Delhi District Court
State vs . Satnam @ Rajesh S/O Harak Singh on 1 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV KATARIYA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 362/2018
U/s 323/326 IPC
PS: Jahangir Puri
State vs. Satnam @ Rajesh S/o Harak Singh
Date of Institution of case:19.02.2019
Date of Judgment reserved:01.03.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced:01.03.2023
JUDGMENT
CIS Number : 800/2019 Date of Commission : 15.08.2018 of offence Name of the : Sunita complainant
Name of the accused : Satnam Singh @ Rajesh S/o Sh.Harak Singh R/o G368 Jhuggi, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Offence complained : 323/326 IPC of Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 01.03.2023 Final Order : Acquitted FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 1 The story of prosecution is as under :
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2018, at about 04:30 pm, in front of Jhuggi No. G367, Jahangir Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused Satnam Singh @ Rajesh voluntarily caused grievous injury to his wife/ complainant namely Sunita and caused simple injury to Jayanti by throwing boiled water upon them. According to prosecution, accused committed offences punishable under Section 323/326 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
Charge
4. A prima facie case under Sections 323/326 IPC, was found to be made out against the accused. Charge was framed upon the accused accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 2Evidence
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 03 witnesses. Their respective depositions are as under: PW1 is Sunita W/o Satnam Singh R/o G36B, G Block, Jahangir Puri, Bhalswa, North West, Delhi - 110033.
She deposed, that it was 15th August but she does not remember the year. She further deposed, that she was dancing in the programme that was organized to celebrate 15th August. Somebody from the crowd came and poured hot water on her. She further deposed, that she does not remember who that person was. She was taken to Jag Jeevan Ram Hospital where she was medically treated. She further deposed, that she does not remember anything else.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court as he was resiling from her statement and his attention was also drawn towards the accused, but despite that, he failed to identify the accused.
6. PW2 is Jayanti S/o Sh. Daya Ram, R/o Jhuggi No. 28, G Block, Jahangir Puri, Shanjarpur, NorthWest, Delhi.
He deposed, that in the year of 2018, he was working in the factory in front of Sai Baba Mandir, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. He further deposed, that on 15.08.2018, at about 04:30 PM, when he reached in front of Jhuggi No. G367, he saw one dance program was organized on the occasion of 15 th August. In the dance program, many men and women were dancing. He also started to see the dance of persons. In the mean time, one unknown person from the crowd poured hot water upon me and one lady. He further deposed, that he FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 3 does not know who had poured water on them but he and the said lady sustained burn injuries. He further deposed, that he does not know anything else about the present case. He further deposed, that he also cannot identify the accused person who had poured water on the crowd.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court as he was resiling from his statement and his attention was also drawn towards the accused, but despite that, he failed to identify the accused.
7. PW3 is Asha W/o Sh. Rajender R/o No. 1298, E Block, Jahangir Puri, Bhalswa, Jahangir Puri, Delhi - 110033.
She deposed, that on 15.08.2018, one dance program was organized on the occasion of 15th August in front of her Jhuggi i.e. Jhuggi No. 367, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Her sister namely Sunita and one boy namely Jayanti alongwith some other persons were dancing. She further deposed, that at about 04:30 pm, some unknown person had poured hot / boiled water on her sister Sunita and Jayanti. She made call at 100 Number. They took her sister and Jayanti to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for medical treatment as both of them had sustained burn injuries.
She further deposed, that she does not see the person who poured water on her sister and Jayanti. She further deposed, that when the boiled water was poured on her sister and Jayanti, she was inside her jhuggi. She further deposed, that she does not know anything else about this case.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court as she was resiling from his statement.
FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 48. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. in which he admitted the factum of following documents i.e. Registration of FIR No.362/2018 which is Ex. A1, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A2, DD No. 60B dated 15.08.2018 which is Ex. A3, MLC No. 159522 of injured Sunita which is Ex. A4 and MLC No. 159523 of injured Jayanti which is Ex. A5.
9. It is the matter of record that during the prosecution evidence, PW1 Sunita i.e. complainant, PW2 Jayanti and PW3 Asha, who are the injured persons in the present case were examined and they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. This witnesses were also cross examined by Ld. APP for the state after seeking permission form the court during in which they denied about any injury being given to them by accused. This witnesses completely denied the occurrence of the alleged incident.
10. All other witnesses were formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to the conviction of accused in the present case.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is not even an iota of material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence for which he had been charged.
12. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused U/s 313 CrP.C. was dispensed with, in the absence of any incriminating material and evidence on record.
FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 513. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments. Accordingly, final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
14. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 Sunita i.e. complainant, PW2 Jayanti and PW3 Asha. The prosecution has failed to prove the identity of accused. Identity of the accused is of utmost importance and the prosecution is required to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. In view of specific denial on the part of the the witness regarding the incident in question, the charges against the accused can not be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused. Accordingly, accused namely Satnam Singh @ Rajesh S/o Harak Singh is hereby acquitted from the said offence U/s 323/326 IPC.
16. This judgment contains 06 pages and each page bears my signature.
Announced and dictated directly into the computer in open court on 1st Day of March, 2023.
(Gaurav Katariya) Metropolitan Magistrate North District Court/Delhi FIR No.362/18 State Vs. Satnam Singh @ Rajesh 6