Delhi District Court
State vs Shammi Sharma on 27 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II, OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 17/11
FIR No. : 520/05
P.S. : Narela
U/s 308/323/34 IPC
Date of registration : 30-03-2011
Reserved for Judgment on : 27-08-2011
Judgment Announced on : 27-08-2011
State
Vs.
Shammi Sharma
S/o Sh. Baldev Ram
R/o House No. : 82,
B-4 Packet-6, Punjabi Colony,
P.S. Alipur, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Ashvani Kumar S/o Sh. Jagnnath Sharma R/o House No. 1606, Panna Mamur Pur, Narela, Delhi. As per the complainant, he lives at the above address and used to get his tempo driven from 'C' Block, Opposite Mittal Associate Stand in DSIDC Narela, Contd....
2Delhi through drivers. His brother Mukesh also used to get his temp driven through drivers from the same stand. The boys of B-4 Punjabi Colony, near police colony also used to park their Vikram tempos on the same stand.
2. As per the complainat his brother Mukesh asked the tempo drivers of Punjabi Colony not to park their tempos on the said stand as due to the rush of the tempos police objects to the same. On 20-10-2005, in the evening complainant, his brother Mukesh, their driver Brijpal and their relative Satpal were sitting at Tempo Stnad, 'C' Block, Opposite Mittal Associate DSIDC Narela. At about 6:20 p.m. Accused Shammi and one Narender came to them and started quarelling with them saying that they would park their tempos there only. They hit on the head of Mukesh and on the left hand of the complaint and also gave beatings to Satpal and Brijpal with dandas. In the meantime some boys of 'B' 4 colony came there and they also started quareeling with them.
3. F.I.R. bearing No. 520/05 was registered at P.S. Narela and investigation went underway. After Contd....
3completion of investigation final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
4. On 19-04-2011, a charge U/s 308/323/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses i.e PW 1 ASI Narender Singh, PW 2 Ashwani (complainant), PW 3 Satpal and PW 4 Mukesh Kumar. Out of which PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 are the material witnesses.
6. PW 2 Ashwani who is the complainant deposed that on 20-10-2005, he was standing at Tempo stand C and F Block, Opposite Mittal Associates DSIDC, Narela alongwith his brother Mukesh. 2/3 persons tried to park their tempo near their tempo. They objected and told them as there was objection on the part of police so they asked them not to park their tempo.
7. PW 2 further deposed that at that time, those persons left the tempo stand. After one and half hour, Contd....
4those persons came back at the spot and started quarreling with him and his brother Mukesh, Brijpal and their relative Satpal who was also present there with them. Those persons were having dandas in their hands and they gave dandas blows on his hand and on the head of his brother Mukesh and also on the person of Brijpal and Satpal. PW 2 further deposed that he cannot identify the person who gave the beatings to them.
8. PW 3 Satpal deposed that he does not know anything about this case nor he can identify any of the person nor his statement was recorded by the police at any of the point.
9. PW 4 Mukesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2005, he received injury while he was standing at industrial area, Narela. A tractor trolly had come in which many persons were traveling and those persons gave rod blow on his head. Thereafter, due to blood, he could not see the assailants as his eyes were closed due to flowing of blood. Due to injury he became unconscious. He regained his consciousness in SRHC hospital. He further deposed that he cannot identify Contd....
5the person who gave him injury.
10. All the above stated witnesses whose testimony has been discussed hereinabove were the mainstay of the case of the porosecution but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. They were cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state but nothing material could be extracted from their cross examination.
11. There was on more injured witness namely Brijpal but he was not traceable. Statement of SI Mahinder Singh was recorded in this regard who deposed that despite his best efforts, he is unable to trace witness/injured Brijpal and his present whereaboiuts are not know.
12. Since the main prosecution witnesses who are the injured failed to support the case of the prosecution, and one of the injured namely Brijpal was not traceable, the prosecution evidence was closed. As nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Contd....
6counsel for the accused.
14. The main injured witnesses of the prosecution have failed to support the case of the prosecution and one of the injured namely Brijpal was not traceable as a result of which the prosecution has failed to prove its case and nothing incriminating came on record against the accused. The accused is, therefore, acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court on 27-08-2011) RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : II, OUTER DISTICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Contd....