Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar Etc. on 12 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, DISTRICT
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar etc.
FIR No. 201/17
PS. Govind Puri
U/s. 323/341/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 5692/17
2) The date of commission of offence : 13.05.2017
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Pradeep Singh
4) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Ramesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Azad Singh,
2) Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Azad Singh.
5) Offence involved : 323/341/34 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Convicted
8) The date of such order : 12.04.2022
Date of Institution : 08.12.2017
Judgment reserved on : 08.04.2022
Judgment announced on : 12.04.2022
FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 1 of 6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The instant FIR No. 201/17 was registered on the complaint of Sh. Pradeep Kumar who stated that on 13.05.2017 at about 6.20 AM, while he was on his way to the gym and reached near the Balmiki Mandir, Tughlakabad Village, New Delhi, at that time he was got stopped by the present accused persons namely Ramesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar and they threatened him to withdraw the earlier case. They also assaulted him. Hearing his shouts, a crowd gathered, upon which both these persons absconded. The complainant then called the PCR. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable U/s. 323/341/34 IPC. The investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was filed for the said offences.
2. Both the accused persons were summoned and the notice of accusation was given to them on 02.04.2018. They both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Pradeep Singh is the complainant in this case. He deposed on the lines of his aforesaid complaint Ex.PW1/A which he proved in the court. He stated that the site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared in his presence. He identified both the accused persons in the court.
FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 2 of 6
5. PW2 Ct. Jaibir had accompanied the IO ASI Narender to the spot. He and the IO then reached the AIIMS Trauma Center. He deposed that in the Trauma Center, IO collected the MLC of the complainant but the complainant was not found present there.
6. PW3 ASI Narender Kumar is the 2nd IO of this case. He deposed about the manner in which he conducted the investigation. He proved the interrogation report Ex.PW3/A and site plan Ex.PW3/B. He stated that that he then served the notice U/s. 41A CrPC to both accused persons and he proved the said notice Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. He identified both the accused persons in the court.
7. PW4 SI Ajit Singh is the first IO of this case. He deposed that on 13.05.2017 reached at the spot on receipt of DD No. 17A. He came to know that the injured has already been taken to the hospital, upon which he went to AIIMS Trauma Center with Ct. Jaibir and collected the MLC of the complainant. He did not find the complainant there and as such he kept the DD No.17A pending. He deposed that on 19.05.2017 the complainant came to the police station and gave the representation Ex.PW1/A upon which he prepared rukka Ex.PW4/A and got the FIR registered. The investigation was marked to ASI Narender.
8. It is relevant to mention that on 02.11.2018 the accused persons had made the statement U/s. 294 CrPC wherein they admitted the documents i.e. FIR No. 201/17, Certificate Us. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD No.l7A dated 13.05.2017, DD No.25A dated 13.05.2017 and MLC No. 500023109/2017 of injured Pradeep Singh as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 respectively.
FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 3 of 6
9. All the witnesses have been cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
10. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of both the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.PC were recorded and the evidence surfaced against them during the trial was put to them. Both the accused denied it's correctness and pleaded innocence. Both accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
11. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that considering the unequivocal testimony of the complainant which is supported with the MLC Ex.A-6, the case of the prosecution is duly established and the accused persons therefore, should be convicted.
12. On the other hand Ld Defence Counsel has argued that the complainant and the accused persons are related to each other and they are having disputes regarding ancestral property and in order to take the benefit of the same, the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons in the case. It is submitted that the accused persons who work as Safai Karamcharies with the MCD had already left for their work place on the day of the incident at about 6.00 AM and therefore, there was no question of the accused persons wrongfully restraining or assaulting the complainant. It is argued that the injury is self inflicted for the purpose of implicating the accused persons. It is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted.
13. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Defence counsel for both the accused persons and have also perused FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 4 of 6 the record.
14. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the complainant/PW1. In his deposition, he has identified both the accused persons and has unequivocally stated that the said accused persons had wrongfully restrained him and thereafter assaulted him. He deposed that subsequently, he went to AIIMS Trauma Center and got himself medically examined, but before that he had called the PCR. Ex.A-4 is the extract of DD No.17A dated 13.05.2017 which has been recorded regarding receiving of intimation of a quarrel on 13.05.2017. The injuries sustained by the complainant have been proved by the MLC Ex.A-6. In the cross examination, there has been given no suggestion about the said injuries. The accused persons have not produced any material to show that at the time of incident they were not present at the spot. No material has also been produced in the form of attendance register etc. to show that the accused persons at the time of incident were at their place of employment. In the statement U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused persons have not furnished any explanation for their alleged false implication. They have also not led any evidence to counter the case of the prosecution.
15. Considering the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution in total and particularly the testimony of the complainant/injured/PW1, the court is of the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case. It has been established that on 13.05.2017 at about 6.20 AM near Balmiki Mohalla, Tughlakabad Village, New Delhi, the accused persons Rakesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar had wrongfully restrained the complainant Pradeep Singh by stopping him from proceeding in a direction in which he had arrived to proceed, they then voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant. The circumstances of the FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 5 of 6 case clearly show prior meeting of mind of the accused persons to commit the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, both the accused persons are hereby convicted for the commission of offences punishable U/s. 323/341 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH)
on 12.04.2022 MM-4/South East/Saket Courts
Delhi
FIR No.201/17 State Vs Ramesh Kumar etc. 6 of 6