Delhi District Court
State vs . : Dinesh Etc. on 8 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR: MM ROHINI:
COURTS: DELHI.
State Vs. : Dinesh etc.
FIR NO : 118/96
U/s : 323/341 IPC
PS : Kanjhawla
JUDGMENT.
1. Sl. no. of the case 26/03
2. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 323/341 IPC
3. Date of Offence 19.8.96
4. Name of the complainant Hoshiyar Singh
5. Name of the accused 1. Dinesh
S/o Om Prakash
R/o Mudlana, Distt. Sonipat
(Haryana)
2. Devender
S/o Om Prakash
R/o Village Awali, Haryana.
3. Jitender
S/o Mahender Singh
R/o Village Kundali, Distt.
Sonepat, Haryana.
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
7. Final order Acquitted
8. Date of Order 08.08.08
2
Brief reasons for decision:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under :- That on dated 19.8.96 at about 9.20 am at Chootu Ram College three persons namely Dinesh, Devender and Jitender in furtherance of their common intention restrained one Hoshiyar Singh S/o Haldhar and also voluntary caused hurt to him. Thus, FIR No. 118/96 u/sec. 323/34 IPC was registered against all the accused persons.
2. IO conducted detailed investigation and filed his final report u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C. After compliance of initial requirements copies of documents were supplied to all the accused persons u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and arguments on charge was heard. Charge u/s 323/341/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons namely Dinesh, Devender and Jitender to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined 3 witnesses in support of its case . It is further important to mention here that at the stage of recording of statement of accused persons, statement of accused is dispensed with as nothing incriminating material 3 evidence was found against the accused persons.
4. It is important to explain afresh that all the three witnesses came to the witness box and deposed . One of the witness is examined by the prosecution is ASI Darshna, duty officer who received one rukka on 19.8.96 and registered FIR Ex. PW 1/A.
5. Another witness examined by the prosecution is Sh. M.L.Arora, Ex-Principal of Chottu Ram Poly-Technique , Kanjhawla who stated to the effect that in the year 1996 he was working in the Chottu Ram Poly Technique as HOD. At that time exams were carried on. On 17.8.96 no quarrel took place before me. On 19.8.96 again when he was on upstairs and exam was conducted, he heard some quarrel had taken place but he did not know anything about the said quarrel. This witness was found resiling from his earlier statement so given by him u/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. before the IO at the time of conducting the investigation. Ld. APP for State sought the permission to examine this witness. During cross-examination by ld. APP for State he stated that no beating was given by Devender Kumar on his person. PW 2 further 4 stated that he was not aware whether accused Devender Kumar gave beatings to Hoshiyar Singh as he was on upstairs. Thus, PW 2 who is an eye witness of the alleged incident did not support the story of the prosecution at all.
4. PW 3 ASI Umedh Singh IO of this case has stated that on 19.8.96 he was posted at PS Kanjhawla . One complaint was assigned to him for investigation. He alongwith Ct. Ramesh Chand proceeded to Chottu Ram Poly Technique College where Hoshiyar Singh gave written complaint Ex. PW 3/A. Accused Dinesh and Jitender was named in that complaint. Rukka was prepared and was handed over to Ct. Ramesh Chand to get the case registered. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Hoshiyar Singh. Accused persons were traced out. During investigation M.L.Arora, Professor of the college met with IO and at his instance accused Devender was arrested. Other accused persons were also arrested by the IO . Disclosure statement of the accused persons were also recorded by the IO . During cross-examination of PW by the defence counsel of accused persons nothing contrary to his examination emerged and PW 3 has duly corroborated what he has stated in his examination in chief.
5
5. It is important to mention here that complainant in this case has expired. His death was verified through SHO Kanjhawla and report was called and accepted vide order dated 9.7.08. It is further important to mention here that in the list of witnesses five were cited as witness and out of which two witnesses were eye witnesses . One of them is the complainant who has expired during the pendency of the case . Another public witness M.L.Arora did not support the story of the prosecution. Thus, recording of statement of accused persons after the PE was closed has been dispensed with.
6. I have also perused the material placed on record alongwith the testimonies of the PWS . From the careful perusal of the statement of witnesses so recorded nothing has been found against the accused persons on the basis of which the alleged offence is found against the accused persons . None of the prosecution witnesses which have been brought by the prosecution in the witness box inspires their confidence. One of the witness M.L.Arora has not supported the story of the prosecution who as per the investigation conducted by the IO got arrested one the accused persons.
6Section 323 IPC reads as under :-
PUNISHMENT FOR VOUNTARILY CAUSING HURT :
Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334 IPC, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
The essential ingredients Sections 323 IPC are :
1. that the accused caused the hurt to another person
2. that he caused such hurt voluntarily
3. that such a case was not covered u/sec. 334 IPC Section 341 IPC reads as under :
Whoever wrongfully retrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both 7 The essential ingredients Sections 341 IPC are :
1. Voluntarily obstruction by accused 2 . Such obstruction is to prevent the other person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed
7. It is important to mention here that the requirement of Section 341 IPC as well as section 323 IPC there should have been specifically everments against the accused persons duly supported by the testimonies of the Pws , however, not even a single word has been found against the accused persons that they restrained the complainant at any point of time or they voluntarily caused any hurt to the complainant. Unfortunately, the complainant was not examined in this case as he expired during the pendency of this case before his examination. Thus, nothing has been found against the accused persons on the basis of which it can be said that they had committed the alleged offence. Due to this reason recording of statement of accused persons was also dispensed with, with the observation that nothing material have been found against the accused persons. Under these circumstances , I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has 8 not been able to establish its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt , hence charge u/sec. 323/341/34 IPC is not established against the accused . Thus, accused Dinesh s/o Om Praksh , Devender S/o Om Prakash Jitender S/o Mahinder Singh is acquitted of the alleged offence. Surety for all the accused stands discharged. Documents if any, be returned. Endorsement if any, be cancelled as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (PRASHANT KUMAR)
Dated 8.08.08 Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi
9
FIR No. 118/96
PS Kanjhawla
18.8.08 Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Dinesh produced from J/C but on bail in this case.
Accused Devender and Jitender are present on bail Matter is at the stage of recording of statement of accused. Record perused. Perusal of the record reveals that complainant in this case has expired and his evidence was not recorded in the Court . As per the record three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. One of the witness is the duty officer . Another witness Sh. M.L.Arora, who is Principal of Chottu Ram Poly Technique was resiling from his earlier statement and was cross- examined and was resiled from the story of the prosecution. The last examined witness on behalf of the prosecution is the IO of this case. As per record nothing material incriminating evidence is found against the accused persons on the basis of which statement of accused can be recorded. Thus recording of statement of accused persons is dispensed with.
Final arguments heard. In the interest of justice final judgment is pronounced today vide separate order sheet and accused Dinesh s/o Om Praksh , Devender S/o Om Prakash and Jitender S/o Mahinder Singh stands acquitted of the charge u/sec. 323/341/34 IPC. Surety for all the accused stands discharged. Documents if any, be returned. Endorsement if any, be cancelled as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
(PRASHANT KUMAR) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi 08.08.08 10