Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Saini on 23 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Rajender Saini
FIR NO: 196/01
P. S. Sriniwas Puri
U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
Unique ID no. 02403R0369912003
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 75/2 ( 11.2.2003) Date of its institution : 11.2.2003 Name of the complainant : Sh. Y.P. Singh Date of Commission of offence : 30.5.2001
Name of the accused : 1. Sh. Rajender Saini, S/o Sh. Beer Singh
2. Sh. Puran Chand Sharma, S/o Sh.
Durga Prasad Sharma
3. Sh. Harjit Singh, S/o Sh. Kripal Singh
4. Sh. Talvinder Singh Marwaha, S/o Sh. Lal Singh Offence complained of : 186/353/332/34 IPC Plea of accused : Not guilty Case reserved for orders : 23.4.2012 Date of judgment : 23.4.2012 Final Order : ACQUITTED State Vs. Rajender Saini and others 1/5 FIR no. 196/01 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the aforesaid accused persons upon the police report filed by P.S. Sriniwas Puri u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 30.5.2001 at about 5.20 pm between 136 and 137 Gali, Sun Light ColonyII, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention obstructed complainant Sh. Y.P Singh and other staff members from discharging their lawful duties regarding sealing at Plot no. 136, Sun Light ColonyII and voluntarily caused injuries on the person of the complaint Sh. Y.P. Singh and also assaulted him and thereby committed offence u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by Police Sriniwas Puri and a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. The charge was framed against the accused persons 186/353/332/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
5. PW 1 is Sh. Y.P. Singh was hostile to the prosecution and even deposed that he do not know in which case he is deposing as for the last 33 years he has been on demolition duty. He became hostile. Ld. APP for the State cross examined this witness but to no avail.
State Vs. Rajender Saini and others 2/5 FIR no. 196/01
6. PW 2 is Sh. R.A. Sharma who deposed that on 30.5.2001 he was posted as Assistant Director in Slum and JJ Department, MCD and on the date of incident, he alongwith his demolition staff reached in the area of Sun Light for demolition for sealing purpose through an authenticated letter whose number he do not remember and reached at the spot at about 10 am. He has not identified any of the accused in the court He became hostile. Ld. APP for the State cross examined this witness but to no avail.
7. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case.
8. After the prosecution's evidence, the accused persons have been examined u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidences were put to them to which they denied and further submits that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the records of the case.
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence is the conviction of the accused persons.
11. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for accused persons that there is no documentary or oral evidence against the accused to convict them. State Vs. Rajender Saini and others 3/5 FIR no. 196/01
12. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the sides, I proceed to adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case: whether the accused persons are guilty of the offence with which they are charged or not.
13. The prosecution's case is that the aforesaid accused persons voluntarily obstructed, assaulted and caused injuries on the person of the complainant. Complainan is the main witness of offence but to the chagrin of the prosecution, complainant has not supported the prosecution's story at all nor the Ld. APP for the State was able to elicit truth from this witness.
14. In this case, only two witnesses were examined and both of them became hostile and conviction can not be based on the sole testimony of the investigation officer more particularly when he is not the eye witness of the case. Therefore it was felt that was no harm in coming to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Superme Court of India, it is held that " in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date"
State Vs. Rajender Saini and others 4/5 FIR no. 196/01
16. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, all the accused persons are acquitted of the offences with which they are is charged.
Announced in the open court (Samar Vishal)
on 23.4.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate05,
South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Rajender Saini and others 5/5 FIR no. 196/01