Delhi District Court
State vs Hari Om @ Vicky on 9 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAHIL MONGA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, NORTH EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. HARI OM @ VICKY
FIR No.196/18
U/sec. 326 IPC
PS: Karawal Nagar
Date of institution of the case:30.01.2019
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 09.02.2024
Cr. Case No.260/19
CNR No.DLNE02-000413-2019
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of the offence : 28.04.2018
b) Name of the complainant : Roma Devi
c) Name of the accused and his parentage : (1) Hari Om @ Vicky S/o Sh.
Bhagwat Sharan H. No. 463, A, Block, Infront of Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
d) Offence complained of : Sec. 324/326 IPC e) Offence charged of : Sec. 326 IPC State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 1 of 8 FIR No.196/18 f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquittal h) Date of such order : 09.02.2024
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
1. Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant has three daughters and her husband works as a labour. Her elder daughter Doli's marriage took place on 07.11.2015 with Hariom @ Vicky S/o Bagwat Sharan H. No. 463A- Block Shahbad dariy Delhi.
Complainant was unwell for 4-5 days and she called her daughter Dolly at her house. On the next day, Complainant's son in law Vicky came to complainant's house and asked to take her wife back. Complainant told the accused Vicky not to assault her daughter Dolly but Dolly called the complainant on the next day and told her that accused vicky had assaulted her in the night. Her daughter left home and went to Shaksham Shanstha in Shahbad Dairy. Vicky came to her house in Karawal Nagar on 28.04.2018 at around 10.00 AM and asked about Dolly to which complainant said Dolly has not come here. Initially Vicky started arguing with the complainant then accused Vicky picked up a vegetable knife from her kitchen and attacked the complainant with the knife several times. Thereafter Vicky threw away the knife and ran away. In the evening complainant's husband namely Mahendra Singh and her daughter Dolly reached and took her to Jag Pravesh Hospital after which she was referred to GTB Hospital. Statement of complainant was recorded in the State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 2 of 8 FIR No.196/18 presence of her daughter Dolly. An FIR was lodged against the accused and after completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed in the court against the accused.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet against accused Hari Om @ Vicky under sections Sec. 324/326 IPC was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused was summoned before the court to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, the copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to them as per norms.
3. Thereafter, charge under section 326 IPC was framed against the accused Hari Om @ Vicky to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Proceedings against the accused
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has cited as many as seven (09) witnesses.
5. Perusal of the court record shows process issued to complainant Roma Devi were received back as unserved through DCP concerned and consequently she was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 26.10.2023 by Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter summons were issued to PW Dolly which also received back as unserved through DCP concerned. Complainant and the PW Dolly failed to appear before the court for their examination. No alternative address of the complainant and PW Dolly was available on record. Hence, they were dropped from the list of witnesses. Consequently, request of the learned APP for State to examine remaining prosecution witnesses was declined as no useful State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 3 of 8 FIR No.196/18 purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:-
"...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.........."
6. As no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, recording of his statement under section 313 of the Code was also dispensed with.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the file very carefully.
Arguments
8. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that the accused has been charged for the offence punishable under sections 326 IPC but the prosecution has failed to produce the complainant Roma Devi and PW Dolly for their examination. Thus, according to learned defence counsel in the absence of the testimony of complainant Complainant Roma Devi and PW Dolly, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the offences charged with.
State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 4 of 8 FIR No.196/18
9. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of State (Delhi Adminsitration) vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi 1995II AD (Delhi) 6 wherein it was held as under:-
"..Further, Major Chakarvarty alone could have testified whether scooter Ex. P-1 was the one which belonged to him and was stolen. He has not been produced and examined as a witness in the case. Thus, the best evidence for establishing identity of the recovered property and the stolen property was not produced".
10. He submitted that in the present case also the best evidence i.e. the complainant and PW Dolly were not produced before the court. He, therefore, requested that the accused may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Decision and brief reasons for the same
11. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion.
12. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'. In a State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 5 of 8 FIR No.196/18 criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide:
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).
14. The rule that every accused person is presumed State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 6 of 8 FIR No.196/18 innocent until he is proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in this country and in several other countries. Indeed it is entrenched in the Constitution that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.
15. Despite availing numerous opportunities, prosecution has not examined the complainant and PW Dolly.
16. Since the complainant and PW Dolly could not be examined despite giving numerous opportunities, nothing could come out on the record to prove the incident or the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under section 326 IPC as there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Result
17. The entire prosecution case hinges upon the statement of complainant Roma Devi and PW Dolly, however, they could not be examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities. Rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident neither took place in her presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
18. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 7 of 8 FIR No.196/18 the accused. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused Hari Om @ Vicky and accordingly, accused Hari Om @ Vicky is ACQUITTED of the charge levelled against him.
Announced in open Court on 09th day of February, 2024 (Sahil Monga) MM-04/North-East District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 09.02.2024 This judgment contains 08 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Sahil Monga) MM-04/North-East District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 09.02.2024 State Vs. Hari Om @ vicky Page 8 of 8 FIR No.196/18