Delhi District Court
State vs . Surender Kumar & Anr. on 9 March, 2011
In the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora : MM : KKD Courts : Delhi
FIR No. 224/02
U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC
PS Kalyan Puri
State Vs. Surender Kumar & Anr.
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R 0090422002 B Date of institution 04/10/02 C Date of commission of offence 10/05/02 D Name of the complainant State
E Name of the accused 1. Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Kawal Singh & persons & their 2. Smt. Kusum w/o Sh. Surender Kumar parentage and address both r/o A22/8, Gali No. 4, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
F Offence complained of U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty H Order Reserved on 09/03/11 I Final order Acquitted J Date of such order 09/03/11 Brief reasons for the decision of the case. 1 In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.02,
IO PW5 ASI Shyam Singh upon receiving DD No. 17A reached the spot FIR No. 224/02, PS Kalyan Puri Page No. 1 of 5 at H. No. F16, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi with PW4 Ct. Parveen Kumar where it was informed that injured has already been shifted to LBS Hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter, IO with the constable reached the LBS Hospital and found injured Amit & Suman admitted. Statement Ex. PW5/A of injured/complainant Amit was recorded and FIR was registered at PS Kalyan Puri. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/C, arrested both the accused, obtained the final opinion on the MLC's of injured, recorded the statement of witnesses and finally, upon completion of necessary investigation, presented the chargesheet to the court against both the accused for trial.
2 Pursuant to appearance of both the accused, copies as required under section 207 Cr. P.C. were supplied and case was fixed for consideration on charge. After hearing arguments and on perusal of record, prima facie case against both the accused for the offence punishable u/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC was found to be made out. Charge was framed accordingly against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3 In support of its case, prosecution has produced and examined six witnesses. PW1is Dr. Dig Darshan Sharma who on 10.05.02 examined injured Amit Kumar vide MLC Ex. PW1/A and gave his report Ex. PW1/B. PW 2 is Dr. M N Singh who on 30.05.02 examined Xray plate of injured Amit Kumar and gave his report Ex. FIR No. 224/02, PS Kalyan Puri Page No. 2 of 5 PW2/A. PW3 is Lady Ct. Poonam who on 13.05.02 joined the investigation with IO HC Shyam Singh and conducted the personal search of accused Kusum vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A and personal search memo Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is Ct. Parveen who on 10.05.02 joined the investigation with IO HC Shyam Singh and in his presence IO arrested accused Surender vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and P/S memo Ex. PW4/B. PW5 Rajbir Singh is an independent public witness who turned hostile to the prosecution case and even in his cross examination by ld. APP denied the prosecution case as to his giving any statement to the police or the police making inquiry from him with respect to the incident in question. PW6 (wrongly mentioned as PW5)ASI Shyam Singh is the IO of the case.
When the matter was at the stage of PE, summons to complainant/injured Amit Kumar s/o Om Prakash and injured Suman were repeatedly returned unserved through IO with the report that the said witnesses are not traceable on the given address despite efforts. It was also reported that on the summons to injured Suman that she was residing somewhere in Haryana and has expired. As to summons to PW/complainant Amit, the same were returned with the report "left the tenanted premises to some undisclosed place". Statement of IO as to untraceability of complainant/injured Amit and injured Suman was also recorded. IO, even in his testimony recorded as PW5, stated that complainant/injured Amit and injured Suman, who were the sole eye FIR No. 224/02, PS Kalyan Puri Page No. 3 of 5 witnesses in the present case, were found untraceable on the address furnished by them as F16, ABlock, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi. He also proved his report to the said effect as Ex. C1 & C2 respectively. Upon perusal of the case file, it was noted that except the complainant/injured Amit Kumar and injured Suman, there was no other eye witness cited by the prosecution so as to substantiate the charge against the accused persons. Thus, complainant/injured Amit and injured Suman being the only eye witnesses to the incident and they remaining untraceable, there was no purpose going to be served by examining remaining prosecution witnesses who were more or less of formal character. Accordingly, PE was closed.
4 In their statement recorded, both the accused denied the prosecution case against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, both the accused preferred not to lead evidence in their defence. Matter was accordingly finally heard. 5 Heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. defence counsel for both the accused and perused the judicial record. As the only eye witnesses to the incident who are the complainant/injured Amit and injured Suman remaining untraceable and as no incriminating evidence came on record against both the accused with respect to the incident in question, prosecution has failed to establish its case against them. Accordingly, both the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC. Their B/B/S/B are discharged. File be FIR No. 224/02, PS Kalyan Puri Page No. 4 of 5 consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open
Court on 09.03.2011 (SATISH KUMAR ARORA)
Metropolitan Magistrate
KKD, Delhi
FIR No. 224/02, PS Kalyan Puri Page No. 5 of 5