Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Chander Bhan & Ors. on 12 December, 2012

                                                                                         Page 1 of 7




        IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
                                                               
                                STATE  VS. CHANDER BHAN & ORS.
                                         FIR NO. : 363/2000
                                          P.S. : Tilak Marg
                                       U/Sec. : 324/341/34 IPC

JUDGMENT :

­

1. Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 950/2 & 15.02.2001

2. Date of commission of offence : 25.07.2000

3. Name of the complainant : State through Gaurav

4. Name of the accused : 1. Chander Bhan S/o Sh. Khachera R/o H. No.16, Sangli Mess, New Delhi.

2. Vikas S/o Sh. Subhash Chand R/o H. No.16, Sangli Mess, New Delhi.

3. Satish S/o Sh. Chander Bhan R/o H. No.16, Sangli Mess, New Delhi.

4. Sunil @ Rinku S/o Sh. Phool Singh R/o Jhuggi No. 17, Sangli Mess, New Delhi.

5. Sanjay S/o Sh. Veerpal R/o H. No.14, Sangli Mess, New Delhi.

5. Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.324/341/34 IPC State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 2 of 7

6. Plea of the accused person : Not guilty.

7. Date reserved for order : 12.12.2012

8. Final Order : Acquitted

9. Date of order : 12.12.2012 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:­

1. In brief the accused Chander Bhan, Vikas, Satish, Sunil and Sanjay are facing trial for offences punishable U/Sec.324/341/34 IPC on the allegations that on 25.07.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. at Sangli Mess Shauchalaya within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, they all in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained complainant Gaurav from proceeding in a direction in which he liked to proceed and they voluntarily inflicted simple injuries with sharp edged weapon on the person of complainant Gaurav and thus thereby committed offences punishable U/Sec.341/324/34 IPC.

2. After completion of investigation charge­sheet was filed. After supplying the copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and consideration of the entire material the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 06.02.2002 held that prima facie a case U/Sec.324/34 IPC was made out against all the five accused persons and a case U/Sec.341/34 IPC was made out against all except accused Chander Bhan and accordingly charge was framed against all accused U/Sec.324/34 IPC and against accused Vikas, Satish, Sunil and Sanjay U/Sec.341/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution had cited 7 witnesses, out of which 5 witnesses were examined. State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 3 of 7

4. Statements of accused were recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2012 wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. They said that they had been falsely implicated in this case as they were not even present on the spot at the time of incident. However, they opted for not leading any evidence in their defence.

5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Honey Goel and Ld. defence counsel Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma and gone through the record.

6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the prosecution i.e. PW­1 is A.S.I. Vinod Kumar who deposed that on 26.07.2000, he was posted as Heat Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and was working on that day as Duty Officer from 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. and at about 12.30 a.m., he received one rukka from Ct. Jaibir, sent by A.S.I. Pratap Singh, on the basis of which he recorded FIR No.363/2000 U/Sec.324/341/34 IPC which is Ex.PW1/A.

7. PW­2 is S. Mehto, Medical Record Officer, who deposed that MLC Ex.PW2/A was prepared by Dr. V. Yedalwar who gave the opinion about injury as simple. He further deposed that the said doctor had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not available with the hospital authorities and therefore, he was authorised by the competent authority to depose in the present case. He deposed that he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. V. Yedalwar as he had seen him writing and signing during the official course of his duty and accordingly, he identified the signatures of the said doctor at point A and his opinion at point B on MLC Ex.PW2/A. State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 4 of 7

8. PW­3 is Prakash Verma who deposed that on 25.07.2000 at about 9.00 p.m. when he was going for walk after having his dinner, he saw that his nephew Gaurav was shouting a lot that somebody had beaten him up and that he had sustained injuries on his hand and shoulder with some sharp edged weapon and that he shifted his nephew Gaurav to RML Hospital. He further deposed that he had not seen anybody except the injured at the spot. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement recorded U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. But during his such cross­examination, he remained firm on his stand and denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that Satbir and Vikas were having knives in their hands and they alongwith Rinku and Sanjay were beating his nephew Gaurav. He said that he had not given any statement to the police that abovesaid four persons had beaten up his nephew. He further denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that Chander Bhan Pradhan was also present at the spot and was giving instructions to Satbir, Vikas, Rinku and Sonu to kill Gaurav. He also denied the suggestion that he had seen the incident.

