Delhi District Court
State vs . Gurmeet Singh & Anr. on 24 January, 2015
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02,NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Gurmeet Singh & Anr.
FIR NO: 638/2000
P. S. Samai Pur Badli
U/s 279, 338/325 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 03/2
Date of its institution : 08.01.2004
Name of the complainant : ASI Randhir Singh
Date of Commission of offence : 29.09.2000
Name of the accused : 1. Gurmeet Singh
S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh
R/o House No. A10/2,
Part1, Mukund Pur, Delhi.
2. Joginder Kaur(expired)
Offence complained of : U/s 279, 338/325 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 24.01.2015
Date of judgment : 24.01.2015
Final Order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the aforesaid accused upon the police report filed by P.S. S.P. Badli U/s 279, 338/325 IPC . FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 1 out of 6 -: 2 :-
2. The prosecution story is that on 29.09.2000 at about 12.00 Noon at telephone wali gali no.1 Mukund Pur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS S.P. Badli, the complainant Narender Kumar went to his inlaws to know the whereabouts of his wife and children at aforesaid address then his motherinlaw Joginder Kaur started abusing him and during that she attacked from behind with iron pipe on his head and in consequence of that the complainant received injuries. After that he left the place and when he was on the way accused Gurmeet Singh came in his Auto bearing registration No. DL 1R 9402 and struck the side of the aforesaid vehicle with complainant. Then the complainant reached Mukund Pur crossing and sit near the traffic booth and then the PCR fetched him to Trauma Hospital. The complainant was having apprehension from his motherin law and brotherinlaw. On the complaint of the injured present FIR was registered.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by police and a charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons. The cognizance was taken. The presence of both accused were secured, copy of charge sheet alongwith documents were supplied to them. The notice for FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 2 out of 6 -: 3 :- offence U/s 279, 338/325 IPC was served upon both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. During the trial the accused Joginder Kaur had expired on 13.02.2010 and proceedings against her were abated vide order dated 04.08.2012.
6. PW1 ASI Om Prakash has proved on record the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A. He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity given.
7. PW2 Ct. Jitender Kumar deposed to the effect that on 29.04.2000 on receipt of DD No. 12A he reached the spot at Mukund Pur Chowk at about 1.45p.m. with SI Balbir Singh. After that they reached Trauma Center and collected the MLC of injured Narender Kumar. Then he handed over the same to the IO. He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity given.
8. PW3 SI Kaushal Ganguli proved on record the site plan as Ex.PW3/A which was prepared by him at instance of the complainant. He also proved on record the arrest memo of both accused persons as Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 3 out of 6 -: 4 :- respectively. He correctly identified the accused Gurmeet Singh in the court (accused Joginder Kaur since expired). He also proved on record the seizure memo of the TSR and of the driving license of accused Gurmeet Singh as Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/D respectively. He also filed on record the mechanical inspection report as Ex.PW3/F. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
9. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case.
10. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, accused Gurmeet Singh was examined U/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused in which he shown his innocence but denied to lead defence evidence.
11. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution and the only irresistible conclusion is the conviction of the accused.
12. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for accused that the prosecution is unable to prove rashness and negligence on behalf of the accused and therefore, the accused should be acquitted.
FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 4 out of 6 -: 5 :-
13. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the parties, I proceed to adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case:
(A) Whether the accused was driving the Auto bearing No. DL 1R 9402 on the date of incident rashly or negligently. (B) Whether the accused caused grievous injuries on the body of injured Narender Kumar on aforesaid date of incident.
14. The prosecution is failed to produce the injured complainant in the court to depose against the accused despite giving providing sufficient opportunities. As per list of witnesses, the injured Narender Kumar was the sole public witness in the case and the other witnesses are either doctor or police officials. The remaining witnesses were formal in nature and their statement is of no use in absence of the statement of the injured himself. Thus, the prosecution is failed to prove the allegations against accused for offence U/s 279 and 325/338 IPC in material particulars.
15. In view of aforesaid analysis of evidence, considerations, facts and circumstances in the considered opinion of this FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 5 out of 6 -: 6 :- court, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Auto bearing No. registration No. DL 1R 9402 was being driven only by accused Gurmeet Singh and no one else and he only caused grievous injy on the body of the injured/ complainant. Specially in n view of the fact that the injured himself is not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, accused Gurmeet Singh is acquitted of the offences U/s 279 and 338/325 IPC (Accused Joginder Kaur since expired).
Announced in the open court On this 24th January, 2015 Virender Singh Metropolitan Magistrate02, North Rohini Delhi FIR No. 75/03 STATE VS. Gur meet Singh etc. Page 6 out of 6