Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Kumar on 21 July, 2014
State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ASJ-01( NORTH):
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No: 51/12
FIR No. 160/11
PS : Kanjhawala
U/S: 308/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O. SH. JAI PRAKASH
R/O. VILL. FIROZPUR BANGAR, POST KUNDAL
DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYANA
2. KRISHAN KUAMR @ SUNNY S/O. JAIPAL
R/O. LAMBA PANNA, VPO KUTUBGARH, DELHI
3. DEVENDER, S/O. RAN SINGH
R/O.VILL. FIROZPUR BANGAR, POST KUNDAL
DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYANA
4. MAHESH, S/O. JAI BHAGWAN
R/O. VILL. PRAHALADPUR BANGAR, DELHI
5. VINOD, S/O. RAMJI LAL
R/O. VILL. RAMPURA, DISTT. HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN
6. KRISHAN LAL, S/O. PATRAM
R/O. VPO KHODA, PS RAWATSAR, DISTT. HANUMANGARH
7. MAHESH, S/O. MEHTAB SINGH
R/O. VILL. FIROZPUR, PO KUNDAL, DISTT. SONEPAT,
HARYANA
8. SANJEEV, S/O. DALBIR SINGH
State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 1 of pages 10
State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.
R/O.VILL. FIROZPUR, PO KUNDAL, DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYANA
9. SANDEEP, S/O. JASWANT
R/O. VILLAGE FIROZPUR BANGAR, POST KUNDAL, DISTT
SONEPAT, HARYANA.
10. PARDEEP, S/O. TEJ SINGH
R/O. VPO HIRAN KUDNA, DELHI 41 .... Accused
Date of Institution: 18.08.2012
Date of Argument: 21.07.2014
Date of Decision: 21.07.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.06.2011 at about 06.00 p.m. at Jonti Kanhonda Toll Tax, Village Jonti, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kanjhawala Delhi, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the complainant Chander Haas with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by such injuries they would have caused the death of the complainant and they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thereby committed offence punishable u/s. 308/34 IPC.
2. The duty officer received the information through DD no. 25A about the incident and the said DD was assigned for investigation to SI Naresh Kumar, who on 27.06.2011 reached at Braham Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, Delhi and obtained the MLC no. 3397/11 of injured Chander Haas aged 23 years, who was admitted in the said State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 2 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. hospital with alleged history of assault and IO recorded the statement of the injured, who in his statement deposed that on 26.06.2011 at about 05.30 p.m. he saw a huge crowd at the Toll Tax, at Village Kanonda, Jonti and on seeing such a huge crowd he went there to inquire about the matter, where a quarrel broke between the two sides i.e. villagers and the staff of Toll Tax and he also heard a gun shot. The toll tax staff was holding dandas in their hands and they beat up the villagers and after gun shot was fired a stampede occurred and complainant Chander Haas and other villagers sustained injuries.
3. On the basis of said statement and the MLC of the injured as case u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC was registered. Accordingly FIR no.160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC was registered at Police station Kanjhawala and the further investigation of the case was handed over to SI Ravi Kumar.
4. During investigation it was revealed that another case FIR no. 159/11 u/s. 307/147/148/149/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was also registered and during investigation the supplementary statement of the complainant was got recorded and on the basis of the said statement the accused persons were arrested. One Mahindra Thar State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 3 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. bearing no. HR 99GTHQT2147 of red colour was seized and their disclosure statements were recorded. The accused persons thereafter were sent to JC and on 30.06.2011 and were later on were released on bail. Thereafter other accused persons were also searched for one another Mahindra Thar bearing registration no. DL 12CA 1410 of black colour was also seized. Later on the remaining accused who were arrested were also admitted to bail.
5. IO collected the result of MLC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet and accused were put to trial.
6. Ld MM after compliance of provision u/s 207 Cr.P.C committed the case to Sessions Court through Ld District Judge which was assigned to this court.
7. Vide order dated 23.10.13 charge u/s 308/34 IPC was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 2 witnesses i.e complainant Chander Haas as PW-1 and Mukesh as PW -2.
9. PW-1 Sh. Chander Haas deposed that on 26.04.2011 at about 05.30 p.m. when he was present at his plot number 101, near State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 4 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. Toll Tax, Village Jaunti, Delhi, he observed huge crowd at the Toll and out of curiosity when he went to inquire, he saw the Toll tax staff and the villagers quarreling with each other and during this stampede took place and in the meanwhile some one hit him on his head with danda, but he could not see that person. He remained in hospital for about two weeks for the said injury. Police came at the hospital but his statement was not record and his signatures were obtained on his statement which he has exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. Later on he was shifted to Rajiv Gandhi hospital.
