Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandeep Kumar on 7 February, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 138/06 )
Unique ID case No. 02404R364702006
State Vs. Sandeep Kumar
FIR No. : 516/06
U/s : 302/307 IPC
P.S. : Mangol Puri
State Vs. Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o H. No. 424, Mangol Pur Kalan,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case-16.11.2006
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-25 .01.2011
Date of pronouncement of judgment-07.02.2011
S. C No. 138/06 1/18
2
JUDGMENT:
In the present case on 26.7.2006, on receipt of DD No. 4 PP/SGM hospital, SI Ranbir Singh reached at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where Shalu (since deceased) and her daughter Gungun were found admitted due to acid burn injury. In the hospital, doctor declared Shalu fit for statement and SI Ranbir Singh recorded her statement (Ex. PW-13/C) in the presence of Dr. Ashish Jain and during the inquiry, it was revealed that duration of marriage of Shalu was less than seven years and accordingly, SI Ranbir Singh informed the SDM, Model Town and Sh. B.S. Thakur SDM, Model Town reached at LNJP hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. PW-4/A) of Shalu, wherein she stated that she was residing at the given address alongwith her family and about two years ago she had love marriage with Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar and prior to that she was also married to one Anil. She further stated that after about one year of the marriage, Sandeep started quarreling and beating her and she came to know that he wanted to marry some other girl and wanted to leave her. She stated that in the night of 26.7.2006 at about 3:00 AM, her husband threw some inflammable substance (acid) upon her as a result of which she received burn injuries on her body and her daughter Gungun also received burns on her left foot and right hand. She also stated that her husband had poured acid with intention to kill her and legal action may be taken against him.
On the aforesaid statement (Ex. PW-4/A), SDM made his endorsement and directed SHO, P.S: Mangol Puri to record FIR and accordingly, present case was registered vide FIR No. 516/06 u/s 307 IPC at PS Mangol Puri and the investigation of the case was assigned to SI R.K. Mann.
During the course of the investigation on 9.8.2006, injured Shalu was S. C No. 138/06 2/18 3 discharged from the hospital and thereafter IO went to her house at H. No. S-734, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he prepared the site plan, got the spot photographed and seized the bed-sheet, one pillow and one lady's gown in burnt condition and tried to search the accused, but all in vain. On 17.8.2006, information regarding death of injured Shalu was received and thereafter Section- 302 IPC was added in this case and further investigation of the present case was handed over to Insp. Om Prakash. During further investigation, inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM. Thereafter, on the basis of secret information, accused was arrested and he made the disclosure statement. Thereafter, exhibits of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed before the court of concerned Ld. MM.
2. After committal, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and u/s-307 IPC was framed against accused Sandeep by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which the said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses i.e PW-1 to PW-24.
PW-1 Smt. Sudesh ( mother of the deceased ) and PW-2 Gagan ( brother of deceased Shalu) do not support the case of the prosecution.
PW-3 Kanshi Ram is the landlord of the premises where Shalu alongwith her husband used to reside and he also resiled from his earlier statement and does S. C No. 138/06 3/18 4 not support the case of the prosecution.
PW-4 Sh. B.S. Thakur, SDM deposed that on 26.7.2006, on the request of IO, he went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where doctor declared the patient/injured Shalu fit for statement and accordingly, he recorded her statement Ex. PW-4/A and made the endorsement (Ex. PW-4/B) thereon and also gave direction to the SHO, PS : Mangol Puri to register the FIR u/s 307 IPC and to further investigate the matter. PW-4 further deposed that on 18.8.2006, he was informed about the death of injured Shalu and accordingly he reached mortuary, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar and Gagan regarding the identification of the deceased and prepared the inquest form (Ex. PW-4/D), brief facts (Ex. PW-4/E) and made request (Ex. PW-4/F) to the Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicine, S.G.M hospital to conduct the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Shalu and gave directions to hand over the dead body to its relatives after postmortem.
PW-5 Chetan took the photographs of the dead body as well as place of occurrence from different angles with digital camera on the directions of IO and he has proved the said photographs as Ex. PW-5/A-1 to A-12.
PW-6 Ritesh Kumar Chaudhary, PW-7 Hem Lata, PW-8 Anil Kumar and PW-9 Deepak also resiled from their earlier statements and do not support the case of the prosecution.
