Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Singhal & Ors. on 9 April, 2019
State vs. Deepak Singhal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH: MM03(SD) /
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Deepak Singhal & Ors.
FIR No. : 98/16
U/s. : 323/326/509/ 34 IPC
PS : Neb Sarai
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 6172/18
b) Date of institution of the case : 26.11.2018
c) Date of commission of offence : 30.01.2016
d) Name of the complainant : Pooja Singhal
e) Name & address of the :(1) Deepak Singhal accused S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar R/o H. no. A166, Devli Village, new Delhi.
(2) Subham Chauhan S/o Ved Prakash R/o H. no. A57, Duggal Colony, Devli Road, New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 323/325/509/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 09.04.2019 i) Final order : Acquittal u/s. 323/325/509/34 IPC j) Date of Judgment : 09.04.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused persons have been sent to face trial with the FIR No.98/16 PS Neb Sarai Page no. 1 of 3 State vs. Deepak Singhal & Ors.
allegations that on 30.01.2016 at about 5.30 pm at A166, Devli Khanpur Road, Sardana Singh Market, Opposite, Raju Park, Bus Stand, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Neb Sarai both accused persons in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to complainant namely Ms. Pooja Singhal, simple hurt to the Amit Singhal and intending to insult the modesty of the complainant Ms. Pooja Singhal uttered filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323/325/509/34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. A formal charge for commission of offence U/s 323/325/509/34 IPC was framed against accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined only one witness.
4. PW1 Pooja Singhal is complainant who deposed that "I do not know anything about the present case".
5. PW1 was crossexamined by Ld. Sub. APP with the permission of court. However, during his crossexamination nothing material could be elicited out from him. Despite specific pointing out towards the accused, witness failed to identify them.
6. Since the sole eye witness did not support the prosecution case, therefore PE was closed by order of this court on 09.04.2019.
FIR No.98/16 PS Neb Sarai Page no. 2 of 3 State vs. Deepak Singhal & Ors.
7. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against accused persons their statement u/s. 313 CrPC were dispensed with.
8. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. Sub. APP for State and ld counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused persons. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused persons.
10. In the instant case the only eyewitness i.e. PW1 Pooja Singhal is completely hostile to the prosecution case. Despite her elaborate cross examination by Ld. APP, nothing material could be elicited out from her. In view of of the hostile testimony of PW1, whole prosecution case crumbles and nothing survives thereafter.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has failed miserably to prove guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the charges U/s. 323/325/509/34 leveled against them. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2019.04.10
SINGH 21:34:47 +0530
Announced in the open court (Anuj Kumar Singh)
on 09.04.2019 MM03 (South Distt.) / Saket
New Delhi.
FIR No.98/16 PS Neb Sarai Page no. 3 of 3