Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 6 January, 2014

                                          1

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE -02, NORTH DISTRICT
                         ROHINI COURTS : DELHI

IN RE :                           Sessions Case No. : 54/12
                                  FIR No. : 300/11
                                  P.S.     : Vijay Vihar
                                  U/s       : 308/323/34 IPC
                                  Date of registration : 13-09-12
                                  Reserved for Judgment on: 12-12-13
                                  Judgment Announced on : 06-01-2014

              State

               Vs.

     1. Prince S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
        R/o I-120, Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

     2. Babloo S/o Parmeshwer
        R/o B-10, Mandir Oriental Aptt.
        Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.


JUDGMENT

1. Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahender. According to the complainant he is a property dealer by profession, having his office near 40 foota road, BD Jain Public School. According to the complainant on 3-8-2011, Sandeep and Manoj who are known to him came to meet him but on the said day the complainant had not brought his keys of the office. According to the complainant Sandeep and Manoj came to meet him in the Santro Car. Complainant asked them to stay there in the Santro Car and he also reached there at about 11, 11:30 p.m. According to the complainant Sandeep and Manoj had also brought cold drinks and some eatables with Sessions Case No: 54/12 Page 1 of 6 2 them. Therefore, they started drinking cold drinks while talking with each other. They also played the stereo of the car at low sound for enjoyment.

2. According to the complainant in the meantime one Prince resident of their colony came there on his M/cycle No. DL-8S AT 0734 and one Babloo who usually used to come to meet Prince also came there on his motorcycle. According to the complainant on seeing them Prince said "Sadak Par Sharab Pee Kar Dadagiri Kar Rahe Ho". Complainant told him that Sandeep and Manoj are his known to and they were drinking cold drinks. On this Prince and his friend Babloo became angry on them and Prince brought a base ball bat from his motorcycle then Sandeep and Manoj asked him as to what he was doing, then Prince hit the base ball bat on the head of Sandeep and Babloo gave fist blows to Manoj. According to the complainant he ran away from the spot and Prince chased him for beating him but he managed to escape.

3. F.I.R. bearing No. 300/11 was registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar and investigation went underway. During the course of investigation accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.

4. On 13-12-2012, a charge U/s 308/325/323/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 11witnesses.

6. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the same and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led by the accused persons.

7. In the instant case the material witnesses are PW 1 Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, PW -2 Sandeep S/o Sh. Devender and PW 3 Sh. Manoj S/o Sh. Jasbir.

8. PW-1 Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahender Singh is the complainant. He deposed that he was working as a property Dealer and on 3-8-11, at about 12:30 a.m. he was going to his house alongwith his friend Sandeep S/o Devender and Manoj in the Santro Car No. DL 4 C AP 0212 and when they reached near BD Jain Public School, Chaalis Foota Road, Vijay Vihar-2, he found a mob was gathered there quarelling with each other. They stopped there and inquired about the matter on which some persons from the mob attacked on him and his both friends as a result of which they suffered injuries. PCR van arrived and shifted them to BSA Hospital. He further deposed that local police also reached at the hospital and inquired from him and he narrated the aforesaid facts to the IO who obtained his signatures on blank papers. He further deposed that "accused persons present in the court today had not attacked on him and on his friends at that time and he has nothing to deposed against them".

9. PW 2 Sandeep S/o Sh. Devender also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW 1. He also deposed that some persons from the mob attacked on him and his both friends Sessions Case No: 54/12 Page 3 of 6 4 as a result of which they suffered injuries. He also deposed that "accused persons present in the Court today had not attacked on him and on his friends at that time and he has nothing to depose against them".

10. PW-3 Manoj also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW 1 and PW 2. He also deposed that some persons from the mob attacked on him and his both friends as a result of which, they suffered injuries. PCR van arrived there and shifted them to BSA Hospital. He also deposed that "accused persons present in the court today had not attacked on him and on his friends at that time and he has nothing to depose against them".

11. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 who are the most material witnesses were declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State but nothing material could be extracted from their cross examination.

12. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and the counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the records of the case.

13. The main witness of the prosecution i.e. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have failed to support the case of the prosecution and the other witnesses are official witnesses. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have categorically deposed that "accused persons had not attacked on them and they had nothing to depose against them. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Both the accused are, therefore, acquitted. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Announced in the open Court on 06-01-2014) Sessions Case No: 54/12 Page 4 of 6 5 RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : 02, NORTH DISTICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No: 54/12 Page 5 of 6