. He has no knowledge in how many cases injured is a complainant. The suggestion is denied that the danda is planted upon the accused or no such danda was recovered. He admitted that such type of dandas are easily available in the market. No crossexamination was done by accused Anil though opportunity was given.
17. PW8 SI Amit stated that the further investigation of the case was handed over to him. He has prepared charge sheet against the accused Anil and kept it open for accused Mukesh. The charge sheet was filed in the court. He has taken NBW and process u/s 82 CrPC from the court vide his application Ex.PW8/A and B. On 02.09.2016 he alongwith HC Sandeep went to the house of accused Mukesh at J2/3 Budh Vihar Phase1 and apprehended him. He was arrested. Personal search and arrest memos Ex.PW8/C and D were prepared. Disclosure statement Ex.PW8/E was recorded. Pointing out memo Ex.PW8/F of the place of occurrence was prepared at his FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 13 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
instance. The accused was got medically examined and thereafter produced in the court. The charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court.
18. PW9 Ct. Pradeep has corroborated the version of PW8.
19. PW10 Dr. Brajesh Narayan Singh stated that on 16.09.2014 he was CMO at Dr. BSA Hospital. At 9.37 pm, patient Manju was brought in the casualty with the alleged history of physical assault. Dr. Prasoon Kumar, JR (under his supervision) has medically examined the injured and found the injuries namely lacerated wound size 5 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.2 cm over right parietal region of head; bruise of 2 cm x 0.5 cm - colour reddish over left arm on lateral aspect; abrasion of 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm over right forearm over flexor aspect; swelling size 2 cm x 1 cm over right forearm on flexor aspect. The injuries are simple in nature. MLC Ex.PW10/A bears his signature and that of Dr. prasoon at point A and B. He has identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Prasoon as he has worked with FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 14 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
him. The injuries are possible with blunt weapon like danda. During crossexamination, he stated that the injuries are possible by fall from moving vehicle.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that accused Mukesh has hit danda on the head of the complainant i.e. PW1 who has sustained injuries on the vital part of the body i.e. parietal region of the head. He further submitted that the act of the accused could have resulted into the death of the injured as injuries on the vital part of the body. He further submitted that the testimony of injured is cogent, convincing and trustworthy and same can be relied upon.
21. Ld. defence counsel submitted that the testimony of PW3 i.e. complainant is not above board. He further submitted that PW3 has not supported the prosecution case in totality. He further submitted that no other witness has not corroborated the version of PW3. He further submitted that accused Mukesh has allegedly given one danda blow but there are four injuries on the person of PW3 which FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 15 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
shows that PW3 has concealed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. He further submitted that PW3 is habitual in making the complaint so her testimony is also not reliable on this score.
22. Heard and perused the record.
23. In Ved Kumari and Another vs State and Another [96 (2002) DLT 820], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in order to constitute the offence u/s 308 IPC it must be proved that (1) that the accused committed an act; (2) that the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder; (3) that the offence was committed under such circumstances if the accused by that act had caused death he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
24. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in order to prove its case whereas accused have not led any evidence to controvert the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 16 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
25. PW1 Puneet and PW5 Vinod Kumar have not supported the case of the prosecution on the material aspects of the case. Both were declared hostile and crossexamined at length by the prosecution but prosecution has failed to bring on record that accused Mukesh alongwith coaccused and associates was present on the spot and accused Mukesh has hit danda/stick on the head of PW3.
26. PW3 is an injured. Her statement Ex.PW3/A led to the registration of the FIR Ex.PW2/B.
27. She has categorically stated that on 16.09.2014 at 8.309.00 pm she had gone to auto stand, bus stop 957, Kanjhawala Road, Budh Vihar Delhi on receipt of the call from Bhola. She was talking to Bhola. No question or suggestion is put to her that she was not present at auto stand at that time. PW1 was present at the auto stand who has seen PW3 in an injured condition. No question or FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 17 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
suggestion is put to him that he was not present at auto stand. The presence of PW3 at the auto stand stands established.
28. The testimony of PW3 further shows that accused Mukesh came there and uttered the words "tu Raju Madrasi ko tang kyu karti ho" and started quarrelling with her but she did not pay heed to him. No question or suggestion is put to her that accused Mukesh did not come there and quarrelled with her. No question or suggestion is put to her that accused Mukesh was present somewhere else. The accused has no where taken the defence in his statement u/s 313 CrPC that he was not present at the spot or he was present somewhere else meaning thereby that he was present on the spot. His presence on the spot stands established from the evidence on record.
29. The testimony of PW3 shows that accused Mukesh hit one stick on her head. She fell down. She has sustained injuries. She is consistent in her testimony that accused Mukesh has hit one stick FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 18 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
from behind. She has denied the suggestion that accused has not hit her with danda and caused injuries. Her testimony to this effect is consistent and straight forward.
30. PW1 was present at the stand who reached at the place of quarrel on hearing the noise of quarrel and saw PW3 in an injured condition. He alongwith PW5 took her to Jaipur Golden Hospital and thereafter to BSA Hospital though PW5 has not supported the case of prosecution in totality.
