Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/11492/2018 on 28 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI. State v. Ajay @ Sunny & Anr. FIR No. 64/2018 PS: DBG Road U/s 324/341/506/34 IPC CNR No. DLCT020268032018 JUDGMENT
Case No. : 11492/2018
Date of Commission of Offence : 04.03.2018
Date of Institution : 21.08.2018
Name of the complainant : Sh. Sanjay S/o Late Sh. Kishori
Lal
Name & address of the accused : (i) Ajay @ Sunny
S/o Sh. Pooran Chand
R/o H.No. 9452, Kacha Chowk,
Bagrao Ji, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
(ii) Badal
S/o Sh. Mishri Lal
R/o H. No. 9516, Kacha Chowk,
Bagrao Ji, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 341/323/324/506/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 28.10.2021
Date of announcing of judgment : 28.10.2021
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 1 /7
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons Ajay @ Sunny and Badal pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS DBG Road U/s 341/323/324/506/34 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 64/2018.
2. As per the prosecution, on 04.03.2018, at about 10.05 PM, near Kabir Park, in the Gali Bagh Rao Ji, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station DBG Road, both accused persons in furtherance of thier common intention voluntarily caused simple hurt upon the complainant Sh. Sanjay by means of sharp edged object and wrongfully restrained his way and criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening to kill him.
Accordingly, after completing the formalities, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court.
3. On appearance of the accused persons, documents were supplied to them and thereafter charge for the offence under Section 324/341/506/34 IPC was framed against them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sh. Sanjay (complainant/eye witness) and PW-2 Sh. Vijay Lal.
5. PW1 Sh. Sanjay deposed that in the year 2018, at about 9.00 PM, he was coming from his duty. When he reached nearby his house, accused Sunny was standing over there. Accused Sunny had earlier given Rs. 3,000/- to him on credit. He started abusing him and demanding back his money when he objected for the same. He started beating him with the help of wooden stick. Accused Badal also came over there and he also quarreled with him. He sustained injuries in the incident. His wife made the call at 100 number. Police officials reached at the spot. He made the complaint against the accused persons which is Ex. PW1/A. Site plan is Ex. PW1/B. Both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F respectively. In his FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 2 /7 cross examination, it is admitted by the witness that it was dark on the spot. It is also admitted by him that when accused Sunny demanded back his money someone attacked him on his head from backside. It is admitted by him that he had not seen the person who had attacked him and thereafter, he became unconscious. It is admitted by him that he had not seen the accused attacking him. This witness was re- examined on behalf of State by Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court. During his re-examination, this witness stated that whatever he deposed in his cross- examination is the correct version of the incident. He denied to have been won over by the accused persons.
6. PW2 Sh. Vijay Lal deposed that on the day of incident, he was coming from his office. He came to know that some unknown person quarreled with his brother and had beaten his brother. He did not know who had beaten his brother. This witness even failed to identify the accused persons. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of State by Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court, however, nothing material came out from his cross-examination.
7. During trial, the accused persons admitted the genuineness of various documents including FIR, DD No. 2PP and MLC under section 294 Cr.PC.
8. Since the eye-witnesses/relevant/material witnesses did not support the prosecution case as to the commission of offence or identity of the accused persons, the Court chose to close the prosecution evidence without examination of other witnesses, as that would have been a futile exercise. hence prosecution evidence stands closed.
THE DEFENCE :
9. Statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The accused persons denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They however did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 3 /7 THE ARGUMENTS:
10. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as the PW-1 in his examination in chief has deposed against the accused persons.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that they have no concern with the alleged incident. He submits that the investigation is incomplete and improper as there is nothing to connect the accused persons with the offence.
THE FINDINGS:
12. The eye witness/victim in the present case i.e. PW-1 Sanjay is not a reliable witness at all. He supported the case of prosecution in his examination in chief, however, on the same day, in his cross examination he admitted all the suggestions being put by defence counsel, thereby shattered the entire prosecution case. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that while accused Sunny demanding his money someone attacked the witness from behind and he could not see that person as it was dark. In these circumstances, a reasonable doubt has arisen qua case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Similarly, PW-2 Vijay also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all.
13. In the present case, both the eye witness i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the story of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had committed the offences in question beyond reasonable doubt.
14. During arguments, it is stated by Ld. APP for the State that PW1 has supported the case of prosecution in his examination in chief, however, in his cross examination, he took a reverse turn and completely exonerated the accused persons. Hence, it is requested that the proceedings u/s 340 Cr.PC may be initiated against the PW-1 Sanjay.
FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 4 /7
15. The contention of the ld. APP for the State has been heard. File perused. As per section 340 CrPC two conditions must be fulfilled before which a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in proceedings before the court, namely-
(1) that the person has given false affidavit or false evidence in a proceeding before a Court; and (2) that, in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interest of justice to make any enquiry against such person in relation to the offence committed by him.
16. The expression "expedient in the interest of justice" means that it is not every incorrect or false statement that makes it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the Court should direct prosecution. The court should remember that too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object; prosecution would be resorted to only in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. The expediency would be judged by the court by weighing not by the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by such offence but having regard to the effect or impact of that offence upon administration of justice. In Court on its own motion In Re State v. Sidharha vashisht @ manu sharma, Delhi High Court has observed as follows":
"As to the nature of enquiry, which the court would undertake, under Section 340, was outlined by the Supreme Court, in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr.(2005) 4 SCC 370:
FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 5 /7 "23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint..."
FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 6 /7
17. From the above stated discussion it is clear that section 340 CrPC should not be initiated as a matter of right. In the present circumstances taking in view the larger interest of justice this court does not feel that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings u/s 340 CrPC against PW-1 Sanjay. Hence, the request of Ld. APP for the State is hereby dismissed.
18. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the considered opinion that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Ajay @ Sunny and Badal are acquitted for offences under Section 324/341/506/34 IPC.
19. Previous bail bonds/surety bonds of accused persons extended/accepted in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. GAJENDER Digitally signed by GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR Date: 2021.10.29 NAGAR 18:42:19 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 28.10.2021 CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR Date: 2021.10.29 Containing 07 pages all signed by the presiding officer. NAGAR 18:42:24 +0530 (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No. 64/2018, PS DBG Road 7 /7