Delhi District Court
State vs Devi Ram Etc., (P1/5) on 21 April, 2011
(P/1)
FIR NO. 163/1997
u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34
IPC
P.S. Najafgarh
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE -02 , DWARKA
COURTS : NEW DELHI
FIR NO. 163/1997
u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34
IPC
P.S. Najafgarh
Date of institution : 26.9.1997
Date of final argument : 21.4.2011
Date of final order : 21.4.2011
JUDGMENT:
A SL NO. OF THE CASE : 02403R0438422009 B: DATE OF OFFENCE : 08.3.1997 C: NAME OF THE : Pappu Kumar s/o Shiv Shankar COMPLAINANT D: NAME OF THE : 1. Devi Ram s/o Shish Ram ACCUSED r/o H.NO 327, Nangli Dairy , Najafgarh PERSON , Delhi.
2. Rajender Prasad s/o Sh Jai Parkash r/o RZ 19, Arjun Park, Nangli Dairy , Delhi.
3. Joginder s/o Sh Desh Raj r/o H.N RZ 64, Arjun Park, New Delhi E: OFFENCE : U/S 323/341/506(ii) /34 IPC .
COMPLAINED OFF
State vs Devi Ram etc., (P1/5)
(P/2)
FIR NO. 163/1997
u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34
IPC
P.S. Najafgarh
F: PLEA OF ACCUSED : PLEADED NOT
PERSON GUILTY
G: FINAL ORDER : Acquitted.
H: DATE OF SUCH : 21.4.2011
ORDER
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. All the accused person are facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 08.3.1997 at about 5:30 pm at H. No 41 , Ranaji Enclave, Najafgarh within the jurisdiction of P.S Najafgarh, they all in furtherance of their common intention common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Papu Kumar and Gulab Chand and voluntarily caused hurt to them by using danda . It is further alleged that they all in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant Pappu Kumar and Gulab Chand with injury to their person and with a intention to cause alarm to the said person and threatened to kill them.
2. After investigation the challan was filed. Prima facie case U/s 323/341/506(ii) /34 was made out against the accused person .
State vs Devi Ram etc., (P2/5)
(P/3)
FIR NO. 163/1997
u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34
IPC
P.S. Najafgarh
After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, accused person were charged to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In support of its case , the prosecution has examined four witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Hardeep Singh is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR vide ExPW1/A. PW2 Dr. R.P Arora proved the MLC of the injured Gulab Chand and injured Pappu Kumar as ExPW2/A and PW2/B. PW3 Dr. Mukul Sinha proved the X Ray report of injured person vide ExPW3/A and PW3/B . PW4 ASI Satbir Singh is the IO who carried out the investigation.
5. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused person u/s 281 Cr.PC were recorded wherein accused person denied the allegations made against them . However , they did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
State vs Devi Ram etc., (P3/5)
(P/4)
FIR NO. 163/1997
u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34
IPC
P.S. Najafgarh
6. I have perused the record , heard the Ld. APP for State and the ld counsel for the accused person .
7. The accused person have been charged for an offence u/s. 323/341/506(ii)/34 IPC. During the statement recorded u/s. 281 Cr.PC, accused person replied that they have been falsely implicated .
8. To establish its case against the accused , although prosecution has examined four witnesses but their testimonies are not sufficient to convict the accused person for the alleged offence. Although, prosecution has examined four witnesses but they are not the witnesses to the alleged incident. Prosecution has failed to examine the complainant/injured . Sufficient opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the said witnesses despite that their presence could not be secured.
9. In the present case the contents of the complaint could not be proved by the complainant as presence of complainant/injured State vs Devi Ram etc., (P4/5) (P/5) FIR NO. 163/1997 u/s 323/341/506 (ii) /34 IPC P.S. Najafgarh could not be procured before the court to depose. In such type of cases the testimony of the complainant is of utmost importance to prove the facts. However, the complainant/injured could not be produced before the court to narrate the story of the prosecution.
10. In view of the fact that the material witnesses i.e the complainant/injured could not produced before the court whose versions was of utmost significant to enable the court to arrive at the particular conclusion in favour or against the accused person , I am left with no option but to acquit the accused person Devi Ram, Rajender Prasad and Joginder . Accused Devi Ram, Rajender Prasad and Joginder , therefore, stand acquitted from the charge u/s 323/341/506(ii) /34 IPC . Their bail bond stands cancelled , sureties stands discharged.
11. File be consigned to record room.
(RAJESH KUMAR GOEL)
ACMM02/DWARKA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY I.E 21.4.2011
State vs Devi Ram etc., (P5/5)