Delhi District Court
State vs . Jeo Devi on 28 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
MM-03: SOUTH-EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 385/98
PS Kalkaji
U/s. 448 IPC
State Vs. Jeo Devi
Date of Institution of case:- 10.05.1999
Date of Judgment reserved:- 28.10.2013
Date on which Judgment pronounced:-28.10.2013
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 02403R0147092004 Date of commission of offence : 15.03.1998 Name of complainant : Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Jaswant Singh R/o M-22, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Name and address of accused : Jeo Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Ram Swaroop, R/o C-176, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 448 IPC Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of order : 28.10.2013 Final order : Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
Accused Jeo Devi has been sent to face trial under Section 448 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 15.03.1998 at unknown time at C-222, Nehru Camp, Govind Puri within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, she committed house trespass at C-222, J.N. Camp, Govind Puri belonging to complainant Kuldeep Singh. On the basis of the said FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 1 of 4 allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 385/98 was registered at Police Station Kalkaji and the accused has been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 448 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, the copies of chargesheet were supplied to the accused Jeo Devi in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice under section 448 IPC was served to her vide order dated 21.02.2002, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against accused Jeo Devi. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4. PW-1 is W/SI Neeraj. She is the Duty Officer and has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-1/A.
5. PW-2 is SI Parveen Kumar. He has deposed that he received complaint of Kuldeep by dak, which is endorsed as PW-2/A. He has further deposed that he got this case registered U/s. 448 IPC and made efforts to search the accused but could not find the accused. He has further deposed that thereafter, he was transferred.
6. PW-3 is Kuldeep Singh. Perusal of his testimony shows that he was partly examined-in-chief and his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of original documents. It is a matter of record that thereafter, no witness was examined in this case.
FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 2 of 47. Perusal of record shows that accused Jeo Devi is facing trial for the offence under section 448 IPC and in these circumstances, testimony of the complainant Kuldeep Singh is material one.
8. It is also a matter of record that on 28.10.2013 i.e today no witness was present and as per report, witness / complainant Kuldeep Singh was stated to have expired on 20.06.2007 and accordingly, he was deleted from the list of witnesses. Perusal of record shows that complainant was examined as PW-3 on 08.06.2006 and thereafter, his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of original documents and thereafter, he could not be examined as he had expired. His partly examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence and to this effect help can be taken from the Judgment titled as Mr. Ripen Kumar Vs. Department of Customs 2001 [1] JCC [Delhi] 47, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
9. Hence, in the above scenario, it was observed by the court that since, complainant has expired and other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses are police officials, who have conducted / joined the investigation, so no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses and by keeping the case alive and accordingly, PE was closed today i.e 28.10.2013.
10. Since, nothing incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
11. In the present case, nothing incriminating evidence has FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 3 of 4 come on record against the accused Jeo Devi and accordingly, she is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 448 IPC.
12. Her previous bail bond is extended in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
13. File be consigned to Record room, after necessary compliance.
(Deepak Wason) MM-03: South-East: Saket Court:
New Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e. 28th October, 2013 FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 4 of 4 FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji U/s. 448 IPC State Vs. Jeo Devi 28.10.2013 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Sh. Surender Kumar, Ld. counsel for the accused with accused on bail.
No witness present today.
As per report, witness / complainant Kuldeep Singh has expired on 20.06.2007. The report is attached with the copy of death certificate.
Perusal of record shows that complainant was examined as PW-3 on 08.06.2006 and thereafter, his examination-in-chief was deferred for want of original documents. Since, this witness has expired, he is deleted from the list of witnesses.
In the present case, accused is facing trial for the offence U/s. 448 IPC and in these circumstances, the testimony of the complainant is material one. Since, complainant has expired and other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses are police officials, who have conducted / joined the investigation, to my mind, no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses and by keeping the case alive.
Accordingly, PE stands closed.
Since nothing incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 5 of 4Record perused.
Vide separate judgment dictated to steno today in the open court, accused is acquitted for the offence U/s. 448 IPC and she is directed to furnish fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
At this stage, at the request of Ld. Counsel, previous bail bond of Jeo Devi extended U/s. 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Deepak Wason) MM-03/SE/New Delhi 28.10.2013 FIR No. 385/98 PS Kalkaji Page 6 of 4