Delhi District Court
State vs . Raja Joni @ Rajesh on 20 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANAMIKA: MM-06, NDD, PHC, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Raja Joni @ Rajesh
FIR No.: 249/2013
P.S.: South Campus
U/Sec.: 323/324 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 42006/2016 dt. 26.03.2015 institution Date of commission of offence 30.12.2013 Name of the complainant Sh. Ambadutt Tiwari Name of the accused Raja Joni @ Rajesh S/o. Sh. Kalyan Singh R/o. Vega Bond, Delhi Nature of offence complained of U/S. 323/324/174A IPC Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 20.04.2023 Final Order Acquitted Date of order 20.04.2023 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 323/324/174A IPC on the allegations that on 30.12.2013 at about 3:52 p.m. at Park Moti Bagh-I, near Moti Bagh flyover, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS South Campus, accused had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant namely Amba Dutt Tiwari by beating him and giving him a cut on his face through a blade.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 26.03.2015 and cognizance was taken on the same day.
Copy of charge sheet was also supplied to accused on 08.04.2015 and charge for offences punishable under Section 323/324 IPC was framed upon the accused on 22.12.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 249/2013 PS South Campus State vs. Raja Joni @ Rajesh Page No. 13. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. However, the accused had started absentee from the court and vide order dated 06.01.2021, the accused Raja Joni @ Rajesh was declared proclaimed offender in the present case. It is pertinent to note that on 31.01.2023, the accused was arrested in kalandra bearing No. DD No.62A dated 30.01.2023 and was sent to custody and file was ordered to be revived and restored to its original number.
4. Thereafter, charge for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. On pleading guilty, the accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period, he has already undergone in JC.
5. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the genuineness of FIR, MLC NO. 281126, DD No.19A dated 30.12.2013 Ex. X1, Ex. X2 & Ex. X3. Consequently, the formal witnesses were dropped from the list of PWs and PE was closed.
6. The prosecution has also cited complainant Amba Dutt Tiwari in its list of witnesses, but he has never appeared before court for his testimony. Record has shown that summons have also been issued through DCP concerned. Despite that, he remained unserved and therefore, despite efforts, presence of above-said witness could not be secured and hence he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 20.04.2023. Since the complainant has not appeared in the present case, there FIR No. 249/2013 PS South Campus State vs. Raja Joni @ Rajesh Page No. 2 is no other witness who can prove the present complaint and the incident in question against the accused persons.
7. In the absence of evidence of the complainant, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons as none of the remaining witnesses are eye-witness to the incident or even circumstantial witness to the commission of the alleged offence. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons.
8. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2013 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its powers available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
9. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
10. Keeping in mind the aforementioned reasons and the above case laws, recording of any further PE in the present case FIR No. 249/2013 PS South Campus State vs. Raja Joni @ Rajesh Page No. 3 would be waste of judicial time, money and resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression of the accused who has any how faced the ordeal of trial in the present case for last ten years. Hence, vide order of even date, PE was closed and recording of statement of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record or can come on record against the accused persons in the present case.
11. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (Cri.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution cannot discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence and thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. In view of the above discussion, since the complainant has failed to appear and depose before court and there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, accused namely Raja Joni @ Rajesh is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323/324 IPC.
(Typed upon dictation directly on court computer and announced in the open Court today dt. 20.04.2023) (ANAMIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (NDD) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 249/2013 PS South Campus State vs. Raja Joni @ Rajesh Page No. 4