Delhi District Court
State vs : 1- Shahdev Kumar, on 19 May, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR, ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
SC NO.: 89/2007
STATE VERSUS : 1- SHAHDEV KUMAR,
S/O SH. CHANDER SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
2- DINESH KUMAR,
S/O SH. BALJEET SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
3- SATBIR SINGH,
S/O SH. DHARAMVIR,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
4- SMT. SAMTA DEVI,
W/O SH. BALJEET SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
5- LAKHAN,
S/O SH. MANGARAM,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
6- RAMWATI,
W/O SH. MANGARAM,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
7- SMT. RAJKALI,
S/O SH. CHANDER SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
8- SMT. SUNITA,
W/O SH. LAXMAN,
R/O VILLAGE HARYWALI,
DELHI.
2
FIR NO.: 337/2004
PS : BAWANA
U/S : 323/341/308/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Accused persons, namely, Shahdev Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Satbir Singh, Smt. Samta Devi, Lakhan, Ramwati, Smt. Rajkali and Smt. Sunita were all charged for the offence under Section 323/341/308/34 IPC on the allegations that on 9-9-04 at about 9am in village Harawali in the gali, opposite the plot of Subey Singh within the jurisdiction of PS Bawana they all in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Smt. Hira Devi and gave beating to her and to one Raj Kumar causing simple injuries upon their persons with such intention and knowledge that if by that act death of Raj Kumar would have occurred then, they all would have been guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
All the accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined five witnesses.
PW1 Raj Kumar was one of the two injured persons. He deposed that on the day of incident, a quarrel was going on between other persons in their gali and as he was passing from the side of the crowd gathered over there, some unknown persons inflicted injury on his head. As a result, he fell down on the spot and the said public persons escaped away from the spot. He thus claimed his inability to identify the assailants, who actually caused injuries to him. As this witness did not support the prosecution case on the material issue of the identity of the accused persons being his assailants so, he was cross-examined by ld. APP on this important aspect at length but, nothing material could be 3 elicited from their mouth which may benefit the case of the prosecution or may lead me to disbelieve his testimony.
PW2 Heera Dvi was the second injured. She too almost deposed on identical lines as PW1 did and she also claimed her inability to identify the assailants, who caused injuries to her. She too was cross- examined by ld. APP on this important aspect at length but, nothing material could be elicited from her mouth which may benefit the case of the prosecution or may lead me to disbelieve her testimony.
PW3 Dr. Yudhvir Singh had medically examined the two injured persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Smt. Heera Devi vide their MLCs Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He accordingly proved the necessary record in this regard prepared by him.
PW4 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Rakesh Kumar were both allegedly eye witnesses of the incident. However both of them also claimed complete ignorance as to how Smt. Heera Devi and Raj Kumar sustained injuries in the present case or who were the actual assailants. All these witnesses were cross-examined by ld. APP on this important aspect at length but, nothing material could be elicited from their mouth which may benefit the case of the prosecution or may lead me to disbelieve their testimony.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the remaining prosecution evidence in the present case was closed as all the four star witnesses of the prosecution had chosen to not to support the case of the prosecution on the important issue of identity of the accused persons being the assailants. Thus, as there is no incriminating evidence on record against all the accused persons so, their statements U/S 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am thus of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against all 4 the accused persons, namely, Shahdev Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Satbir Singh, Smt. Samta Devi, Lakhan, Ramwati, Smt. Rajkali and Smt. Sunita.
I accordingly hereby acquit all accused persons, namely, Shahdev Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Satbir Singh, Smt. Samta Devi, Lakhan, Ramwati, Smt. Rajkali and Smt. Sunita for the offence under Section 323/341/308/34 IPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court today i.e. on 19.05.2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FTC:ROHINI COURT:DELHI 5 FIR NO.: 337/2004 PS : BAWANA U/S : 323/341/308/34 IPC 19-5-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused persons are present on bail with their counsel Sh. Rajesh Parashar.
PW4 statements of Suresh Kumar and PW5 Rakesh Kumar recorded today.
In the present case, there were only four star witnesses of the prosecution, namely, Raj Kumar, Heera Devi, Suresh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. However, all the star witnesses of the prosecution have chosen to not to support the case of the prosecution on the important aspect of the accused persons being the assailants. The testimony of the remaining prosecution witnesses, who have examined or are yet to be examined in these circumstances will be clearly insufficient to connect the accused persons with the offence in question. No useful purpose will thus be served by continuing with the present trial any longer. I accordingly hereby close the PE.
Ld. APP requested for one more date but in the facts & circumstances, his request is turned down. PE stands closed.
As there is no incriminating evidence on record against all the accused persons so, their statements U/S 313 Cr.PC are dispensed with.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 19-5-07 accused persons, namely, Shahdev Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Satbir Singh, Smt. Samta Devi, Lakhan, Ramwati, Smt. Rajkali and Smt. Sunita have been acquitted of the offence under Section 323/341/308/34 IPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
6Documents of sureties if any be returned forthwith. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court today i.e. on 19.05.2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FTC:ROHINI COURT:DELHI