Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil @ Lalu. on 7 February, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR : A.C.M.M-1,
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 505.05
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 324 I.P.C.
State vs. Anil @ Lalu.
Continue.............
2
JUDGMENT:-
a) Sl. No. of the case : 163/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 18.10.05
c) Name of complainant : Shailender Singh.
d) Name of accused person : Anil @ Lalu S/o Shish Ram
R/o H.No. 402, Luhar Wali
Gali, Vill. Rampura, Delhi.
Continue.............
3
e) Offence complained of : U/s 324 I.P.C.
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Date of order : 07.02.2009
h) Final order : Acquitted.
Date of Institution:17.05.06
Date of Decision: 07.02.09
Continue.............
4
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as per rukka is that on 18.10.05 at about 9 p.m the complainant Shailender Singh was going from his shop to his room at Rampura village through the park Continue.............
5when he found one person was taking cows. On enquiry as to why the said person was taking the cows, the said person stabbed the complainant with an ustra on the right hand of the complainant. The said person was of 20-22 years of age with black complexion & medium built.
Continue.............
62. On the basis of the complaint of the complainant FIR no. 505/05 U/s 324 IPC, was registered on 18.10.05.
3. As per the charge sheet the accused was arrested on 29.10.05 in case FIR no. 529/05 U/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act of PS Keshav Puram. While in custody of police, he disclosed the Continue.............
7commission of present offence whereupon IO called the complainant and complainant identified the accused as the one who had stabbed him (complainant) on 18.10.05. Thereafter, accused was charge sheeted in the present case for the offence U/s 324 IPC.
4. Complete copies of the charge sheet and documents were Continue.............
8supplied to accused and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.,arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 19.07.07, charge was framed against accused for the offence under section 324 I.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case prosecution has examined six Continue.............
9witnesses.
PW-1 Shailender Singh is the complainant. 02 (Outer DISTRICT ) Rohini Court, Delhi is on leave today present No PW-2 Ct. Balraj & PW-6 ASI Bal Kishan have deposed that on receiving the DD no. 64B, they went to Jain Muni Roshan Lal Continue.............
10Charitable Hospital Tri Nagar ,where the IO obtained the MLC of the injured Shailender Singh. They further deposed the manner in which the investigation was carried out by the IO.
PW-3 ASI Md. Swalay was Duty Officer at the relevant point of time and has proved the registration of FIR ExPW3/A. Continue.............
11PW-4 Ct. Tarsem has deposed that on the day of incident he alongwith ASI Bal Kishan arrested the accused Anil @ Lalu incase FIR no. 529/05, U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Keshav Puram from the area of C Block, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi and that one Shailener Singh with them.
Continue.............
12PW-5 Dr. N.K.Kulkarni has deposed that he medically examined the complainant Shailender Singh on 18.10.05 and proved his MLC vide ExPW5/A, wherein simple injury with sharp weapon was opined.
Continue.............
136. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which the stand of the accused was of general denial and accused stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Accused has chosen not to lead any D.E.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. A.P.P for state and Continue.............
14accused and have perused the record carefully.
8. There is a discrepancy in the prosecution case as regards the story mentioned in the charge sheet and in the testimony of PW-1 complainant. As per the charge sheet the complainant had identified the accused when the accused was in custody of the police on Continue.............
1529.10.05 in case FIR no. 505/05 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act of PS Keshav Puram. However, PW-1 Shailender Singh has deposed in the court that on 29.10.05, he had seen the accused in the park and had got apprehended the accused in the presence of the police. Thus, there is clear discrepancy between the two version as to how and when the accused was arrested. This witness has not deposed on the line of the Continue.............
16case of the prosecution on the point from where and as to how the said accused was apprehended. Further more, if the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet is taken on its face value, no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the judicial TIP of the said accused was not conducted pursuant to disclosure of accused regarding commission of the offence of the Continue.............
17present case and why the I.O got identified the accused through witness before himself and not before a court. Although PW-1 has supported the case of the prosecution on the remaining points, still from the discrepancy on the mode and place of arrest of accused, the testimony of PW-1 appears doubtful. The identity of the accused does not stand duly proved. Since nothing has come on record which may Continue.............
18show that the aforesaid accused was the one who had committed the said offence, therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused Anil @ Lalu, for the charge U/s 324 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted. His B/B and S/B are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement and after proper verification and identification.
Continue.............
19File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Ashutosh Kumar) Dated: 07.02.09 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1:
Rohini,Delhi.
Continue.............