Delhi District Court
State vs 1 Dinesh Kumar @ on 14 September, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. RAVINDER KAUR
ASJ, NEW DELHI
SC NO. 96/06
State Vs 1 Dinesh Kumar @
Sintu,
Son of Ram Narain
R/o E-II/277, 278
Madangir,
New Delhi
2 Satender Shukla
@ Pramod
S/o Ram Snehi,
R/o E-II/277, 278
Madangir,
New Delhi
3 Anil Tiwari
@ Sambhu
S/o Uma Dutt Tiwari
R/o E-II/277, 278
Madangir,
New Delhi
4 Umesh Singh
S/o Vishamber Lala
R/o K-635, Dakshin
Puri, New Delhi
2
FIR No. 415/06
PS Ambedkar Nagar
U/s. 307/324/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 The prosecution case is that on 7.6.06 DD No 41 and DD No 42 were received by SI Vijay Kumar Singh who alongwith Satpal reached the spot i e in the gali opposite H No E II/37, Madangir New Delhi where he was informed that the injured was already removed to the hospital and no eyewitness was available at the spot. In the meantime Ct Naresh Kumar handed over copy of DD No. 48 registered with PP Madangir to him and he alongwith Ct Satpal left for AIIMS hospital, whereas Ct Naresh was left to guard the spot. In the hospital he found injured Ved Parkash and Raj Kumar admitted in the 3 hospital vide MLC 69915 /06 and 69924/06 . Injured Ved Prakash was declared unfit for statement. On the MLC of the injured Rajkumar the doctor had made endorsement that the injured was not found in the causality. Raj Kumar met the IO outside the hospital and gave statement that he was residing at E II/37 Madangir New Delhi and that on 7.6.06 at about 9.30 pm Sanju and Shukla who were residing in Gali and were known to him were teasing the boys of tender age passing through the street, to which his elder brother Mohan Lal objected. At this, they started abusing him. In the meantime his younger brother Ved Parkash also reached there and told Mohan Lal as to why he was entering in confrontation with them. In the meantime accused Mukesh and Sintu came there. 4 Accused Sanjay and Shukla caught hold of Ved Parkash and Sintu pulled out a knife and attacked Ved Parkash. When Raj Kumar went to save his brother he was also attacked with knife .To ward off the knife blow Raj Kumar caught hold of knife with his left hand, as a result he started bleeding from left hand thumb and her brother Ved Parkash started bleeding from abdomen and his veins had come out. Accused Sanjay armed with an iron rod in his hand caused several blows on his person and when he raised alarm the neighbourers collected there and all the accused persons fled away from the spot. Injured Ved Parkash was removed to the hospital by shiv Kumar whereas Raj Kumar was removed to hospital by the PCR van . On the said statement Ex PW 2/A of the Raj 5 Kumar IO SI Vijay Kumar Singh made endorsement Ex PW 6/D and sent the same to the PS through Ct for registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR EX PW 6/E was registered U/s. 307/34 IPC.,During investigation the site was inspected by the IO,site plan Ex PW 6/F was prepared, blood samples were lifted from the spot, the blood stained colourful chunni Ex P l, Spectacles Ex P 2 , handkerchief blood stained Ex P 3 were seized from the spot vide seizure memo EX PW 2/C, statements of the witnesses were recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC, MLC of both the injured Ex PW 6/B and Ex PW 6/C were collected by the IO. All the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex PW 5/A,B,C & EX PE 6/G respectively. Their personal search was conducted . After 6 completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed to Court U/s 307/324/34 IPC. 2 Charge U/s 307/324/34 IPC was framed against all the accused , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 The prosecution in all has examined six witnesses.
4 PW 1 Sh. Ved Parkash and PW 2 Raj Kumar are the injureds, whereas PW 3 Shiv Kumar and PW 4 Mohan Lal are the alleged eye witnesses.
5 PW 5 ASI Desh Raj and PW 6 SI Vijay Kumar Singh are the I.Os.
6 PW 1 Ved Parkash testified that on 7.6.06 when he reached home from shop at 9,30/10pm he came to know that a quarrel had already taken place outside their home between his brother Mohan Lal alongwith 7 some persons whose name he did not know. He further stated that his brother Mohan Lal was sitting on the road and since there was no electricity and it was dark he could not see if his brother was injured. He further stated that his brother was drunk at that time, so he sent him home. Further when the witness was near the stairs of his house,somebody hit him in his abdomen. Further, he could not see the weapon whether it was some sharp weapon or some blunt object as there was no electricity but he started bleeding as there was a cut in his abdomen. He was removed to AIIMS hospital by 2-3 boys living in the neighbourhood. He testified that he knows all the four accused present in Court as they are residing in his neighbourhood. However,he testified that they were not the 8 assailants.
7 He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not identify the accused persons as the assailants,. He was cross examined at length but nothing material could be extracted from his statement. 8 Similarly PW 2 Raj Kumar was also declared hostile by the prosecution as he resiled from his previous statement Ex PW 2/A and denied the fact that his brother Ved Prakash had received injuries in his presence. On the other hand,he stated that he was told by the people in the gali that 4-5 boys had caused injuries to his brother and had run away from the spot but public persons did not disclose the names of those boys. He testified that he was told by the public persons that those boys had just ran away, so he ran to 9 catch hold of them and received injury on his hand with a chain, again said a sharp object lying on the road where he had fallen. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined at length but did not support the prosecution case and claimed that the complaint Ex PW 2/A was signed by him when it was a blank paper. He also denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused persons 9 PW 3 Shiv Kumar and PW 4 Mohan Lal are alleged eye witnesses denied that they had witnessed any such incident. They were also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case despite lengthy cross examination.
10 The I.Os PW 5 ASI Desh Raj and PW 6 SI Vijay Kumar Singh are not witnesses to 10 the incident but investigated the matter and are more in the nature of formal witnesses. Since there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons as none of the witnesses have identified them as the assailants,their statement U/s 313 Cr. PC is dispensed with and the accused persons are acquitted of the charges U/s. 307/324/34 IPC for want of evidence.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN (RAVINDER KAUR)
OPEN COURT ASJ/NEW DELHI
TODAY
DATED: 14/9/07
11
State Vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors,
14/9/07
Addl PP for State.
All accused on bail with counsel. PW 5 ASI Desh Raj and PW 6 SI Vijay Kumar Singh are present and examined.
Since there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons as none of the witnesses have identified them as the assailants, their statement U/s 313 Cr. PC is dispensed with .
Vide separate judgment, all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges U/s. 307/324/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are discharged. File be consigned to the Record Room.
ASJ/N.D./14.9.07