Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh@Tulli on 19 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-053421-2022 (correct) ID. No. : 11245/2022 FIR No. : 934/2019 U/s : 326IPC P.S. : Bindapur State v/s Suresh @ Tulli a) Name & address of the : Sh. Robin complainant S/o Sh. Anup Singh R/o VPO Loharheri, Distt. Jhajjar, Bahadur Garh, Haryana. b) Name & address of : Suresh @ Tulli accused S/o Lachi Ram R/o Gali no.4, Jhinro Wali Gali, Near Jeet Arya School, Arya Nagar, Bahadurgah, Haryana. c) Date of Commission of : 28.11.2019 offence d) Offence complained of : 326 IPC e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. f) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Manish Kaushik g) Final Order : Acquitted. h) Date of Institution : 09.09.2022 i) Judgment Pronounced on : 19.02.2024 JUDGMENT
Brief facts State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 1 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11245/2022
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 28.11.2019 at about 10:00 PM, accused Suresh @ Tulli had caused grievous hurt to complainant Robin with a sharp edge blade at Ashish Vatika Mansaram Park, Delhi. Thereafter an FIR bearing no. 934/2019 u/s 326 IPC was registered at PS Bindapur on the complaint made by complainant. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Investigating Officer SI Vikas Kumar.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet u/s 326 IPC was filed against accused Suresh @ Tulli. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under section 326 IPC was framed against accused Suresh @ Tulli, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined the complainant Robhin as PW-1. He has deposed that on 28.11.2019, he had visited Nawada, Ashish Vatika, Mansaram Park to attend a marriage function of his friend Anil. He had verbal altercation with an unknown person. The witness stated that no incident took place at the spot. PW-1 was thereafter State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 2 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11245/2022 declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State had thereafter cross-examined him. Ld. Defence counsel did not cross-examine the said witness despite being given an opportunity to do so.
5. Since PW-1, i.e., the complainant Robin had turned hostile, and other witnesses cited by the prosecution were formal witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 29.01.2024. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with since nothing incriminating had appeared on record against him. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
6. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case as the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that the main witness, i.e., the complainant Robin has turned hostile and nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused be acquitted for the offence charged.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 3 of 5
Cr. Case No. 11245/2022
Findings of the Court
9. It is well settled that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10.Perusal of the statement of PW-1, i.e., the complainant namely Robin, who is the main witness of the prosecution reveals that he was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution version at all. Though it is a settled law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded completely as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, however, in the present case, as stated earlier, the complainant did not support the prosecution version at all. Despite his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing beneficial to the prosecution has emerged out of the same. Thus, in the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution at all.
11.Thus, in the opinion of this court, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
12.Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 4 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11245/2022 the accused. The accused Suresh @ Tulli is, therefore, hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 326 IPC.
13.This judgment contains 05 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
14.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally TODAY, i.e., ON 19.02.2024 signed by Deeksha Deeksha Sethi Sethi Date: 2024.02.19 15:54:06 +0530 Deeksha Sethi Metropolitan Magistrate-03 South-West District/New Delhi 19.02.2024 State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 5 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11245/2022