Delhi District Court
State vs Kapil on 2 December, 2024
FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S.C No. : 48/2019
CNR No. : DLSW01-006499-2019
FIR No. : 178/2017
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section : U/s 341/308/451/323/506/34 IPC
State
VERSUS
1. Kapil
S/o Sh. Raja Yadav
R/o Jhuggi No.62, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Metro Pillar No.39, Nangli Dairy,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Asha
W/o Sh. Dinesh
R/o Jhuggi No.62/64, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Metro Pillar No.39, Nangli Dairy,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. Rina Devi
W/o Sh. Kapil Yadav
R/o Jhuggi No.62, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Metro Pillar No.39, Nangli Dairy,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
4. Jaggan Nath
S/o Sh. Mohan Yadav
R/o Village Baskati,
Judgment 1 of 11
FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors
Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar.
5. Raja Ram
S/o Sh. Rudal Singh
R/o Jhuggi No.3, Nangli Dairy,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
6. Dinesh
S/o Sh. Sukh Ram
R/o Jhuggi No. 62, Nangli Dairy,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(He has expired and proceedings against him
stands abated vide order dated 10.10.2022)
... Accused persons
Date of Institution : 20.05.2019
Judgment reserved on : 02.12.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 02.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 341/308/451/323/506/34 IPC
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2017 complainant Smt. Anita Devi gave her statement which is as under:-
"......On 06.03.2017 at about 6:30 a.m, when I was going to Nangli Dairy to bring water, Kapil obstructed my way in front of his house and stated that if I will not allow him to fill the water then he will not allow me to leave his street, to which I replied that the way is for everyone, I will go from here. As soon as I started leaving, Kapil Yadav started beating me with wood (fatta). I Judgment 2 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors made noise. Hearing my voice, my husband started coming towards me. At the same time, Reena, Asha and Dinesh also came there. Reena and Asha caught me. Dinesh and Kapil hit me on my hand and head. When my husband tried to save me, he was also beaten up, I became unconscious, my son dialed number 100. The police took us to Jafarpur hospital, from where we were taken to Din Dayal and then we were taken to Ram Manohar. Our neighbor Ravi also accompanied us for help. After taking treatment, I started living in my house. After one month, Jagannath, a relative of Dinesh and Kapil, came and asked me to compromise the matter, otherwise I would be killed. On 06.04.2017 at night, Kapil, Dinesh, Jagannath and his companion came there. Jagannath and his companion came there in the car of our neighbor. Both of them pressed the mouth of my son Praveen and took him as well as Ravi in their car. They gave beatings to my son and Ravi however, my son somehow managed to returned home and narrated the entire incident to me. I alongwith my neighbour went there but all of them ran away. We made a call at number 100 and the police took us to the police station and they gave their complaint. Thereafter, on 27.04.2017 Jagannath came, abused him and threatened Ravi...... "
3. On the aforesaid complaint, present FIR was got registered under section 341/308/451/323/506/34 IPC.
4. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 341/308/451/323/506/34 IPC.
Judgment 3 of 11
FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors
5. During the trial of the case, accused Jagan Nath was tried vide order dated 17.05.2022 on the following charge:-
"......That on 27.04.2017 at unknown time as Nangli Dairy, within the jurisdiction of P.S Najafgarh, you alongwith your unknown associate criminally intimated to face dire consequences and to kill Ravi and thus thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506(II) IPC and within cognizance of this court......"
6. Accused Jagan Nath and Dinesh were tried on the following charge:-
"...That on 06.04.2017, at about 12 noon, Nangli Dairy, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you both accused persons in furtherance of your common intention committed house trespass in the house of complainant in order to abduct Parveen and thus thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 451/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court. Secondly, on above stated date, time and place within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you both accused persons in furtherance of your common intention you willfully kidnapped Parveen from the lawful guardianship of his mother and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 363/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court....."
7.Accused Kapil, Asha, Rina Devi, Jagan Nath, Raja Ram and Dinesh were tried on the following charge:-
"...That on 06.03.2017, at about 6:30 a.m, at Nangli Dairy, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you all accused persons in furtherance of your common intention hit the complainant Anita Devi with wooden planks with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if you by that act caused death, you would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thus thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 308/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court.
Secondly, on above stated date, time and place, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you all accused persons in furtherance of your common intention you voluntarily caused simple hurt on Anita and Shyam Judgment 4 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court..."
8. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the pendency of this case, accused Dinesh was expired and vide order dated 10.10.2022, proceedings against accused Dinesh stands abated.
9. To prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW1 complainant Smt. Anita deposed that she was working as a house maid and on 06.03.2017 at about 6:30 A.M, she was going to bring water from Nangli Dairy. Accused Kapil was present at the spot where she was filling the water. Thereafter, a quarrel took place between her and Kapil as to who would fill the water first. On hearing commotion, her husband came at the spot. Accused Reena, Asha and Dinesh also came there and thereafter the matter was resolved. PW-1 further deposed that after one month of this incident, Dinesh, Kapil and their relative Jagannath came to pacify the matter and her son Praveen went with the accused persons. She thought that they have kidnapped her son so she made a call to 100 number. Police recorded her statement, however she does not know its contents. She correctly identified accused Kapil, Reena, Asha, Dinesh and Jagannath in the court. She identified her thumb impression on her statement Ex PW 1/A and deposed that she does not know anything else about this case.
10. Since PW1 did not support prosecution case on some Judgment 5 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors material aspects, she was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during her cross-examination complainant denied the suggestions put to her on behalf of State.
11. PW-2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that on one day in the year 2017, while he was sleeping at his house, he woke up after hearing the commotion. He came outside his house and saw that his mother was lying on the ground and blood was oozing out from her head. After some time, police came at the spot and shifted his mother to hospital for medical treatment. He did not receive any injury.
