Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Rathore S/O Dashrath on 25 April, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA, ASJ-II,NORTH, DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE NO: 38/2008
FIR No: 231/07
P.S. Sarai Rohilla
U/S: 308/324/506/34 IPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION: .15.9.08
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
HAS BEEN RESERVED: 20.4.2009.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
HAS BEEN DELIVERED:25.04.2009.
STATE
VERSUS
1. RAJESH RATHORE S/O DASHRATH
R/O B-1764/2 SHASTRI NAGAR, DELHI.
2. NEERAJ RATHORE S/O DASHRATH
R/O B-1764/2 SHASTRI NAGAR, DELHI.
3. MADAN S/O RAMJI LAL
R/O B-1764, SHASTRI NAGAR DELHI.
APPEARANCE:-
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Substitute Addl. P.P for Sh. Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Addl.
2
Public Prosecutor for State
All the accused persons.
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Rajesh Rathore and Neeraj Rathore both sons of Dashrath and Madan s/o Ramji Lal have been arraigned for trial and charged u/s 308/34 and 506/34 IPC on the ground that on 12.6.07 at about 2 p.m. near police booth, Shastri Nagar Park, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sarai Rohilla, they in furtherance of their common intention voluntary caused injuries on the person of complainant Satish Kumar and his brother Raj Kumar with dundas and broken bottles, with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they had caused death of the complainant Satish and his brother, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder ; and that they with their common intention criminally intimidated the complainant Satish and his brother Raj Kumar by threatening them with harm and thereby caused alarm to them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined the following witnesses : PW1 was Raj Kumar examined as an eye witness and injured beside PW2 Satish, the main complainant and I shall dwell upon their evidence later in this judgment ; PW3 ASI Vipti Ram, posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Sarai Rohilla who received the rukka at about 2.25 a.m. from Const. Devender sent 3 by SI R.S. Khatri on the basis of which the present FIR Ex. PW3/A was recorded and he proved his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW3/B and also produced the original Rojnamcha to prove DD entry no. 31A dt. 11.6.07 Ex. PW3/C ; PW4 was HC Virender, MHCM at P.S. Sarai Rohilla. He testified that on 12.6.07 I.O. SI R.S. Khatri deposited the sealed parcels containing blood stained clothes and broken glass pieces with the seal of 'RS' which was entered in Register No. 19 copy of which was proved Ex. PW4/A ; PW5 was Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal from Hindu Rao Hospital who proved the MLCs of the injured complainant party as well as accused party and I shall also dwell upon on his evidence later in the judgment ; PW6 was ASI Randhir Singh. He was posted in PCR and reached the place of occurrence soon after the quarrel and removed the injured Satish and Raj Kumar to Hindu Rao Hospital ; PW7 was I.O. R.S. Khatri.
3. On the conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, each of the three accused was separately examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they were put the incriminating evidence appeared against them and they denied that they caused any injuries to the complainant partly and I shall reflect on their plea in defence later in this judgment. They chose not to lead any defence evidence.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State. I have also perused the oral and documentary evidence brought by the prosecution on record.
5. It is in the evidence of PW2 Satish that on 12.6.07 at about 10 p.m., he was returning to his house when his shoulder touched a 4 boy who was standing with others and they started abusing him ; that when he objected, the boys identified as three accused persons, abused him and started beating him with dundas. He also testified that his brother Raj Kumar came to his rescue and he was also beaten up in the melee. PW1 Raj Kumar corroborated his evidence and identified three accused persons as the one who assaulted them with dunda and broken bottles. On perusal of MLC of complainant Satish Ex. PW5/B it appears that he sustained one CLW over the frontal area of the scalp 4 c.m. in length and CLW on the occipital area of the scalp measuring 3 c.m. As per MLC Ex. PW5/C, Raj Kumar sustained a CLW 3 c.m. in size over the occipital area beside penetrating wound over left chest wall and injuries in his left leg and knees. In both cases, the nature of injuries were opined to be "simple".
6. While it is in evidence that complainant party suffered certain injuries in a scuffle with the accused party, what diverts the case in favour of the accused persons is the fact that evidence is lacking regarding origin of the dispute and it is not clear as to who was the aggressor party and who was the sufferer. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined at length and it comes out that there was no previous enmity between the two parties. PW1 and PW2 were given a suggestion that they owned a dog which was of ferocious nature looking like a wild animal and it appears that the quarrel ensued when the dog urinated at the Rehri of accused Madan. Both PW1 and PW2 were given a suggestion that the dog was let loose at the accused Neeraj Rathore and Rajesh Rathore who sustained 5 dog bites which was denied by the witnesses. What I find is that the witnesses were not truthful in narrating the way the incident occurred. Perusal of MLC of Neeraj Rathore Ex. PW5/A and that of Rajesh Rathore Ex. PW5/B was proved by PW5 Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal which cogently bring out that the two accused suffered 'dog bite' and were admitted in the hospital at about the same time when the complainant party were treated for their injuries in the hospital.
7. It may be noticed that there are no independent witnesses produced by the prosecution to throw light as to the manner and circumstances in which the incident occurred. What tilts the scales in favour of the accused persons is the fact that Investigating Officer PW7 SI R.S. Khatri did not conduct the investigation of this case in a fair manner. Surprisingly, in his cross-examination, he denied any knowledge about the accused persons Neeraj and Rajesh Rathore sustaining dog bite. His evidence that the accused persons did not tell him that the complainant party had unleased their dog on them and the dog also bit them, is not believable. It is but natural that the accused persons must have revealed to the I.O. their defence so as to resist their arrest in this case. It is only a fair investigation which could have established as to whether or not the accused persons were aggressor party. It is also pertinent to mention here that the quarrel took place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation and injuries on the body of complainant were partly found to be simple and superficial in nature.
8. In the said view of the discussion, I hold that the prosecution 6 has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons are, therefore acquitted of the charges u/s 308/324/506/34 IPC. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are canceled.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DHARMESH SHARMA)
TODAY ON 25th APRIL, 2009 ASJ-II,NORTH DISTT.
DELHI.
7
SC No. 231/07
25.4.09.
Present : Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
All the accused present on bail.
Vide separate detailed judgment, all the three accused persons are acquitted. Their P.B. and Surety Bonds are canceled.
File be consigned to R/R. ( Dharmesh Sharma ) ASJ/(N)/25.4.09.