Delhi District Court
State vs . Tarun Etc. on 6 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI.
ID NO. : 9867/2021
FIR No. : 605/2021
U/s : 323/341/506/34 IPC
P.S. : Alipur
State Vs. Tarun etc.
JUDGMENT:
a) Criminal Case No. of the Case : 9867/2021
b) Name & address of the :Harmeet complainant S/o Sh. Trilok Singh R/o H.No.108, Harijan Mohalla, Near Animal Hospital, Hamidpur Village, Delhi.
c) Name & address of :(1) Tara Chand,
accused S/o Sh. Deshraj,
R/o H.No.77, Harijan Mohalla
Village, Hamidpur, Delhi36.
(2) Dayachand
S/o Desh Raj
H.No.77, Harijan Mohalla
Village, Hamidpur, Delhi36.
(3) Tarun
S/o Sh. Desh Raj
H.No.77, Harijan Mohalla
Village, Hamidpur, Delhi36.
d) Date of Commission of : 25.07.2021
FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 1 /11
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/S 323/341/506/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 06.08.2022
Date of Institution : 02.11.2021
Final Arguments heard on : 06.08.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 06.08.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 25.07.2021 at Gali Harijan Mohalla, Hamidpur Village, Delhi all the accused person in furtherance to their common intention wrogfully restrained the complainant Harmeet and voluntarily caused simple injuries on the person by extended beatings by using fist blows and criminally intimidated to complainant and threatened to life.
2. On these facts a case was registered against accused Tara Chand, Daya Chand and Tarun on the basis of the statement of complainant Ranjeet Kumar, vide FIR No.605/2021 of PS Alipur. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Tara Chand, Daya FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 2 /11 Chand and Tarun for the alleged commission of offences u/s 323/341/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) whereupon the cognizance of the said offences was taken.
3. During the course of trial, charge u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC for the alleged commission of the aforementioned offences was framed against the accused persons on 16.04.2022 to which the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial. Thus the accused had opted to contest the matter.
4. Upon the accused pleading not guilty to the charge u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC, an opportunity was given to prosecution to prove its case by leading evidence in support of the same. Prosecution examined three witnesses in order to prove its case.
5. PW1 Harmeet deposed that he is residing at House No. 108, Harijan Mohalla, near Animal Hospital, Hamidpur and he is a student. In September 2021 at about 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm he was present at his shop. Some people have taken the drinks and were misbehaving with him. They were also abusing him. There arose torn between those people. The peoples from neighbourhood also came there and tried to intervene. He made complaint to the police at 100 number. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital for his medical examination. He received injury. Some unknown person has caused injury to him. Thereafter he was referred to Ambedkar Hospital. In FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 3 /11 the morning he was called at police station and he gave his statement to the police the same is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He received injury on his nose as well as on his eyes. He cannot identify the assailants. Witness failed to identify the accused persons. He did not remember anything else.
Thereafter witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state seeks permission to cross-examine the witness from the court as he was not disclosing the complete facts about the case. Same was allowed.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state wherein he deposed that he did not remember whether it was 25 th of July that it was date of incident. He did not remember exactly it was 11.00 pm in the night. He denied the suggestion that his neighbourer namely Tara Chand(Ashok) was saying something to Mayank. He further denied the suggestion that when he was talking to Mayank, accused Tara Chand came to him and said "mere bare Mayank se kya keh rha hai". He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand caught hold of his collar. He denied the suggestion that Tara Chand gave fist blow on his mouth. He also admitted that he cried for help. He admitted that his brothers namely Avtar @Lucky and Kulvinder @Lucky came there. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand (Ashok) called his brothers namely Dayanand @ Rinku and Tarun @Golu. He further denied the suggestion that the brothers of accused Dayanand and accused Tarun also gave beatings to him. He admitted that his brother Avtar @ Lappy came there with Danda and released him from the grip of the unknown persons. He further denied the suggestion that the brother of accused persons and the female family members of accused FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 4 /11 persons also came there. He admitted that his mother and his bua namely Kamla also came there to save him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand caught hold of him, wrongfully restrained him and gave beatings to him. He further deposed that he did not remember that unknown persons were saying to him that "abhi to tujhe pita hai, tere bhaiyo ki tange bhi todenge, iska badla bhi lenge." He denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Dayanand and Tarun were arrested in his presence. Attention of the witness was drawn towards the signature on the arrest memos of accused persons namely Tara Chand, Dayanand, Tarun i.e. Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and the witness identified his signature at point A respectively. Witness further states that he is not aware whether these memos were prepared in his presence or not. He further denied the suggestion that the content of arrest memos were made in his presence.
Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused persons. After seeing the accused persons, witness failed to identify them. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is under any kind of pressure from the side of the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not disclosing the complete fact before the Court. He admitted that persons namely Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand are residing in their locality. He further denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that quarrel took place between unknown persons. He FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 5 /11 further admitted that police took his signature on some blank papers. He further admitted that those persons who assaulted him, had run away from the spot when the police came.
6. PW-2 Mr. Avtar @ Lappy, deposed that he is residing at House No. 108, Harijan Mohalla, near Animal Hospital, Hamidpur Village, Delhi and he is a student. He further deposed that in September 2021 at about 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm he heard the voice of his brother namely Harmeet. He alongwith his brother Avtar @Lappy went to Harijan Mohalla Hamidpur(spot of incident and he saw that some people have taken the drinks and were misbehaving with his brother Harmeet. They were also abusing him. There arose quarrel between those people. The peoples from neighbourhood also came there and tried to intervene. He further deposed that he cannot identify the assailants. Witness failed to identify the accused persons. He did not remember anything else. He did not give statement to the police.
