Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Bahadur Singh on 20 December, 2014
FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 139/1/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0038282013 State Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Sh. Ramji Singh R/o Village Piprahi, P.S. Hajbhana District Riva (M.P.) FIR No. : 335/12 Police Station : Alipur Under Sections : 308 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 03.04.2013 Date on which judgment was reserved: 20.12.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 20.12.2014 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused namely Vijay Bahadur Singh had been sent to face trial in respect of offence U/s 308 IPC on the allegations that on 25.09.2012 at about 10.30 pm at the house of Pardeep, Budhpur, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, the accused caused injuries to Amir Khan with half brick, on his mouth and head with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, he would have caused his death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The case of prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is that State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 on 25.09.2012, ASI Omender Singh alongwith Ct. Satbir went to the place of information i.e. Budpur, Delhi on receipt of DD no. 39A where it was revealed on enquiry that injured had already been removed to SRHC Hospital on which they reached there where injured Amir Khan S/o Sh. Javed was found admitted. ASI Omender collected MLC of said injured who was declared unfit for statement.
It is claimed that ASI Omender prepared rukka on the basis of MLC and DD no. 39A and got the FIR U/s 308 IPC through Ct. Satbir. He also prepared rough site plan, recorded statements of eye witnesses and arrested accused Vijay Bahadur Singh in this case. He also seized weapon of offence i.e. half brick piece from the spot. After injured Amir Khan was declared fit for statement, IO also recorded his statement and also obtained result on MLC of said injured. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charge u/s 308 IPC against the accused vide order dated 15.07.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses namely PW1 Dr. P. Arioli, PW2 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Amir Khan and PW4 Vijay Kumar Verma during trial till today i.e. 20.12.2014.
Although, the prosecution also cited two more public witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya in the list of witnesses State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 but prosecution failed to produce them during trial despite grant of several opportunities. Summons were issued to said two public witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya through IO as well as through concerned DCP but same were received back unserved with the reports that both the said witnesses were not traceable at their given addresses and their present whereabouts were not known. On specific query made from IO by the Court, he submitted that he had already made his best possible efforts to trace out the said two public witnesses, but they were not traceable and their present whereabouts could not be ascertained. His statement had also been recorded separately in this regard. In view of the said statement made by IO and keeping in view the fact that no other fresh address of said witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya were made available to the Court by the prosecution, the opportunity to produce said two witnesses was closed.
Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on any material point, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
In a case tilted "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996 JCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled out: State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 8
FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 "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 a future date."
Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with.
I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and ld. counsel on behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
Before discussing the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined by prosecution during trial.
PW1 Dr. P. Arioli had examined injured Amir Khan, being Dental Surgeon. He deposed that said injured had sustained several injuries as mentioned in his notings from pointX to X on MLC Ex.PW1/A and he opined the nature of injuries as grievous.
This witness has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW2 Dr. Rajesh Kumar had initially examined injured Amir Khan vide MLC no. 1842/12 Ex.PW1/A and referred the injured to Dental Surgeon, Surgery, Eye and ENT Surgeons. He has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW3 Amir Khan is the injured who was allegedly assaulted by State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 the accused herein. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution on any material point including on the aspect of identity of the present accused to be the offender involved in the commission of offence. Rather PW3 deposed that when he was passing through a gali, he had an altercation with some unknown assailant. Since he was under the influence of liquor, he used abusive language against the said unknown assailant on which said assailant caused beatings to him and he also picked up one brick piece and struck the said brick piece over his face and head, as a result of which he received injury over his face and head and lost his consciousness.
PW3 categorically deposed that in the hospital, it was revealed to him that his roommates namely Shiv Kumar Verma, Suraj Kumar Maurya and accused Vijay Bahadur Singh took him to hospital. Accused Vijay Bahadur had not caused injury to him. He explained that in the hospital, police made enquiries from him but police had not recorded his statement. On enquiry, he had disclosed the aforesaid facts to the police.
This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Additional PP who put all the relevant suggestions to this witness on the lines of prosecution story but same were denied by him. He denied to have made any statement before the police.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW4 Vijay Kumar Verma was residing as a tenant at Village Budhpur at the house of Pradeep and was having business of catering. He alongwith PW3 Amir Khan were residing in a separate room as tenants in the State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 house of Pradeep. However, PW4 has also not supported the case of prosecution on any material point. The said witness also narrated the same story as deposed by PW3 Amir Khan.
The abovesaid witness has also been put to cross examination by Ld. Additional PP on behalf of State but still, he did not support the prosecution story and denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story. He also denied to have made statements Mark PW4/A before the police during the course of investigation.
However, the said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED & CASE LAW CITED It has been argued by Ld Additional PP that injuries have been sustained by PW3 Amir Khan on his mouth and head as is quite apparent from his MLC Ex.PW1/A available on record. Ld. Additional PP further argued that PW3 i.e injured Amir Khan and PW4 Vijay Kumar Verma may have been won over by the accused as PW3 and PW4 were also residing as tenants in the house of Pradeep and they both were engaged in the business of catering but no benefit should be given to the accused on this ground.
On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel of accused vehemently argued that both the star witnesses of prosecution namely PW3 Amir Khan and PW4 Vijay Kumar Verma did not support its case on any material point whereas the prosecution could not produce its two other key witnesses State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 namely Shiv Kumar and Suraj Kumar Maurya during trial despite grant of opportunities. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is important to note that both the key witnesses i.e PW3 and PW4 named above, have failed to support the case of prosecution on any material point. Rather, they categorically testified that since PW3 Amir Khan had an altercation with some unknown assailant and since he was under the influence of liquor, he used abusive language against said unknown assailant and said assailant caused beatings to him and also struck one brick piece over his face and head, as a result of which, he received injury over his face and head. In other words, star witnesses of prosecution including injured himself deposed during trial that PW2 had sustained injuries due to the beatings by some unknown assailant with piece of brick and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of accused. Nothing material could be brought on record by prosecution even during cross examination of said two key witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the depositions made by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the entire case of prosecution has fallen down like a pack of cards. According to the case of prosecution, the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW3, PW4 and two other public witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya alone had witnessed the incident. Thus, all four of them alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial. However, PW3 and PW4 have not deposed on the lines of prosecution case as mentioned in the chargesheet and State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 8 FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 the other two witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya are not traceable as per the report of IO of the case. In view of testimonies of said two public witnesses, Court is of the view that the entire case of prosecution has become doubtful.
The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something would have come on the surface in the deposition of said eye witnesses, but both of them turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination on behalf of State connecting the accused with the offence charged against him.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accused namely Vijay Bahadur Singh is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court today
On 20.12.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Vijay Bahadur Singh ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 8