12. Since PW-2 did not support prosecution case on some material aspects, he was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during his cross-examination he denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
13. PW-3 Sh. Shyamram deposed that on 06.03.2017 at about 6:30 A.M, there was a quarrel between his wife Anita and accused persons. He further deposed that he was not present at the spot and does not know that happened.
14. Since, PW-3 resiled from material facts of his statement dated 17.12.2017, he was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during his cross-examination he denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
15. PW-4 Ravi deposed that one day he was sleeping at his Judgment 6 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors house/jhuggi and he woke up after hearing the commotion. Thereafter, he came outside his house and saw that mother of Praveen was lying on the ground and blood was oozing out from her head. He immediately took her to the hospital with Praveen and some other neighbours.
16. Since PW-4 did not support prosecution case on some material aspects, he was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
17. PW-5 Ravin @ Ravi deposed that one one day, he was getting ready for school and on hearing commotion, he came outside his house and saw that his mother was lying on the ground and blood was oozing out from her head. His paternal uncle Jitender immediately took her to the hospital with Praveen and some other neighbours. He further deposed that he does not know anything else about this case.
18. Since PW-5 did not support prosecution case on some material aspects, he was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
19. PW-6 Jai Prakash deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Since PW-6 did not support prosecution case, he was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State and during his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to Judgment 7 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors him on behalf of State.
20. PW-7 Ms. Renuka Dhingra, Principal of MC Primary School, Ghasipura-II, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh deposed that as per record date of birth of student Praveen is 05.06.2000. The student was admitted in their school vide admission no. 5999 and at the time of admission, father of student Praveen submitted an affidavit mentioning date of birth of student Praveen as 05.06.2000. A certificate Ex PW 7/A to this effect was issued to the IO on 22.02.2018 by the then Incharge of our school Sh. Ashok Kumar. I am acquainted with his handwriting and signatures as I have seen him writing and signing in due course of my official duty. Copy of admission form is proved as Ex PW 7/B, Copy of affidavit of Shyam Ram, father of student Praveen is proved as Ex.PW7/C.
21. PW-8 Mandeep deposed that in the year 2017, he was working in Kair Bus Depot, Cluster-8, Delhi. On 23.12.2017, the IO met him and he issued "GPS Based Vehicle Tracking & Passenger Information System" report to the IO. As per said report, the driver having the identity no. MTK6317 was on his duty on bus bearing registration no. DL1PC6835 vide duty no. 817/18. Duty of allocation date and time was 06.03.2017, 6:35:54 hours. He proved the said report as Ex PW 8/A.
22. PW-9 SI Chanda Singh deposed that she recorded statement of complainant Anita Devi Ex PW 1/A and on the basis of said statement, he prepared rukka Ex PW 9/A and got Judgment 8 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors registered the present FIR. He further deposed that during investigation, he prepared site plan Ex PW 1/B and arrested accused Kapil, Asha, Reena, Jagan Nath vide arrest memo and recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet with the approval of higher authorities.
23. In their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused persons namely Kapil, Rina, Jagannath, Raja Ram and Asha admitted registration of FIR as Ex.PX-1, endorsement of DO on rukka as Ex PX-2, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PX-3, GD No.7 as Ex PX-4, PCR call as Ex PX-5, DD No.4A dated 07.04.2017 as Ex PX-6, MLC of Anil as Ex PX-7, MLC of Shyam Ram as Ex PX-8, X-ray of Shyam Ram as Ex PX-9, MLC of Praveen as Ex PX-10, MLC of Ravi Kumar as Ex PX-11, X- ray of Ravi Kumar as Ex PX-12, personal search memo of Kapil as Ex PX-13, personal search memo of Asha as Ex PX-14, personal search memo of Jagannath as Ex PX-15, arrest memo of Asha as Ex PX-16, arrest memo of Reena as Ex PX-17 and arrest memo of Jagannath as Ex PX-18.
24. The complainant/eye-witness did not support the prosecution case and deposed nothing against the accused persons. Since all prosecution witnesses were examined/ dropped, at the request of Ld. Addl. P.P for State, prosecution evidence was closed.
25. As no incriminating evidence came on record Judgment 9 of 11 FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors against accused persons, recording of statement u/s 313 CrPC of accused persons was dispensed with.
26. I have heard State through Sh. V.K. Swami, Ld. Additional PP for State and Sh. A.K. Roy, Ld counsel for accused persons. I have also perused entire material on record.
27. It is not disputed that PW1 is complainant/eye witness is cited as prime witness. She has not supported case of the prosecution. It is also observed that PW-1 to PW-6 did not depose anything incriminating against accused persons. Remaining witnesses were formal in nature. Hence prosecution has miserably failed to prove his case. It is certainly discernible that prosecution has failed to ascribe any role to the accused persons whom she had named in the FIR. Yet, any adverse finding against accused persons can be based only on an assertive description of the role played by an accused person in the commission of the alleged offence.
28. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence produced before court. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal court has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits.
Judgment 10 of 11
FIR NO. 178/17 State Vs. Kapil & Ors
Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused and consequential acquittal.
29. In the light of testimony of material witness, which is exonerating accused persons, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons namely Kapil, Asha, Rina Devi, Jagannath and Raja Ram stands acquitted in this case. Their personal bonds are canceled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties. In terms of Section 437(A) CrPC accused persons are directed to furnish personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for period of six months.
Digitally signed by AJAY SINGHAnnounced in the open Court on AJAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT SHEKHAWAT Date:
02.12.2024 2024.12.02 15:10:25 +0530 AJAY SINGH SHEKHAWAT Additional Sessions Judge-02 South-West District, Dwarka Court New Delhi Judgment 11 of 11