Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Criminal Case/319/2002 on 21 May, 2012

FIR No. 319/02      S/V Satpal etc.   U/S 341/323/34 IPC        PS Subzi Mandi


  IN THE COURT OF  SH. NEERAJ GAUR,  METROPOLITAN 
            MAGISTRATE­III/NORTH, DELHI 

FIR No. 319/02
S/v Satpal etc.
U/s  341/323/34  IPC
PS: Subzi Mandi
C/No. 3684/T
U. ID No. 02401R1007512003

Date of Institution              :         27.03.2003
Date of commission of offence :            10.12.2002
Name of the complainant          :         Sh. Sanjay s/o Sh. Kishan 
                                           Swaroop.
Name and address of accused   :   (1) Satpal s/o Jyoti
                                       (2) Viru s/o Jyoti
                                           Both r/o  D­78, Kabir Basti, Subzi 
                                           Mandi, Delhi­07.
Offence complaint off            :         U/S 341/323/34  IPC
Plea of guilt                      :       Pleaded not guilty 
Final Order                        :       Acquitted. 
Date of reserve for order        :         21.05.2012
Date for announcing the order   :          21.05.2012.
J u d g m e n t: 
                     Brief facts and pre trial proceedings

1.

The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the charge­sheet is that on 10.12.2003 at 09.30 pm at Mochi Market near Shop No. 45, both the accused wrongfully restrained the way of complainant Sanjay U. ID NO. 02401R1007512003 Page No. 1 FIR No. 319/02 S/V Satpal etc. U/S 341/323/34 IPC PS Subzi Mandi and voluntarily caused simple hurt with the blunt object. Complainant lodged a complaint with the police. On the basis of the rukka the FIR was got registered. Both the accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, both the accused persons were sent up for trial for the offences u/s 341/323/34 IPC.

Trial

2. Copies of the challan and documents were supplied to both the accused persons and after going through the challan and documents annexed therewith, charge u/s 341/323/34 IPC was framed against the both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. To prove the charge, prosecution could examine only two witnesses in total whose the depositions are being discussed in brief as follows :

(i) PW1 ASI Nanu Ram is the duty officer who deposed about the registration of FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
(ii) PW­2 ASI Anand Singh deposed that on on 15.12.2002 the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He obtained the opinion on the MLC No. 8179 and 8257 and got the result on 16.01.03. He prepared the challan and filed the same in U. ID NO. 02401R1007512003 Page No. 2 FIR No. 319/02 S/V Satpal etc. U/S 341/323/34 IPC PS Subzi Mandi the Court.

Statement of accused and defence

4. After concluding prosecution evidence, both the accused have been examined u/s 313 CrPC during which they claimed their innocence. They further stated that they had been falsely implicated in the instant case. They did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence.

Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions

5. It is noteworthy and can never be ignored to arrive at any justified decision and surely weakens the prosecution case that the material witnesses / complainant Sanjay and Subhash reportedly remained unserved and untraceable despite service through DCP (North) as well as IO with the report that after the demolition of Subzi Mandi, the Mochi Market was also shifted. Both Sanjay and Subhash were running their business at the aforementioned market and their residential addresses were not available. All the efforts put in by the Court to secure their presence went in vain. Finding no prospect of securing their presence, the PE was closed.

6. In the present case, complainant, Sanjay and Subhash are material eyewitnesses to the incident, remained unserved and U. ID NO. 02401R1007512003 Page No. 3 FIR No. 319/02 S/V Satpal etc. U/S 341/323/34 IPC PS Subzi Mandi untraceable. The two witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2 examined by the prosecution are the police officials and are not the eyewitness to the incident. In absence evidence, no conviction can be recorded against both the accused.

Conclusion

7. The evidence available on record is highly insufficient to record a finding of guilt against both the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/S 341/323/34 IPC. For want of evidence, accused Satpal and Viru are acquitted for the offences U/S 341/323/34 IPC.

7. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the accused Satpal and Viru for the offence U/S 341/323/34 IPC. File be consigned to record room. 

 Announced in open court                                (Neeraj Gaur)
 today i.e. 21.05.2012                     MM­III/N, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi




U. ID NO. 02401R1007512003                                                 Page No. 4