PW- 10 Ct. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 19.8.2006, he joined the S. C No. 138/06 4/18 5 investigation of this case alongwith SI R.K. Mann when at the instance of secret informer, accused Sandeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-10/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-10/B and he made the disclosure statement Ex. PW-10/C and thereafter he got recovered the jar and cane used for throwing acid from behind the fridge at his house and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-10/D and he has proved the said mug & cane as Ex. PX-1 and Ex. PX-2. PW-10 further deposed on 9.8.2006, he had also joined the investigation in this case alongwith SI R.K. Mann and went to S-734, Mangol Puri, where IO prepared the site plan and got the spot photographed and seized the bed sheet, pillow and one lady's gown of yellow white colour, all in burnt condition vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/E and he has proved the said bed sheet, pillow and gown as Ex. P-3, Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5.
PW- 11 Dr. Prabhat Srivastava has proved medical record qua treatment given to Shalu at LNJP hospital as Ex. PW-11/A. PW-12 HC Durvesh Kumar has recorded the FIR No. 516/06 of this case and has proved the copy of same as Ex. PW-12/A. PW-13 Dr. Ashish Jain deposed that on 26.7.2006, he medically examined patient Gunjan and Shalu vide MLCs Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B. He further deposed that on 26.7.2006, IO recorded the statement ( Ex. PW-13/C) of injured Shalu in his presence after patient was declared fit for the statement.
PW-14 ASI Dinesh Chander has deposited the exhibits of this case at S. C No. 138/06 5/18 6 FSL , Rohini on 28.9.2006 vide RC No. 307/21/06.
PW-15 SI R.K. Mann is the initial IO of this case and he deposed that on 26.7.2006, further investigation of this case was handed over to him and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Rakesh reached at the spot i.e. S-734, Mangol Puri and testimony of this witness regarding the recovery effected from the said house is almost on the similar lines as that of PW-10 Ct. Rakesh. In addition to that, PW-15 deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-15/A and got the spot photographed. PW-15 further deposed that on 17.8.2006, information regarding the death of injured Shalu was received and he informed the SDM accordingly and thereafter on 18.08.2006, SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and Section 302 IPC was added in this case and further investigation was entrusted to Insp. Om Prakash. PW-15 deposed that on 19.8.2006 accused was arrested on the basis of secret information and his testimony regarding the arrest of accused, his disclosure and recovery effected at his instance is almost on the similar lines as that of PW-10 Ct. Rakesh Kumar.
PW-16 SI (Retd.) Ranbir Singh deposed that on 26.07.2006 on receipt of DD No.4, he alongwith constable reached at SGM hospital where injured Shalu and her daughter Gungun were found admitted due to acid burn injuries and doctor declared Shalu fit for statement and accordingly he recorded the statement Ex. PW-13/C in the presence of Dr. Ashish Jain and thereafter injured was referred to LNJP hospital. He further deposed that during the inquiry, it was revealed that the marriage of Shalu was less than seven years and accordingly he informed Sh. B.S. Thakur, SDM, Model Town who reached LNJP hospital and recorded statement (Ex. PW-4/A) of injured Shalu and made the endorsement Ex. PW-4/B for the S. C No. 138/06 6/18 7 registration of the FIR and thereafter SHO, PS : Mangol Puri also made his endorsement on the same vide Ex. PW-16/A and accordingly the present case was registered vide FIR No. 516/06 and further investigation was handed over to SI R.K. Mann.
PW-17 SI Manohar Lal, Draftsman prepared the detailed scaled site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. H. No. S-734, Mangol Puri and he has proved the same as Ex. PW-17/A. PW-18 Shri Narain, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini chemically examined the exhibits of this case and has proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW-18/A. PW-19 Ct. Dharamvir has proved the DD No. 4 PP dated 26.7.2006 as Ex. PW-19/A. PW-20 Dr. Samir Pandit conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Shalu and has proved his detailed PM report as Ex PW-20/A. PW-21 Dr. Binay Kumar has proved the MLC No. 1077 dated 26.7.2006 of patient Shalu prepared by Dr. Sanjay Kumar as Ex. PW-13/B. PW-22 Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, S.G.M hospital produced the summoned record i.e. MLC No. 10778 of patient Shalu and has proved the attested photocopy of the same as Ex. PW-13/B. S. C No. 138/06 7/18 8 PW-23 Ct. Ramphal has proved the DD No. 32 dated 17.8.2006 as Ex. PW-23/A. PW-24 ACP Om Prakash is the IO of this case and deposed that on 17.8.2006, information regarding the death of injured-Shalu was received at PP SGM hospital vide DD No. 32 (Ex. PW-22/A) and thereafter he went to the spot i.e. T-416, Mangol Puri and sent the dead body of deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi where inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM vide Ex. PW-4/D, Ex. PW-4/E and Ex. PW-4/F and thereafter Section 302 IPC was added in this case and investigation was taken over by him. PW-24 further deposed that on 19.8.2006, on the basis of the secret information, accused Sandeep was arrested in this case and his testimony regarding the arrest of accused , his disclosure statement and recovery effected at his instance is almost on the similar lines as that of PW-10 Ct. Rakesh Kumar and PW-15 SI R.K. Mann. In addition to that, PW-24 deposed that during the course of investigation, he sent the exhibits of this case to FSL for examination and got the scaled site plan prepared through SI Manohar Lal and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court.