31. PW3 was got medically examined at Dr. BSA Hospital by Dr. Prasoon Kumar, JR under the supervision of PW10. MLC Ex.PW10/A was issued. PW3 has sustained injuries with blunt weapon. PW10 has deposed that injuries are possible with the blunt force of the weapon like danda. This corroborates the testimony of PW3 that she has sustained injuries with danda which was hit on her head by the accused Mukesh.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 19 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
32. The testimony of PW3 cannot be viewed with suspicion merely on the score that she is complainant in number of cases. The accused has not led any evidence to the effect that she has filed different cases with some ulterior motive. Further, PW3 has denied the suggestion that the accused has been implicated in order to extort money. Nothing is brought on record by the accused that PW3 has ever tried to contact the accused after the incident in order to have settlement. Mere bald suggestion is not enough to show that she has any motive to implicate the accused.
33. The police have recovered the danda i.e. weapon of offence. The recovery of danda is doubtful. PW3 did not snatch the danda from possession of accused Mukesh. She did not produce the stick/danda before the police. She has not identified the stick. The testimony of PW1 shows that the danda was lying at the spot being the chowki place. The danda was not brought by PW3 to the police station. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 shows that weapon of offence was not produced by PW3 to the police. The weapon of FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 20 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
offence is not even identified by PW3. In view these facts the recovery of danda Ex.P1 becomes doubtful.
34. PW3 has not assigned any role to coaccused Anil @ Bhawani or to the associates of the accused. She has categorically stated that only accused Mukesh was present on the spot who has hit danda / stick on her head. She has assigned specific role to co accused in her statement Ex.PW3/A but she has given complete go by to her statement Ex.PW3/A vis a vis the role of co - accused. This fact also is not enough to cast aspersion on her testimony that she has falsely implicated the accused.
35. PW3 has sustained injury on her head with danda. In Ramesh and Another vs State, 2010 (1) LRC 270 (DELHI), it was held by their lordship that merely because of injury on the head it cannot be said that the injury was caused with the intention of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 21 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
36. In Bishan Singh and Anr. vs State, (2007) 13 SCC 65, it was held by their lordship that injured suffered as many as seven injuries including three lacerated wounds out of which two were on the scalp and one was on the right forehead. He also had a fracture of dislocation of wrist joint. It was held that accused could not be convicted u/s 308 IPC as case would fall under 323/325 IPC thereof.
37. In Jangdeep Singh and Another vs State of Punjab, 1988 (1) CLR 569, it was held by their lordship that merely because the injury was on the head, it cannot be assumed that accused had intention or knowledge to cause such injury that death would have been caused and they would have been guilty of murder.
38. In the instant case, the testimony of PW3 shows that she was hit on the head with some object from the back side by the accused Mukesh. She has become unconscious. She has fallen down. She has sustained injuries. She was medically examined. A lacerated wound of 5 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.2 cm was found over the right parietal FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 22 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
region of the head. She has also sustained bruises and abrasions on the other part of the body. The doctor has not said anything regarding nature of injuries whether they are dangerous to the life or not. The MLC Ex.PW10/A shows that injuries are simple in nature. It is necessary to arrive at a finding that requisite intention or knowledge was existing before the accused can be held guilty u/s 308 IPC. The injury on the parietal region does not mean that it was caused with an intention to commit culpable homicide. There is no evidence on record to show that accused has requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The nature of injuries on the person of PW3 shows that injuries were not caused with sufficient force even to cause grievous injury. The essential ingredient of Section 308 IPC is missing.
39. The testimony of injured is accorded a special status in the law. The injuries to the injured show his presence at the scene of crime as he or she will not substitute a wrong person in place of real assailant.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 23 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
40. The injured has fully supported the case of prosecution vis a vis accused Mukesh. Her testimony cannot be viewed with suspicion merely on the score that she has not supported her case qua co accused Anil @ Bhawani or recovery of weapon of offence is doubtful or other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. No major contradiction with respect to the prosecution case qua accused Mukesh has come on record. No evidence against accused Anil @ Bhawani has come on record. Her testimony cannot be viewed with the aid of spectacles.
41. The entire evidence on the file shows that prosecution has failed to prove the case u/s 308 IPC and accordingly accused Mukesh is acquitted u/s 308 IPC. I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused Mukesh for the offence u/s 323 IPC. The accused Mukesh is held guilty u/s 323 IPC and convicted.
FIR No. 1041/14 PS Sultanpuri Page No. 24 / 25 under Section 308/34 IPC SC No.53594/16 State Vs. Anil Kumar @ Bhawani & Anr.
42. There is no evidence on record qua accused Anil @ Bhawani. The accused Anil @ Bhawani is acquitted of the offence charged.
43. Let the file to come up for arguments on quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
IN PHYSICAL HEARING SURESH Digitally signed
by SURESH
ON 29th SEPTEMBER, 2020 KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.10.01
GUPTA 14:54:16 +0530
(SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 1041/14
PS Sultanpuri Page No. 25 / 25
under Section 308/34 IPC