Delhi District Court
S C No. 58/14 State vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors. on 19 September, 2014
S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
S. C. No. 58/14
FIR No. 163/10
Police Station Dwarka Sec-23
Under Section 365/307/308/427/34 IPC
I.D. No. 02405R0204372012
STATE
Versus
1. Abhishek Sehrawat
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o H.No. 17, Amberahi Village
Sec-19 Dwarka, New Delhi
2. Joginder Solanki
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Solanki
R/o WZ59B, Village Palam,
New Delhi.
3. Parvesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H.No. 42 Village Amerhai,
New Delhi. ......Accused persons
Date of institution 29/09/12
Judgment reserved on 16/09/14
Judgment Pronounced on 16/09/14
Decision Acquitted
Judgment Page 1 of 7
S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR in question was registered on the complaint of Dinesh Attri who alleged that on 22.05.2010 near Sec-11 Sport Complex, Dwarka, while he was in his Accent car bearing no. DL-5CD-5418, a white color car whose last digits were 89 chased his car but he some how he managed to reach home. However, on 23.05.2010, at about 7.00 pm, when he was returning in the same white Accent car again chased him along with two other cars one was Maruti Suzuki SX4, VXI whose last digit was 6177 and another was Wagon R. all persons in these cars forcibly stopped his car in front of Godrej Apartments, Sec-10 and started smashing the car with sticks and rods and pulled the complainant out of the car. He was beaten and dragged into the Wagon R car. A boy named Hemant Malik armed with a pistol along with his 3-4 associates who were there took him to a forest area near Sec-19, Booster Pump Dwarka, where 14-15 boys collected one by one and they all gave him beatings with bamboo sticks and rods. One of them shouted that he be shot and his eye balls be taken out with the help of a knife. The complainant stated that he knew three boys out of those who gave him beatings and named Hemant Malik, Abhishek, Joginder Solanki. After assaulting the complainant with sticks and rods, the accused persons presumed the complainant to be dead and threw him near jungle of Sec-11, Judgment Page 2 of 7 S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
Metro Station. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to hospital by a person namely Anurag in a very bad condition. The complainant stated that he can identify all the other assailants when confronted with.
2. Based upon the MLC of the injured, the police investigated the above stated complaint. Since the accused Hemant Malik, Abhishek Sehrawat and Joginder Solanki were named in the FIR, they were apprehended and the Wagon R which was used in the abduction of the complainant was seized. The accused Parvesh who was the owner of the Wagon R car was also arrested in the case. The accused persons who were arrested also disclosed the involvement of Tarun & Prashant in the abduction and beating of the complainant. All the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 365/307/308/427 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.
3. After filing of the charge-sheet accused Hemant malik got expired nad hence the proceedings against him stood abated. Vide orders dated 26.07.2013, the accused Tarun and Prashant were discharged.
4. The charge for the offence punishable 365/307/427 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was framed against the accused Abhishek, Joginder and Parvesh Kumar to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Judgment Page 3 of 7
S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
5. The prosecution except PW-1 has not cited any other witness which could prove the allegations regarding kidnapping and beating of the complainant. PW-1 Dinesh Attri who is the complainant and injured in the present case has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the prosecution version. The PW-1 testified that he does not know the names of the boys who gave him beatings and he cannot identify them as he had sustained injuries on his head and eyes. Although, he had heard some names during the incident but he cannot recollect them now. PW-1 further testified that in the Hospital, police recorded his statement and took his signatures but he does not remember the contents of his statement. PW-1 did not identify the accused persons in the Court as the persons who were amongst the boys who had given him beatings.
6. PW-2 Insp. Sukhdev Meena, who is IO in the present case deposed that case was got registered on the complaint of injured Dinesh Attri on allegation that he was kidnapped and beaten by Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar and by some other persons. During the investigations of the case no eye witness was found to the incident except the injured himself whose statement was recorded by the first IO/ SI Mahesh Soni. PW-2 further deposed that he arrested all the accused persons including the three accused persons present in the Court today, on Judgment Page 4 of 7 S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
02.12.2011, in the High Court of Delhi vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/A to F, took their personal search vide memos Ex. PW-2/A-1 to F-1 and recorded their disclosure statements vide statements Ex. PW-2/G, H & I. PW-2 further deposed that he seized a Wagon-R car bearing no. DL-2C-AL-1694 which was involved in the commission of crime vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/J. Thereafter, on completion of investigations he recorded the statements of witnesses and filed the charge-sheet in the present case.
7. The accused persons are facing trial in this case on the allegations that injured Dinesh Attri was kidnapped and beaten by them and by some other persons. In order to prove these allegations the prosecution cited only him as eye witness. But he did not support the prosecution version rather in his examination he categorically testified that he does not know the names of the boys who gave him beatings and he cannot identify them as he had sustained injuries on his head and eyes. Although, he had heard some names during the incident but he cannot recollect them. PW-1 did not identify the accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar in the Court as the persons who were amongst the boys who had assaulted him.
Judgment Page 5 of 7
S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
8. Since, PW1 the injured and only eye witness to the case turned hostile to the case of prosecution, it was ordered that no fruitful purpose would be served to record further evidence in the present matter, hence, prosecution evidence is ordered to be closed. Since, no incriminating evidence has come on record, therefore, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
9. Having regard to the facts and the evidence as aforesaid, it is imperative to hold that the totality of the evidence or record did not establish that accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar in criminal conspiracy with each other were amongst the boys who had assaulted the injured Dinesh Attri as he himself did not identify them in the Court as assailants who had assaulted him. Since, PW-1 has not supported prosecution version and there is no evidence on record that accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar were the persons who kidnapped and beaten injured Dinesh Attri in conspiracy with each other or they committed any mischief by causing any damage to the SX4 car of the complainant.
10. Accordingly, in the light of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has been unable to prove that the accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar were the persons who kidnapped and beaten injured Dinesh Attri or they committed any mischief by causing any Judgment Page 6 of 7 S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
damage to the SX4 car of the complainant, hence, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present case. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 365/307/427 r/w Section 120B IPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 16h Day of September, 2014.
( Gautam Manan )
ASJ-04/Dwarka/New Delhi
16.09.2014
Judgment Page 7 of 7
S C No. 58/14 State Vs Abhishek Sehrawat & Ors.
16.09.2014
Present: Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused persons on bail with Counsel Sh. Nagender Deswal. PW-2 has been examined and discharged. It has come in the testimony of PW2 who is IO of the case that PW1 who is the injured and complainant in the present case was sole eye witness to the alleged incident.
PW1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution version. No other witness has been cited by the prosecution to prove the allegations of kidnapping and beating of the complainant.
Accordingly, PE stands closed.
Since no incriminating evidence has come against the accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar, hence, recording of statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.Pc stands dispensed with.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused Abhishek Sehrawat, Joginder Solanki and Parvesh Kumar persons stands acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 365/307/427 r/w Section 120B IPC.
The accused are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with surety in the like amount under the provisions of U/s 437-A Cr.PC.
Bail bond has been furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
( Gautam Manan ) ASJ-04/Dwarka/New Delhi 16.09.2014 Judgment Page 8 of 7