4. After recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which he denied as incorrect. Accused Sandeep claimed to be innocent and stated that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence.
5. In his DE, accused has not examined any witness despite opportunities S. C No. 138/06 8/18 9 being given and on 23.12.2010, Ld. defence counsel made the statement that accused does not want to lead any evidence in his defence and he prayed that the DE on his behalf may be closed and accordingly the DE on behalf of accused was closed.
6. I have heard arguments put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
7. It has been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that in view of the evidence adduced on record, in particular the statements of deceased Shalu recorded by the SDM and SI Ranbir Singh in the presence of doctor, the prosecution has been successful in proving on record the guilt of the accused, beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that prosecution has been successful in proving on record that on the day of the incident, accused Sandeep committed murder of his wife Shalu by pouring acid on her person and at that time he also caused injuries on the person of his daughter Gungun by pouring acid on her with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances if by that act he had caused her death, he would have been guilty of murder. Ld. Addl. PP also submitted that in view of the evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused have been proved on record beyond the reasonable doubts and he prayed that accused -Sandeep may be convicted of the charged offences.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the ld. Defence counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that prosecution in this case was mainly S. C No. 138/06 9/18 10 relying upon the statement of the deceased recorded by the SDM and SI Ranbir Singh in the presence of doctor, however the said statements were not of much use to the prosecution as the person namely Sandeep about whom deceased Shalu has stated in her statement was not the accused as was evident from the testimonies of PW-1 Smt. Sudesh ( mother of the deceased) & PW-2 Gagan (brother of deceased ), both of whom stated that accused Sandeep present in the court was not the same person with whom deceased was residing and as such the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused on record, which was fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that PW-1 Smt. Sudesh, mother of the deceased PW-2 Gagan, brother of deceased and PW-3 Kanshi Ram, landlord of the premises and other material witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements and do not support the case of the prosecution and this fact was also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ld. defence counsel further submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused was the same person who poured acid upon Shalu & Gungun or caused the death of Shalu and he prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the charged offences.
8. In the present case, accused Sandeep has been charged for committing the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and u/s 307 IPC.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.07.2006 at about 3:00 AM in the night at H. No. S-734, Mangol Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri, accused Sandeep committed murder of his wife Shalu by pouring acid on her and at that time, he also caused injuries on the person of his daughter Gungun by pouring acid on her with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused her death, he would have been guilty S. C No. 138/06 10/18 11 of murder.
9. In the present case, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the statement (Ex. PW-4/A) of Shalu ( since deceased) recorded by the SDM on 26.7.2006.
In her aforesaid statement ( Ex. PW-4/A), Shalu stated that about 2 years ago she had love marriage with Sandeep S/o Ram Kumar and prior to that she had her first marriage with Anil S/o Langra as per the wishes of her mother. She further stated that after about one year of the marriage Sandeep started quarreling with her and also used to beat her and used to come late to the house in the night and when she objected about the same, he used to quarrel with her and he also wanted to marry some other girl & wanted to leave her. She stated that on 26.7.2006 at about 3:00 A.M in the night, her husband threw inflammable liquid substance ( acid) upon her as a result of which she had burn injuries on her body and her daughter Gungun aged about three year also sustained burn injuries on her foot and right hand. She also stated that the said acid was poured upon her by her husband with intention to kill her and appropriate legal action may be taken against him.
Apart from the above statement of Shalu recorded by the SDM, one other statement (Ex. PW-13/C) of Shalu has also been recorded by the SI Ranbir Singh in the presence of PW-13 Dr. Ashish and therein, Shalu ( since deceased) stated that about two years ago she had love marriage and from her first marriage she had one daughter aged about three years. She further stated that she was sleeping on 26.7.2006, when her husband Sandeep poured acid upon her and she went to the house of her mother, who used to reside nearby and she took her to S. C No. 138/06 11/18 12 the hospital alongwith her brother. She also stated that her husband poured the acid upon her to kill her .
