Delhi District Court
State vs Narender @ Nathu on 7 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI (SWD)
DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02405R0474452006
STATE VS NARENDER @ NATHU
FIR NO. 278/2005
P.S. : DWARKA
U/S : 325 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a)Serial No. of the case : 418/2/09
b)Date of commission of offence : 21.07.2005
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Om Prakash
d)Name, parentage and address of : Narender @ Nathu
accused S/o Sh. Manti Lal
R/o : D46, House of
Pandit Jagdish, Gali No.6,
Raj Nagar PartII, Palam
Colony, New Delhi.
e)Offences complained of : U/s 325 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Final Order : Acquitted
h)Date of order : 07.01.2011
i)Date of conclusion of : 07.01.2011
final arguments
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
Case No. 418/2/09 1/6
1 Brief facts of the case as per case of the prosecution are that on
21.07.2005 at 7.45pm in front of Peer Baba Mazar, PocketII, DDA Flats, Sector7, Dwarka, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S Dwarka, accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the person of Om Prakash with blunt object. Accused was arrested and after investigation, he was duly chargesheeted to the Court. 2 Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused and charge for the offence U/s 325 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 At the time of trial, prosecution examined following PW's: PW1 HC Saroj Kumari PW2 Sh. Om Prakash, PW3 HC Rakesh Singh, PW4 HC Sant Lal, and PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar Chaurasia. 4 After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating evidence was put to accused and his statements under Case No. 418/2/09 2/6 Section 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. He denied the allegations and claimed false implication. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
6 As far as evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, PW1 W/HC Saroj Kumari, Duty Officer, recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the original ruqqa. PW2 Sh. Om Prakash is the complainant in this case. He has inter alia testified that he runs a Dhobi shop near Peer Baba Mazar, Sector7, DDA Flats, PocketII, Dwarka. He has further testified that on 21.07.2005, he was going towards his aforesaid shop in the morning and at 7.30 am accused met him and abused and on asking as to why he was giving abuses, the accused hit him on his right leg with a wooden danda which broke into two pieces. He has inter alia deposed that he sustained fracture and injuries on his right leg and he was removed to DDU Hospital and the police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. As he was not supporting the case of the Prosecution in toto he was Case No. 418/2/09 3/6 permitted to be cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. During cross examination conducted on behalf of the State by the Ld. APP, the witness could speak about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the danda.
PW3 HC Rakesh Singh is the witness who joined the investigation with the IO vide Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/E. PW4 HC Sant Lal is the witness, who on receipt of DD No. 11A participated in the investigation with the IO and reached at the spot and from where they reached at DDU Hospital and found the injured admitted there but the nature of injury was kept pending. PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar Chaurasia is the witness to MLC No. 17853 Ex.PW5/A of patient Om Prakash prepared by Dr. Vishal Sehgal.
8 In the present case, as per the version of complainant Om Prakash, his daughter aged 12 years, his wife (though reached after 10 minutes) and 810 other people were there at the spot at the time of incident and shops are also there but none of them has been joined as independent witness at any stage. It is clear that there is total lack of inclusion of any public or any independent witnesses at the time of investigation carried out by the police. Clearly, no serious efforts Case No. 418/2/09 4/6 have been made to do so. Although, noninclusion of independent witnesses is not always fatal to the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the given case, the necessity of such impartial witnesses cannot be denied and non inclusion of such witnesses has raised further doubt regarding correctness/ genuineness of the case of the prosecution. As held in the State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Singh 2001 (II) AD (SC) 125, that: "The failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses though available is fatal for their case." 8 In the matter in hand, the concerned doctor i.e., Dr. Vishal Sehgal, who examined the injured has not been examined. Thus the medical documents and nature of injury remain uncorroborated. Furthermore, the IO of this case has not been examined for reasons best known to him. In absence of any testimony coming from the mouth of the Investigating Officer, the aim of the whole investigation vitiated and the documents procured and prepared by him remain unproved.
9 It is further to be noted that the testimony of PW2 is not Case No. 418/2/09 5/6 convincing enough to arrive at a solid conclusion. It does not suggest any rhyme or reason for the alleged incident. At the very first instance, PW2 failed to whisper about the arrest of the accused or the recovery of the danda and it was made possible only when the Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined him on these aspects. From the bare perusal of the testimony of PW2, it appears that the cause of the alleged incident has been kept in dark and hence his testimony is not out of doubt.
10 In view of above discussions, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. As per settled provisions of law benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution is to be given to the accused in all probabilities. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, the accused is acquitted. Bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful owner against proper receipt. The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in open Court on 07.01.2011.
(SANJAY JINDAL) ACMMI : Dwarka: New Delhi.
Case No. 418/2/09 6/6 Case No. 418/2/09 7/6 Case No. 418/2/09 8/6 Case No. 418/2/09 9/6