Delhi District Court
State vs . : Shankar Raj on 5 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 235/10
U/s : 324/34 IPC
PS : K. M. Pur
State Vs. : Shankar Raj
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 40/1/14
b The date of commission : 29.09.2010
c The date of Institution of the case : 17.02.2011
d The name of complainant : Vinod Kumar
e The name of accused : Shankar Raj S/o Late Sh. Mange
Ram R/o A178/11, Daya Nand
f The offence complained of : 324/34 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 05.12.2014
i The final order : Acquitted
j The date of judgment :05.12.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 The aforesaid accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that
29.09.2010 at about 9 pm near Park Sheetala Mata Mandir, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. K.M. Pur he in furtherance of common intention with other co accused( since untraced) attacked the complainant Vinod Kumar with an ustra (razor) and caused simple/sharp injuries to his person and thus thereby committed offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in the court on 17.02.2011.
2. Charge u/s 324/34 IPC was framed upon the accused on 01.03.2011 to which FIR No. 235/10 1 of 5 accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses.
PW1 is Ct. Vipin Kumar, who being deputed with the during the investigation has proved the arrest and personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. PW2 is HC Bijender Kumar, being posted as Duty Officer has proved the registration of FIR vide Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW2/B. PW3 is Rajender Singh, who being the Record Clerk has proved the MLC of the injured Vinod vide Ex. PW3/A. PW4 is Vinod Kumar, who is complainant/victim in the present case who in his deposition has testified that the he had some heated arguments with his wife upon which the wife of the accused advised his wife on telephone for compromise with him and thereafter on 29.092010 at about 9 pm when he was going towards park behind Sheetla Mata Mandir the accused alongwith two persons came from his back side and caught his hair and hit with ustra on his chest. The other associates of the accused had beaten him with the fist and legs blows. He rescued himself by jumping the wall of park and went towards police station and called the police at 100 number, police took him to the Trauma Center, AIIMS where he was medically examined thereafter he went to the PS, made a complaint Ex. PW4 A. PW5 is SI Rajpal Singh, who is IO of the present case and in his testimony he has narrated about the investigation done by him in the present case FIR No. 235/10 2 of 5 and has also exhibited the documents prepared during the course of investigation like rukka Ex. PW5/A, site plan Ex. PW5/B, arrest of accused vide Ex. PW1/A and personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B. 4 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein accused took the plea of false implication and pleaded innocence and preferred to lead evidence in his defence. In his defence accused examined Smt. Renu Passi as DW1, Smt. Manju as DW2 and Sh. Subhash Sankhla as DW3 5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as gone through case file very carefully.
6 The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to prove the case against the accused .
7 Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there is no evidence on the file to connect the accused with the offence in question and as such the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case. 8 I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments.
9 After considering the same, I give the following reasons for my judgment.
(i) Brief case of the complainant/prosecution is that on 29.09.2010 at about 9 pm while he was going to the park behind Sheetla Mata Mandir, accused alongwith two other persons came from back side, grabbed his hair and accused Shankar struck the complainant with Ustra while other accused beat the complainant with fist and legs. However, there are several contradictions in the story of complainant. In the examination in chief he says that at the time he was FIR No. 235/10 3 of 5 going towards the park behind Sheetla Mata Mandir while in the cross examination dated 30.05.2013 complainant says that he did not go to the park near Sheetla Mata Mandir. Further he says that there were no public persons when the accused beat him but the police witnesses namely the IO PW5 SI Rajpal Singh says that the spot is a public place, he asked three four persons to join investigation but they refused. In my view the said place is a busy place and it is impossible as to why no public persons would be available at that place. Further complainant PW4 says that the accused was not arrested in his presence while the IO PW5 says in his examination in chief that on 29.10.2010 he arrested the accused from Lajpat Nagar on the pointing out of the complainant. Perhaps the biggest contradiction in the statement of the complainant is that the complainant/PW4 alleges that the accused was accompanied with two more persons but the reverse is recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C mark 2/D. Perhaps i.e. why the complainant in his cross examination dated 30.05.2013 says that he did not make any effort to prompt the IO to arrest the two persons accompanying the IO because there were no such persons in existence and no such protest was ever lodged by the complainant during the course of investigation or trial. These contradictions deal a fatal blow to the prosecution case.
(ii) PW4 complainant does not make any mention about the efforts made to trace out the alleged ustra nor the IO says anything about the same and it is clear that perhaps no such ustra is in existence from which the complainant was struck.
(iii) The complainant PW4 is not able to reveal the motive or he is
FIR No. 235/10 4 of 5
not able to articulately state the same which is the same thing and it is settled law that where there is weakness in the prosecution case, the absence of motive gains significance and make the prosecution case even more doubtful.
(iv) It is also very strange, as to why PW4 complainant does not know that accused Shankar Raj who is his elder brother is residing separately for 20 years or whether rods has been surgically implanted in his right hand, near the wrist and palm.
(v) Lastly not only the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C but also DW1 and DW2 who are his acquaintances states that at the time of incident the accused was in the police station and in the abovesaid circumstances, said explanation looks very much plausible.
10 In view of the cumulative effect of the abovesaid reasons, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the allegation levelled against him. His bail bond stand discharged. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 05.12.2014 MM(South East)07,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 235/10 5 of 5