10. However, the complainant has not identified the accused persons to be assailants who had beaten him. He also could not tell their names and how the toll tax people came at the spot. He also stated that since the danda blow was given to him from his back side thus he could not see the said person. He also failed to give their names and to tell as to how many injured received injuries.
11. He also denied that he knew the name of the villagers and the Toll Staff, who were quarrelling with each other. He has completely denied the knowledge about the number, description of people fighting with each other. He also denied the accused persons to be the assailants who had beaten him or given him State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 5 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. danda blows.
12. Since, he did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP, wherein he stated that he had signed some blank papers and that his statement was never recorded by the police. He also refused to have heard a gun shot during the incident. He also refused to have deposed to the police that the quarrel took place between the villagers and the Toll staff on the point of tax and appointing local people as employees in Toll Booth.
13. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 1/A , which he totally denied having ever made to the police and denied its content to be his verbatim. He also failed to identify the accused persons as the persons, who had beaten and assaulted him. He also denied that he knew the name of the villagers with whom the toll tax persons were fighting. He also could not tell the reason of the presence of the toll tax staff at the spot. He also refused to have seen the assailants in the police station and also denied the suggestion that his signatures were not taken on blank papers by the police. He also refused having stated to the police about the quarrel at Toll tax between toll tax staff and local villagers. He also State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 6 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. denied having stated in his statement that about eight to ten number Toll tax staff came in Mahindra Car of red colour bearing no. HR 99GTH QT 2147 or that they were the same people who had given him the injuries. He also denied having been threatened and beaten up by the accused persons. He also denied the arrest of the accused persons in his presence and also denied having signed any of their arrest memos or seizure of weapon of offence in his presence.
14. PW-2 has also not supported the case of the prosecution and in his testimony, he has completely turned his back to his statement Ex. PW 2/A and refused to have seen any quarrel between Toll Tax employees and Villagers of Jaunti Village. He also stated having signed blank papers and denied the arrest of the accused persons in his presence.
15. Since he was also resiling from his earlier statement made to the police, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP and he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW 2/A which he completely denied having made any such statements to the police and also denied that the quarrel between the toll tax staff and the villagers of Jaunti village took place due to removal of local villagers from their State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 7 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. employment in Toll Booth and appointment of new employees. He also denied having stated that on 26.06.11 when he alongwith other villagers tried to make the toll officials understand the issue in the meanwhile the Toll tax local flying squad came in Mahindra Car bearing no. HR 99 GTHQT 2147 holding dandas in their hands and beat up the villagers and exchange of hot words started between them. He also denied having been beaten up by the accused persons. He also denied having heard the gun shot which caused stampede. He also denied the occurrence of any such incident. He also denied that when the villagers had gathered at the spot and they were making the toll tax official understand their problem, a flying squad of toll came and there was a hot exchange of words and soon it turned in quarrel and toll tax employee who were armed with danda started beating up the villagers. He has also failed to identify the accused persons as assailants who had beaten them. He was also suggested that he was deposing falsely under pressure but he denied the same also.
16. Since both the material witnesses i.e.PW 1 i.e. the complainant Chander Has and PW-2Mukesh, did not support the case of prosecution and failed to identify the accused persons, it State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 8 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. appeared to the court that examination of the remaining witnesses would be a futile exercise because the role of the remaining witnesses only related to the investigation of the case and even if they are examined, by no hypothesis, the prosecution could prove its case and hence, PE was closed. As there was nothing incriminatory against the accused persons on record the statements of all the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. were dispensed with.
17. I have heard Ld. A.K. Gupta, APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons. Record perused.
18. Since the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW 1 and PW2 have not at all supported the story of the prosecution against the accused persons and have not identified the accused persons to be the persons, who had caused injuries to them and have completely turned hostile and despite of their cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length, nothing incriminating came on record against the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons.
19. Therefore, I acquit all the accused persons from the charges framed against them in the present case. Their bail bonds are State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 9 of pages 10 State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc. cancelled and sureties are discharged.
20. Case property, if any be confiscated to the State.
21. File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG) on 21st Day of July 2014 ASJ -01 (NORTH), ROHINI:DELHI.21.07.2014. State V. Rakesh Kumar Etc.SC no.51/12FIR no. 160/11 u/s. 147/148/149/308/34 IPC page 10 of pages 10