9. PW­4 is S.I. Pratap Singh who deposed that on 25.07.2000 he was posted as A.S.I. at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day on receiving of DD No.28­A, he alongwith Ct. Jaiveer reached at Sangli Mess, New Delhi where he came to know that injured was already shifted to the RML Hospital and while leaving Ct. Jaiveer at the spot, he left for RML Hospital and collected the MLC Ex.PW2/A of injured Gaurav. He further deposed that the injured was fit for statement and he recorded his statement Mark X. He further deposed that he also met eye­witness Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Lal at RML Hospital whose statement was also recorded by him. He State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 5 of 7 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith Prakash came back at the spot and prepared rukka Ex.PW4/A and handed over the same to Ct. Jaiveer for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/B at the instructions of eye­witness Prakash and also seized the shirt of the injured vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that he made search for accused persons but could not succeed but on 31.07.2000 the eye­witness Prakash told him that the accused Chander Bhan was present in his own house and he went to his house and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/E. He further deposed that on 10.08.2000, he arrested accused persons namely Sanjay, Sunil, Satish and Vikas vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H and Ex.PW4/L and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW4/I, Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/M.

10. PW­5 is injured Gaurav who deposed that at unknown date and time, he was standing at the bus stand in front of Vividh Bharati near Mandi House and waiting for the bus and two or three persons came from behind and started beating him with some sharp­edged weapon like knife and thereafter fled away. He further deposed that he hired an Auto and went to his uncle's house at Sangali Mess and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital by his uncle Gongalu Chacha. He further deposed that he did not know the names of the persons who had assaulted him and that those persons were not present in the Court. This witness was also cross­examined by Ld. APP on the ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. but he also remained firm on his earlier stand and said that he had not told the facts to the police as mentioned in statement Mark X. He said that he had only signed the complaint but the same was State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 6 of 7 not written on his dictation. He denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that two persons namely Satbir and Vikas were having knives in their hands and they alongwith two other persons namely Rinku and Ajay had beaten him. He also denied the suggestions of the Ld. APP that one person namely Chander Bhan Pradhan was also present on the spot who was giving instructions to Satbir, Prakash and Sonu to kill him.

11. The counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has remained unsuccessful to prove the case against the accused as the material witnesses of the prosecution had turned hostile and not supported its case. I concur with the viewpoint of the defence counsel. The prosecution has examined two material witnesses i.e. injured Gaurav i.e. PW­5 and his uncle Prakash Verma i.e. PW­3. But both the witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused are not the persons who had attacked the injured Gaurav. PW­3 said that when he reached the spot only injured was there and thus could not see the persons who had attacked him. And the PW­5 said that the accused were not the persons who had actually attacked him. Both denied categorically that they had ever told the police that the accused were the persons who had attacked injured Gaurav. Though both of them were cross­examined by the Ld. APP but their testimony could not be shaken and they remained firm on their stand. Thus the eye­witnesses of the prosecution have failed to support its case. The other witnesses are formal witnesses only. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that on 25.07.2000, the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the complainant/injured Gaurav from proceeding in a direction in which he liked to proceed or that they had inflicted simple injuries with sharp­edged weapon upon his person. Therefore, the accused State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg Page 7 of 7 persons are acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.341/324/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the sureties, if any, be cancelled.

12. File be consigned to Record Room.

         (Announced in the open                                            (NAVITA KUMARI)
          Court on 12.12.2012)                                               MM, NEW DELHI




State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.
FIR No.363/2000
P.S. Tilak Marg
                                                                                            Page 8 of 7




FIR No.      363/2000
U/Sec.       341/324/34 IPC
P.S.         Tilak Marg


12.12.2012
Present :  APP for state.

All three accused persons with counsel Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma. Final arguments heard.

Put up at 4.00 p.m. for order.

(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/12.12.2012 At 4.00 p.m. Present : APP for state.

All three accused persons with counsel Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma. Vide separate judgment the accused persons are acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.341/324/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the sureties, if any, be cancelled.

Fresh Bail Bond are furnished by accused persons U/Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. which shall be valid for six months from today.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/12.12.2012 State Vs. Chander Bhan & Ors.

P.S. Tilak Marg