It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that in view of the aforesaid statements-Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-13/C of the deceased Shalu, the prosecution has been successfully in proving on record that accused Sandeep poured acid upon Shalu and Gungun, which ultimately resulted in the death of Shalu and as such accused Sandeep committed the murder of Shalu and he also attempted to commit the murder of her daughter Gungun by pouring the acid upon her.
On the other hand , it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that accused Sandeep was not the same person with whom Shalu ( since deceased) has been married and by whom the acid had been poured upon her as was evident from the statements of the mother and brother of the deceased as well as of the landlord, where the deceased alongwith her husband used to reside .
In view of the above, question arises as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish on record that accused Sandeep was the same person, to whom deceased Shalu was married and by whom, acid was poured upon her & her daughter, which ultimately resulted in the death of Shalu.
In order to establish the identity of the accused on record, the prosecution has examined three main witnesses i.e PW-1 Smt. Sudesh (mother of the deceased), PW-2 Gagan (brother of deceased ) &PW-3 Kanshi Ram (landlord of the premises, where Shalu alongwith her husband used to reside).
The case of the prosecution regarding the identity of the accused Sandeep has not been supported by the PW-1 Smt. Sudesh (mother of the deceased), who specifically stated that the person with whom her daughter was S. C No. 138/06 12/18 13 living was not present in the court and in her cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused present in the court was the same person with whom her daughter was living . Further, PW-2 Gagan (brother of deceased ) also does not support the case of the prosecution in this regard and has in fact demolished the case of the prosecution regarding the identity of the accused. In his testimoney, PW-2 stated that person with whom his sister was living was not present in the court and in his cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-2 specifically denied the suggestion that accused present in the court was the same person with whom his sister was living. Similarly, other important witness i.e PW-3 Kanshi Ram, who was the landlord of the premises where Shalu used to reside with her husband, was also examined by the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused Sandeep on record, but he also resiled from his earlier statement and does not support the case of the prosecution regarding the identity of the accused Sandeep. In this regard, in his examination in chief, PW-3 specifically stated that he gave third floor of his house no. S-734 on rent to one Sandeep on 05.5.2006 @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m and that Sandeep was not present in the court and when the attention of this witness PW-3 was drawn towards the accused Sandeep, he specifically stated he was not the same Sandeep to whom, he gave above mentioned house on rent. Further in his cross -examination, by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-3 denied the suggestion that accused Sandeep present in the court was the same person, to whom he has given the H.No. 734, third floor on rent on 05.5.2006. PW-3 also denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused as he has been won over by the accused and due to that reason he was deposing falsely.
Hence, in view of the above, it is clear that prosecution has failed to S. C No. 138/06 13/18 14 prove on record that accused was the same person with whom Shalu ( since deceased) was living or married or that acid was poured upon her and her daughter by accused, which ultimately resulted in the death of Shalu. Apart from this, the case of the prosecution on other material aspects have also not been supported by the star prosecution witnesses i.e PW-1 Smt. Sudesh (mother of the deceased) & PW-2 Gagan (brother of deceased ), both of whom resiled from their earlier statements and do not support the case of the prosecution and were cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 Smt. Sudesh ( mother of the deceased) denied the suggestion that her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded by the police and she had stated that her daughter had frequent quarrels with Sandeep or that Sandeep wanted to leave Shalu and wanted to marry some other girl. She further denied the suggestion that when her daughter alongwith her daughter Gungun came to her house in the intervening night of 25/26.7.2006 at about 3:00 or 3:30 A.M, she informed her that Sandeep had poured acid upon her. PW-1 specifically stated that the person with whom her daughter was living was not present in the court and she denied the suggestion that accused present in the court was the same person with whom and her daughter was living. She also denied the suggestion that she have been won over by the accused and that is why, she was deposing in his favour .
Further, PW-2 Gagan (brother of deceased ) also does not support the case of the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP and in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP , PW-2 Gagan denied that his statement (Ex. PW-2/A) was taken by the police, wherein he stated that his deceased sister Shalu used to quarrel with each other because Sandeep wanted to leave his sister S. C No. 138/06 14/18 15 and had developed relations with some other girl. He further denied the suggestion that his sister alongwith her daughter came to their house in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2006 at about 3:00 or 3:30 A.M and informed that Sandeep had poured the acid on her . PW-2 specifically stated that the person with whom his sister was living was not the present in the court and he denied the suggestion that accused present in the court was the same person with whom his sister was living. He further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused and that is why he was deposing in his favour. PW-2 also denied the suggestion that he was suppressing the truth in order to save the accused.
