Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/441/1997 on 23 May, 2012
FIR No. 441/1997 1 Police Station Alipur
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT), ROHINI
COURTS , DELHI
FIR No. 441/1997
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0022631998
Police Station Alipur
Under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code
State v. Geeta & Anr.
JUDGEMENT
(a) Serial number of the case :1049/2
(b)Date of the commission of the offence :05.12.1997
(c)Name of the complainant :Smt. Kiran, W/o Surender, R/o Q. No. 1, PS Alipur, Delhi.
(d)Name of the accused & address :(1). Geeta W/o Shri Mahesh, R/o Q. No. 5, PS Alipur, Delhi.
Also at H.No. 573, Police Colony, Sector5, Narela, Delhi.
(2). Mahesh S/o Shri Bhanu Ram, R/o H.No. 573, Police Colony, Contd.....
FIR No. 441/1997 2 Police Station Alipur Sector5, Narela,Delhi.
(e)Charge against the accused :323/341 IPC
(f)Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
(g)Final order :Both accused acquitted.
(h)Date of such order :23.05.2012 Date of Institution :26.09.1998 Date on which arguments heard and Judgment reserved. :23.05.2012 Date of Judgment :23.05.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Challan in the present case was filed on behalf of the state on 26.9.1998 and after taking cognizance of the offence the accused was summoned. The chargsheet was against the accused Geeta W/o Mahesh, however, subsequently the other accused namely Mahesh S/o Shri Bhanu Ram was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as per order dated 25.7.2007 passed by the then Ld. M.M., Delhi.
Contd.....
FIR No. 441/1997 3 Police Station Alipur
2. The notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused Geeta on 9.7.1999 and notice of accusation was framed against accused Mahesh on 13.8.2010.
3. The allegations against the accused are that on 5.12.1997 at about 4:15 PM near gate outside PS Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, the accused voluntarily obstructed the way of complainant Smt. Kiran in furtherance of their common intention and also caused hurt on the person of complainant with danda and thus the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 341/323 IPC. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in this case as per the list of prosecution witnesses.
5. I have already heard final arguments and perused the record. It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage of final arguments an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of state on 13.4.2012 and the said application was dismissed on merits as per order dated 17.5.2012. The prayer in the said application was for recalling PW2 Kiran, PW3 Sarita and PW6 SI Parminder Singh. Counsel for the accused argued that in the present case the concerned Contd.....
FIR No. 441/1997 4 Police Station Alipur doctor has not been examined to prove the MLC of injured Kiran. PW2 Kiran stated in the cross examination that she did not state to the police in her statement that Mahesh handed over danda to Geeta and she has not filed any complaint against any other person except Geeta and Mahesh. She also stated that many times quarrel has taken place between her and Geeta and she has made various complaints regarding quarrel. She denied the suggestion that she has become habitual of filing false complaints or that no incident as alleged ever took place.
6. PW1 HC Karam Pal admitted in the cross examination that in the FIR and rukka the name of Mahesh is not mentioned as accused.
7. PW3 Ms. Sarita D/o Kiran stated in the cross examination that she stated to the police in her statement that Mahesh turned hand of her mother and gave danda to accused Geeta. She was confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/DA where it was not so recorded. PW3 stated that she did not go to the hospital alongwith her mother and she do not know as to in which hospital her mother was taken. She denied the suggestion that no such incident ever took place or that she was not present at the spot.
Contd.....
FIR No. 441/1997 5 Police Station Alipur
8. PW5 Shri Joginder S/o Shri Prahalad Singh stated that till 2001 he was posted as Home Guard at PS Alipur and on one day he was present in police station on front gate and a quarrel took place between accused Geeta and one more lady. He stated that he did not see the quarrel. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state. Accused also cross examined this witness wherein PW5 stated that at the time of incident accused Mahesh was not present and there were only two ladies.
9. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the witness Shri Joginder has stated that the incident took place in his presence, however, in the statement recorded on 30.1.2006 before the court PW5 Ct. Joginder has stated in the chief examination itself that he is not the eye witness of the case. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. Remaining witnesses are not so material. The testimony of material witnesses has been discussed hereinabove in detail. The main witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Testimony of PW3 coupled with other evidence on record is relevant. PW5 has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
Contd.....
FIR No. 441/1997 6 Police Station Alipur
10.After closing of PE the statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons denied the allegations against them. Both accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Both accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
11.In view of above detailed facts and circumstances and reasons given and observations made it is clear that the case of the prosecution has not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, both accused persons namely Geeta and Mahesh are hereby acquitted of the charge framed in the present case u/s 341/323 IPC. Endorsement, if any, on the documents of the sureties be cancelled. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities. Passed and announced in the open court today i.e. 23.05.2012 (MANISH GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Contd.....