Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ravinder @ Ravinde on 31 October, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
ASJ03 & SPECIAL JUDGE (COMPANIES ACT)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State Vs. 1. Ravinder @ Ravinde
S/o Late Sh. Mehar Singh,
R/o H.No.429, VPO Dichaon
Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Jaswant Singh @ Johny
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
R/o H.No.945, Dichaon Kalan,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
● CNR No. : DLSW010054122017.
● Registration No. of the Case : SC/299/2017.
● Court Institution Number : SC375/2017.
● FIR Number : 329/2013.
● PS : BHD Nagar.
● Under Section : 308/34 IPC.
● Date of Institution : 29.04.2017.
● Case committed to the Court of
Sessions for : 20.05.2017.
● Case reserved for Judgment on : 31.10.2018.
● Judgment announced on : 31.10.2018.
● Final Order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The important facts of the case, as presented by prosecution side, Page No. 1 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 2 are as follows. In this case, FIR was registered on the complaint of Devi Lal (since deceased), who had mentioned that in the intervening night of 06/07.12.2103, at 01:00 a.m., at phirni road of village Dichaon Kalan, New Delhi, when he was going alongwith his friend Pankaj Gulia (PW1), accused Ravinder @ Ravinde came in his car and parked it in front of his car and further started abusing him. When objected, he gave two blows on his head with a baseball bat, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell down. Thereafter, he found himself in the hospital. Subsequently, he made another complaint mentioning that accused Jaswant Singh @ Johny had also accompanied accused Ravinder @ Ravinde and both of them had beaten him with the intention to kill him. During investigation, accused Ravinder @ Ravinde was arrested whereas accused Jaswant Singh @ Johny was granted anticipatory bail.
2. After culmination of investigation, the accused persons were chargesheeted and produced in the Court of Ld. Area MM. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 CrPC.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
3. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, vide order dated 12.09.2017, charge under Section 308/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page No. 2 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 3
4. For proving its case, prosecution has produced two witnesses. 4.1 PW1, Pankaj Gulia, deposed that on the date of incident few friends of Devi Lal scuffled with Devi Lal and caused injuries to him and thereafter they ran away from there. Further, he mentioned that he could not see the faces of those assailants.
4.2 PW2, Rajbir Singh, father of Devi Lal, deposed that he received an information from police regarding the admission of his son in RTRM hospital and in the hospital his son informed that accused Ravinder @ Ravinde and Jaswant Singh @ Johny had caused injuries to him with baseball bat and thereafter his son gave statement Ex.PW2/1 to the police. Further, he mentioned that his son Devi Lal passed away on account of heart attack on 06.09.2017.
5. Further, accused persons admitted certain documents u/s 294 CrPC i.e. Copy of FIR No. 329/2013 of PS BHD Nagar Ex. A1; DD No.33A, dated 07.12.2013, PS BHD Nagar Ex.A2; DD No.34A, dated 07.12.2013, PS BHD Nagar Ex.A3; MLC No.892/12/13, dated 07.12.2013 of Devi Lal Ex.A4; Medical documents of Orthoplus hospital of Devi Lal Ex.A5 (colly.) and Discharge summary of Devi Lal dated 10.12.2013 Ex.A6.
6. Since the complainant had died and another eye witness i.e. PW1 did not support the prosecution case and did not identify the accused Page No. 3 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 4 persons and apart from them, testimony of no other witness could have connected the accused persons to the alleged offences, rest of the witnesses were not examined and PE was ordered to be closed vide order of the even date.
7. As no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused persons, their statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
8. I have heard the State through Sh. V.K.Swami, ld. Addl. PP (Substitute) and the accused Ravinder @ Ravinde through Ld. counsel Sh. Ashok Ahlawat and Ld. proxy counsel for accused Jaswant Singh @ Johny. Record is also gone through.
9. Ld. Addl. PP did not dispute the position that the prosecution case is based on the testimony of two eye witnesses, out of which injured/complainant had died and PW1 Pankaj Gulia did not say anything incriminating against the accused persons and rest of the witnesses, who were named in the list of prosecution witnesses and were not examined, were related to investigation or formal witnesses only.
10. It is evident that prosecution has examined two witnesses. PW1 deposed that due to dark, he could not see the faces of friends of Devi Lal Page No. 4 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 5 who attacked Devi Lal. Further, he denied all the suggestions given by Ld. Addl.P.P regarding involvement of accused persons in the incident.
11. Further, testimony of PW2 regarding involvement of accused persons is hearsay in nature as he mentioned that his son Devi Lal had told him in the hospital that accused persons had injured him with baseball bat. As per Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act, the fact of causing injuries by accused persons can only be proved by direct testimony and since PW2 did not witness the incident himself, his testimony regarding the information received by him that accused persons had injured his son, cannot be considered to establish the fact of involvement of accused persons in the incident.
12. Though, PW2 had proved the statement Ex.PW2/1 made by his deceased son, which resulted into FIR, but that would not be sufficient to prove the allegations mentioned in that statement against the accused persons. Said allegations could have been proved by the complainant as a witness, but unfortunately, on account of his death, he could not be examined by the prosecution side. Moreover, the said statement is not relevant as dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because it was not made by the deceased regarding cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. Moreover, another requirement to bring such statement within Page No. 5 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 6 purview of said provision, that statement maker's death must come into question, is also missing in this case. It is pertinent to mention here that PW2 had clarified that complainant had died about 4 years after the incident on 06.09.2017 on account of heart attack. Therefore, merely because PW2 has proved the fact that statement Ex.PW2/1 was made by his deceased son, that in itself is not sufficient to prove the allegations mentioned therein.
13. When none of the material witnesses of the prosecution had said anything incriminating against the accused persons, there was no purpose in examining rest of the witnesses, most of which were police officials associated with investigation at some stage. In such circumstances, the recording of testimony of the unexamined witnesses would have been futile exercise and thus, this Court ordered for closure of prosecution evidence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another", (1996 JCC 507), wherein it was held as under:
"... ... ... when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
14. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to bring on record any incriminating evidence to establish the involvement of accused persons in the incident of causing dangerous Page No. 6 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13 7 injuries on the head of complainant/deceased Devi Lal with an intention of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
CONCLUSION:
15. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case u/s 308/34 IPC against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons are required to be acquitted in this case. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
GULIA Date: 2018.11.02
16:53:06 +0530
Announced in the open Court (VIVEK KUMAR GULIA)
on 31st day of October 2018 ASJ03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
(total 07 pages) Dwarka Courts (SW), New Delhi.
Page No. 7 of 7 State Vs. Ravinder @ Ravinde & Anr.; FIR No.329/13