Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeet on 13 January, 2011
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 1,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 153/2009
FIR No.456/2007
PS : SARASWATI VIHAR
U/s. 307 IPC
State
Versus
Sanjeet
S/o. Sh. Randhir Singh
R/o. H.No. 84, Village Pitam Pura,
Delhi.
Also at :
R-20, Phase-I,
Budh Vihar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 03.02.2009
Date of receipt of case in this court : 28.08.2009
Arguments heard On : 13.01.2011
Order Announced On : 13.01.2011
Sh. P.K. Verma, Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. A.P. Singh and Ms. Geeta Singh Chauhan, counsels
for accused.
JUDGMENT
STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.
:2:
1. In brief the facts of the case as stated in the charge sheet are that on 24.04.2007 a DD No. 32 received by SI Sudhir Kumar of Police Post Shanti Vihar. He went to Maya Ram Jain Hospital where HC Mahender and Ct. Anand Singh were already present. SI Sudhir Kumar received a copy of DD No. 32 from Mahender Singh along with MLC of the injured Pinku. Statement of eye witness Rohit recorded by IO in which he explained how the incident occurred and accused Sanjeet caused injuries to Pinku. A rukka was prepared and sent for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, investigation officer along with eye witness visited the spot of crime and prepared site plan. The photographs of the spot were also taken. Accused was arrested. Thereafter, result of MLC of the injured was collected. Statement of all the eye witnesses recorded. After completion of investigation charge sheet for trial of offence under section 307 IPC was filed.
2. Ld. M.M. after compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions.
STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.
:3:
3. Vide order dated 23.09.2009 , charge for trial of offence under Section 307 IPC framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of present case examined PW-1 Dr. Sarita, Radiologist who proved her report on the basis of X-ray plate of injured Pinku Ex.PW-1/A. She had given opinion that patient Pinku's seventh vertebra was broken and fracture was on left wrist and left ankle.
5. PW-2 Dr. Subodh Kumar Gupta, Neuro Surgeon also appeared in witness box and proved MLC Ex.PW-2/A and given the opinion regarding nature of injuries as dangerous.
6. PW-3 Amresh @ Ajay who is the eye witness testified that one day police came to him and enquired about the incident but he did not see the incident and also not identified the accused. He turned out to be hostile on all aspects.
STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.
:4:
7. Learned Addl. PP for state cross-examined him. During cross-examination he testified that on 24.07.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., he was present at his Barbar shop. He denied that his neighbour Rohit was sitting in the shop and brother Pinku was standing outside his shop. He also denied that accused Sanjeet was also present at the shop and started beating Pinku and took him forcibly on the roof along with brother Rohit. He denied that accused Sanjeet forcibly pushed Pinku from roof and ran away. It is further denied that accused Sanjeet threatened Pinku as he was taking favour of tenant Gautam. He also denied about the identity of accused Sanjeet being the accused. He denied that accused being the neighbour and won over by the accused, therefore, he deposed falsely.
8. Summons were not served upon the remaining witnesses Rohit, Pinku and Smt. Neeru. Therefore, summons were given to SI Sudhir Kumar who made all the efforts to trace out these three witnesses of the incident. However, as per the report collected from the neighbour and also recorded their statement that these witnesses are not STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.
:5: traceable. He proved all the reports in this regard when IO SI Sudhir Kumar appeared in witness box as CW-1.
9. In view of circumstances when one eye witness Amresh turned out to be hostile and remaining three star witnesses of the prosecution namely Rohit, Pinku and Smt. Neeru are not traceable, no purpose shall be served in case other police witnesses and medical witnesses are examined. However, ld. Addl. PP requested for further opportunities. Request is declined in these special circumstances where star witnesses are not traceable and one eye witness turned out to be hostile on all aspects. Hence, Prosecution Evidence closed.
10. On the basis of testimony of three witnesses, no incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused, therefore, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. dispensed with.
11. In view of above observations and discussions, accused is acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC.
STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.
:6: Bail bond and surety bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room after compliance of amended section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Announced in open court Addl. Sessions Judge-01(NW) today 13.01.2011. Rohini Courts, Delhi STATE VS Sanjeet FIR NO.456/07, U/S. 307 IPC.