Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1) Neeraj Kumar Sachdeva @ Monu on 21 April, 2023

            IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN
          PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
         NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

                                   CNR No. DLNT01-001064-2020

Sessions Case No. 64/2020

State            vs.   1) Neeraj Kumar Sachdeva @ Monu
                       Sachdeva
                       S/o Sh. Moolchand Sachdeva
                       R/o 43/1, Delhi Camp, Lajpat Nagar, Sonipat,
                       Haryana.


FIR No.                      291/2017
Police Station               Prashant Vihar
U/s                          308/34 IPC

Date of institution                :     03.02.2020
Date of hearing arguments          :     21.04.2023
Date of Pronouncement              :     21.04.2023

Appearance :
Ms. Raj Rani Kataria, learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, learned Counsel for the accused.

                          JUDGMENT

1. On the complaint of one Sh. Praveen Kumar s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh, an FIR bearing no. 291/2017 was registered by the police of Police Station Prashant Vihar u/s 308/34 IPC, which after the requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet, which the SHO of Police Station filed against the accused in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 Cr.PC for SC No. 05/2020 Page No. 1 of 6 trial being a sessions trial case.

2. Succinctly, the indispensable facts laying the foundation of the case, as alleged, are that on 05.06.2017 at about 08.00 pm, complainant Praveen Kumar along with Joginder, Paras, Vikram and Jyoti @ Jatin Anand joined a party at G- Lounge, DC Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi, which was organized by accused Monu Sachdeva. They entered the party venue at 11.00 pm and started consuming liquor. Monu Sachdeva and other 20-25 other persons as well as some bouncer were also present there and enjoying the party. In that lounge, 5-6 boys started creating nuisance under the influence of liquor. When complainant Praveen Kumar and his friends/associates objected to the same, Monu Sachdeva immediately said that the party was organized by him and at his instance, his bouncer and 2-3 other boys came there with iron pipes, wooden danda and flower pots (gamlay) and started beating them due to which Praveen and Jogender sustained injuries. During this scuffle, one gold chain of Praveen was also lost and with great difficulty, complainant Praveen and Jogender were taken to BSA Hospital. On the basis of MLC and statement of complainant/injured, case u/s 308/34 IPC was got registered.

3. As prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC was made out against the accused, charge for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC was accordingly framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Of the total eleven witnesses arrayed, prosecution has managed to examine eight witnesses as detailed herein.

(i) PW1 - ASI Ashok Kumar;

(ii) PW2- Head Ct. Manoj Kumar;

(iii) PW3- SI Sanjay Rana;

(iv) PW4 - ASI Subhash;

(v) PW5 - HC Vikas;

(vi) PW6 - Sh. Praveen Kumar (complainant/injured);

(vii) PW7 - Sh. Joginder Dahiya (injured);

(viii) PW8- Sh. Jatin Anand (public witness);

(ix) PW9- Sh. Paras Verma (public witness)

5. Perusal of the record reveals that PW6/complainant/injured Praveen Kumar, PW7 Joginder Dahiya, PW8 Sh. Jatin Anand and PW9 Sh. Paras Verma are the main witnesses. In his examination-in-chief, PW6 did not recall the exact place of incident. However, PW6 deposed that it was a restaurant where other persons were also present. PW6 categorically deposed that a scuffle took place between the other unknown persons and them due to which PW6 and Joginder/PW7 sustained injuries. PW-7 also deposed that on 05.06.2017, he with his friends was enjoying the party at G-Lounge, DC Chowk market, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi. PW7 further deposed that a scuffle took place between the other unknown persons and them, due to which he and Parveen/PW-6 sustained injuries. PW-6 & PW7 also specifically deposed that they did not know those other persons who had caused injuries to them either by names or by their faces. Both PW6 & PW7 categorically deposed that they cannot identify the assailants who had caused injuries to them.

Similarly, PW8 Jatin Anand and PW9 Paras Verma deposed that they do not know as to with whom Praveen and Jogender had quarelled as they were under the influence of liquor at that time and could not notice/watch the incident.

6. Since PW6, PW7, PW8 & PW9 resiled from their previous statements made to the police, they were permitted to be cross-examined by learned Chief PP for the State on her request. However, nothing material has come out in the cross- examinations of PW6, PW7, PW8 & PW9 conducted by the learned Chief PP for State, which may help the case of the Prosecution.

7. No incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused so far as the Charges u/s 308 IPC is concerned.

8. I have considered the submissions whatever little made by both the sides and have gone through the entire record carefully.

9. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that the material witnesses have turned hostile since the accused has won them over and whereas the statements of witnesses were recorded correctly by the IO.

10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and in the absence of any incriminating evidence against him, he cannot be convicted.

11. Having considered the submissions of rival sides and material on record including the documents as well the statements of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that the case of the prosecution, which primarily rested on the testimony of its material witnesses i.e. PW6 /complainant/injured, PW7/injured and eyewitnesses PW8 & PW9, have turned hostile and despite being cross-examined by the learned Chief PP for the State. The star witnesses of the prosecution have denied the case of the prosecution on vital aspect of complicity of the accused, if not in totality. Testimony of hostile witnesses is available to be read in evidence and cannot be washed away simply because the witnesses have turned hostile and that part of testimony which is relevant and truthful can be acted upon, if it is aboveboard, reference in this context can be made to the judgments in Raja v. State of Karnataka, 2016 (9) SCALE 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624.

12. In Raja v. State of Karnataka (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependable on a careful scrutiny."

13. In Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."

14. In the instant case, even after applying the aforesaid proposition, the result remains unaltered as the evidence of the pivotal witnesses/complainant/injured and eyewitnesses, narrate the incident and its details, but on the vital and most crucial aspect of complicity of accused, they completely drown the case of the prosecution, making it a rudderless boat bound to be doomed/crashed.

15. Considering the fact that the star witnesses of the prosecution did not utter a single word against accused, which could support the prosecution story, the prosecution has fallen short of the expectations and failed to prove its case against accused. Accordingly, accused Neeraj Kumar Sachdeva @ Monu Sachdeva is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC.

16. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of provisions contained in Section 437-A Cr.PC.

                                   MADHU               by MADHU JAIN
                                                       Date:
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. 21st April 2023
                                   JAIN                2023.04.25
                                                       12:14:28 +0530
                                        (Madhu Jain)
                             Principal District & Sessions Judge
                             North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi




SC No. 05/2020                                         Page No. 6 of 6