Thereafter, witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state and permission was sought to cross-examine the witness as he was not disclosing the complete facts about the case. Same was allowed.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state wherein he deposed that he did not remember whether it was 25 th of July that it was date of incident. He did not remember exactly if it was 11.00 pm in the night. He denied the suggestion that his neighbourer namely Tara Chand (Ashok) was saying something to Mayank. He further denied the suggestion that when Tara Chand came to his brother and said "mere bare Mayank se kya keh rha hai". He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 6 /11 caught hold collar of his brother. He further denied the suggestion that Tara Chand gave fist blow on mouth of his brother. He admitted that he alongwith his brother Kulvinder came there. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand (Ashok) called his brothers namely Dayanand @ Rinku and Tarun @Golu. He further denied the suggestion that the brothers of accused Dayanand and accused Tarun also gave beatings to him. He further denied the suggestion that he came there with Danda and released his brother from the grip of the unknown persons. He further denied the suggestion that the brother of accused and the female family members of accused persons also came there. He admitted that his mother and his bua namely Kamla also came there to save him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand caught hold of him, wrongfully restrained him and gave beatings to him. He did not remember unknown persons were saying to him that "abhi to tujhe pita hai, tere bhaiyo ki tange bhi todenge, iska badla bhi lenge." He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Dayanand and Tarun were arrested in his presence.
Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused persons. After seeing the accused persons, he failed to identify them. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is under any kind of pressure from the side of the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not disclosing the complete fact before the Court. He has admitted that accused persons namely Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand are residing in his locality. He further denied the suggestion that FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 7 /11 he has been won over by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that quarrel took place between unknown persons. He admitted that those persons who assaulted him, had run away from the spot when the police came.
7. PW-3 Kulvinder deposed that he is residing at House No. 108, Harijan Mohalla, near Animal Hospital, Hamidpur Village, Delhi and he is a student. He further deposed that in September 2021 at about 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm he had heard the voice of his brother namely Harmeet. He alongwith his brother Avtar @Lappy went to Harijan Mohalla Hamidpur (spot of incident). He further deposed that he saw some people have taken the drinks and were misbehaving with him. They were also abusing him. There arose quarrel between those people. The people from neighbourhood also came there and tried to intervene. He cannot identify the assailants. Witness failed to identify the accused persons. He further deposed that he did not remember anything else and he did not give statement to the police.
Thereafter witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state and permission was sought to cross-examine the witness as he was not disclosing the complete facts about the case. Same was allowed.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state wherein he deposed that he did not remember whether it was 25 th of July that it was date of incident. He did not remember exactly it was 11.00 pm in the night. He denied the suggestion that his neighbourer namely Tara Chand(Ashok) was FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 8 /11 saying something to Mayank. He further denied the suggestion that when Tara Chand came to his brother and said "mere bare Mayank se kya keh rha hai". He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand caught hold of his collar of his brother. He further denied the suggestion that Tara Chand gave fist blow on mouth of his brother. He admitted that he alongwith his brother Avtar came there. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand (Ashok) called his brothers namely Dayanand @ Rinku and Tarun @Golu. He further denied the suggestion that the brothers of accused Dayanand and accused Tarun also gave beatings to him. He further denied the suggestion that he came there with Danda and released his brother from the grip of the unknown persons. He further denied the suggestion that the brother of accused and the female family members of accused persons also came there. He admitted that his mother and his bua namely Kamla also came there to save him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand caught hold of him, wrongfully restrained him and gave beatings to him. He further deposed that he did not remember that unknown persons were saying to him that "abhi to tujhe pita hai, tere bhaiyo ki tange bhi todenge, iska badla bhi lenge." He further denied the suggestion that accused Tara Chand, Dayanand and Tarun were arrested in his presence.
Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused persons. After seeing the accused persons witness failed to identify them. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he was under any kind of pressure from the side of the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not disclosing the complete fact before FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 9 /11 the Court. He has admitted that persons namely Tara Chand, Tarun and Dayanand residing in their locality. It is wrong to suggest that he has been won over by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Witness was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that quarrel took place between unknown persons. He further admitted that those persons who assaulted him, had run away from the spot when the police came.
8. It is well settled law that trial of the case should not be proceeded with if no incriminating evidence appears against the accused persons. In the present case the public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
9. After examination of three material public witnesses, I have gone through the file and testimony of the witnesses examined. Witnesses of the incident have failed to identify the accused to connect them with the crime. Under these circumstances, since the eye witnesses have turned hostile and nothing incriminating have come on record against the accused persons, this court deem it fit to close the prosecution evidence accordingly. Since nothing incriminating has come on record till date, statement of the accused is dispensed with in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satish Mehar Vs. State of Delhi Administration & Ors, 1996, JCC 507, wherein the Hon'ble Court held "In a case where there is no prospect of FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 10 /11 the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conculsion on the future date."
10. In view of the same, as the prosecution has failed to establish its case, accused persons namely Tarun, Tarachand @ Ashok and Dayachand are acquitted of the offence U/s. 323/341/506/34 IPC.
11. Accused persons are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each along with one surety in the like amount in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Dictated and Announced in Open Court On the 06.08.2022.
(Deepika Singh) CMM (North District) Rohini Court/ Delhi FIR No.605/2021 State Vs. Tarun etc Page No. 11 /11