Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Singh & Amit Tokas on 5 March, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM03(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Rajender Singh & Amit Tokas
FIR No. 364/2000
U/s : 343/323/506II/34 IPC
P.S. : Vasant Vihar
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. : 364/2000
2.Date of the Commission of the offence : 12.11.2000
3.Name of the accused : (1)Rajender Singh S/o
Sh. Pyare Lal R/o 139,
Village Munirka, New
Delhi.
(2)Amit Tokas S/o Sh.
Rajender Singh R/o 139,
Village Munirka, New
Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Sh.Vishal Bharti S/o Sh.
Ram Janam Sharma
R/o 219, Village
Munirka, New Delhi
(Present address:
FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC
2
Chandra Vihar Colony
P.O. Ashiana P.S.
Digha, District Patna,
Bihar).
5.Offence complained of : 343/323/506II/34 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
8.Date of final order : 05.03.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION The story of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2000 at 11:30 p.m near STD Booth on street Baba Gang Nath Mandir, Village, Munirka, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Vasant Vihar, the accused Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Vishal Bharti and his friends namely Arun and Vikrant and caused simple blunt injury on the person of the complainant and his two friends.
On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant namely Sh. Vishal Bharti, an FIR bearing number 364/2000 under section 341/323/506/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Vasant Vihar on FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 3 13.11.2000.
After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 02.02.2001.
On the basis of the chargesheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 343/323/506II/34 IPC was framed against the accused Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas and read out to the said accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 31.10.2001.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT The offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons namely Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas are offences punishable under section 343/323/506II/34 IPC.
To attract the offence punishable under section 343 IPC, following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution: (1)Whoever wrongfully restrains any person.
(2)Such wrongful restraint must be such as to prevent said person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
(3)That they committed the said acts in furtherance of their common intention.
FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 4 To attract the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC, following ingredient is required to be proved by the prosecution: (1)That the accused has voluntarily caused hurt. (2)That the hurt is simple in nature caused by a blunt object.
(3)That they committed the said acts in furtherance of their common intention.
PW1 ASI Virender had registered the FIR of the present case, which is Ex.PW1/A. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, despite opportunity being given.
PW3 HC Arvind in his examinationinchief has stated that in the intervening night of 12/13.11.2000 on receipt of DD No.34, he along with SI Morya reached at the spot in the Gali of Baba Gang Nath Village, Munirka. He stated that at the spot he was told by the persons, present at the spot, that the injured was taken to hospital by PCR Van. IO recorded the statement of the injured namely Vishal Bharti. The said witness got the case registered. Arrest of the accused persons were not made in his presence.
The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, wherein the said witness stated that he could not identify the accused FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 5 persons. IO had recorded the statement of some persons and further statement that he did not remember the name of the witnesses and no other documents has been prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that nothing had happened at the spot and further denied that he was deposing falsely and further denied that accused was innocent or falsely implicated in the present case.
The said two witnesses, whose deposition has been discussed as above, are formal witnesses in the present case.
The only witness who could support the story of the prosecution and who could prove the guilt of the accused is the complainant himself, who is also the victim namely PW2 Sh. Vishal Bharti, who in his examinationinchief has failed to remember the date of incident, however, has told the year of incident to be 2000. He deposed that at about 12/12.30 a.m he was present near Gang Nath Mandir, Munirka and was accompanied by his three friends namely Vikrant Singh Chauhan, Arun and Rajiv Dalal, who had come to drop the said witness to Munirka Village. He further stated that a person, who was the resident of Munirka Village and who was under the influence of liquor obstructed his way and the said witness as well as his friends advised the said person not to do so. After that 2025 people of the same village came there and started beating him as the said witness was outsider. He further stated that he was taken to hospital by some persons who were residing there as tenants and FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 6 also known to him namely Suman Kumar and Ajay Sharma. The said witness further deposed that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers. The said witness was confronted with his statement made to the police, to which he replied that he had identified his signatures at point A. He further stated that his friend Vikrant also received injuries. He further stated that he cannot identify the 2025 persons and further stated that the accused persons namely Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas were his neighbourers and the said accused persons had not participated or caused any injury to him and were also not present at the spot at the relevant time.
As the said witness was not supporting the story of the prosecution, the said witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State, wherein he admitted that he had signed the blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that the person who was obstructing his way continued abusing him even after his advice and threatened him. He further denied the suggestion that when he tried to talk with those two persons, suddenly one of them caught hold of him and the other started beating him with legs and fists and the said two persons threw his colleagues in the same manner on the ground and also gave beatings with legs and fists to the said witness and his friends. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that the accused persons namely Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas were arrested at his instance by the police on 14.11.2000. He admitted the suggestion that his FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 7 signatures are appearing on the arrest memos and personal search memos dated 14.11.2000, same Mark A to E. He further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately resiled from his previous statement given to the police and has changed his version. He further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately suppressed the facts, being won over by the accused persons and being the neighbourers to save them from criminal proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately denied about the lodging of FIR at his instance and preparation of memos about the arrest of the accused persons in connivance with them.
The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, despite opportunity being given.
In the present case besides PW2 Sh. Vishal Bharti there are three other material witnesses namely Arun Kumar, Vikrant Singh and Raj Tiwari who can support the story of the prosecution. However, out of said three witnesses, PWs Vikrant Singh and Arun Kumar were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 13.01.2011, as summons sent to the said witnesses were repeatedly received back unserved.
Today, bailable warrants were issued to PW Raj Tiwari for his appearance and for his deposition before the court. However, bailable warrants sent to the said witness received back unserved. As the said witness is also untraceable, he is dropped from the list of witnesses. FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 8 In the present case the only material witness namely PW2 Vishal Bharti examined by the prosecution has turned hostile and has not supported the story of the prosecution and has also denied his statement made to the police. He in his complaint has clearly stated that the accused persons were accountable for the incident. But, in his examinationinchief he turned hostile and stated that the accused persons namely Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas were his neighbourers and the said accused persons had not participated or caused any injury to him and were also not present at the spot at the relevant time.
In the light of the testimony of the complainant and in absence of the testimony of other material witnesses, it is impossible for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused by relying upon the deposition of remaining formal witnesses, as no witness except the complainant/injured is competent enough to prove the guilt of the accused.
Today, statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused in his statement stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, the accused persons Rajender Singh and Amit Tokas are entitled to acquittal, accordingly acquitted.
As per section 437A of the Cr.P.C, as amended vide the FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC 9 Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED ON 05.03.2011 (CHETNA SINGH) MM03(South)/05.03.2011 Certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM03(South)/05.03.2011 FIR No364/2000 Under Section 343/323/506II/34 IPC