10. In addition to the above, other material public witnesses i.e PW-6 Ritesh Kumar Chaudhary, PW-7 Hem Lata @ Sapna PW-8 Anil Kumar & PW-9 Deepak examined by the prosecution in support of its cases have also resiled from their earlier statement and do not support the case of the prosecution and were cross examined by the Ld Addl. PP for the State.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-6 Ritesh Kumar Chaudhary denied that accused Sandeep alongwith Shalu and one daughter Gungun remained as his tenant from 11.3.2006 to 03.5.2006. He further denied that accused Sandeep has not given the photograph and address for verification and due to that reason, he did not allow him to reside as tenant or he vacated his house on 05.5.2006. PW-6 also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused.
Similarly, in her cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-7 Hem Lata @ Sapna denied that Shalu came to her about 4-5 years prior to the present incident and requested her to provide job as maid servant or that she S. C No. 138/06 15/18 16 used to work as maid at her house. She further denied that Shalu had married with accused Sandeep present in the court and they started residing for some period at Sector -16 and thereafter at Mangol Puri . PW-7 also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused.
PW-8 Anil Kumar is the earlier husband of Shalu ( since deceased) and he stated that accused Sandeep present in the court was not known to him and he saw him for the first time in the court on that day and he can not say if Shalu had married with accused Sandeep or not and he never saw Shalu roaming with accused Sandeep before their divorce. Since this witness was resiling from his earlier statement, Ld. Addl. PP sought and was given permission to cross-examine him and in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-8 denied that police recorded his statement on 01.11.2006. Further, statement Mark PW-8/A portion A to A was read over to this witness and he denied having made the same before the police and he also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
The case of the prosecution has also not been supported by PW-9 Deepak, who in his examination in chief stated that he was running a shop in the name and style of Deepak Sabun Bhandar at K-Block, Main Road , Mangol Puri and he also used to sell toilet cleaner and acid at his shop and accused present in the court never came to his shop and has not purchased any acid 20/25 days prior to 19.8.2006. Since this witness i.e PW-9 Deepak was resiling from his earlier statement, Ld. Addl. PP sought and was given permission to cross examine this witness and in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP , PW-9 stated that accused was never brought to his shop by the police nor he identified him in police custody. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused. PW-9 also denied the suggestion that accused had purchased S. C No. 138/06 16/18 17 acid from his shop prior to the incident.
11. In the present case, the other incriminating evidence on record is the alleged recovery of plastic mug (Ex. PX-1) and plastic cane (Ex.PX-2) at the instance of accused, however while effecting the said recovery , the provisions of section -100 (4) Cr.PC have not been complied with, which makes the said recovery itself doubtful as has been laid down in the case reported as 2001 (1) RCR (Crl.) 482.
In the aforesaid case titled as "Prithvipal Singh @ Munna Vs. State (reported as 2001 (1) RCR (Crl.) 482)" it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :
" Section 43 of the Act read alongwith sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr. P.C contemplates that search should, as far as practicable, be made in the presence of two independent and respectable witnesses of the locality and if the designated officer fails to do so the onus would be on the prosecution to establish that the association of such witnesses was not possible on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The stringent minimum punishment prescribed by the Act clearly renders such a course imperative. Thus, the statutory desirability in the matter of search and seizure is that there should be two or more independent and respectable witnesses. The search before an independent two or more independent would impart much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. It would also verily strengthen the prosecution case. The said safe- guard is also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high-handed action against authorized officer".
In the instant case also, the perusal of the record reveals that provisions S. C No. 138/06 17/18 18 of section 100 Cr. PC have not been complied by the IO before effecting the alleged recovery at the instance of accused and this in itself make the said recovery doubtful, which again is fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in view of the fact that the case of the prosecution has also not been supported by the material prosecution witnesses .
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit the accused -Sandeep Kumar of the charged offences, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Personal bond and bail bonds of the accused-Sandeep Kumar are cancelled. His surety is discharged.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 07.02.2011) Addl. Sessions Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S. C No. 138/06 18/18
19
FIR No.-516/06
P.S.- Mangol Puri
07.2.2011
Present: Addl.PP for the State.
Accused- Sandeep Kumar on bail with counsel Sh. Kundan
Kumar.
Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, the accused- Sandeep Kumar have been acquitted of the charged offences.
Personal bond and bail bonds of the accused- Sandeep Kumar are canceled. His surety is discharged.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 07.2.2011) Addl. Sessions Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S. C No. 138/06 19/18