Delhi District Court
State vs . Rahul on 19 December, 2014
FIR No. 347/12
U/s. 323/341/324 IPC
PS: Vijay Vihar
State Vs. Rahul
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS MM4(NORTH WEST) ROHINI
COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 347/12
U/s. 323/341/324 IPC
PS: Vijay Vihar
State Vs. Rahul
Case ID No. 02404R0009132013
Date of Institution of case : 03.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 13.09.2012 b) Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/324 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Rahul parentage & residence S/o Sh. Rajender Singh R/o J-87, Vijay Vihar, Sector-04, Shani Bazar Road, Rohini, Delhi. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted. 7/7 FIR No. 347/12 U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2012, at about 7:30 p.m, at Corner, Malik Properties, Gali Budh Vihar-1, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vijay Vihar the accused Rahul wrongfully restrained the complainant Sumit, S/o Sh. Satya Narayan and voluntarily caused simple and sharp injuries to him by means of vegetable cutting knife and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 323/341/324 IPC. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 323/341/324 IPC was filed by the investigating agency against the accused.
2. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 03.01.2013, whereupon the cognizance of the offences u/s 341/324 IPC was taken against the accused. Thereafter, provision of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied.
3. After hearing the arguments, charge u/s u/s 341/324 IPC was framed against the accused Rahul upon which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 341 & 324 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
i) Section 341:- That the accused lawfully restrains a person, that such restraint prevented the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits and that the victim had every right to proceed 7/7 FIR No. 347/12 U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul beyond the circumscribing limits.
ii) Section 324 IPC:- That the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim, that accused did so intentionally or with knowledge the hurt would cause bodily pain disease or infirmity to the victim and that the hurt was caused by any shooting, stabbing, cutting instrument etc.
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined four witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
6. PW-1, Dr. Bina, CMO SGM Hospital proved the MLC exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A which was recorded in his handwriting bearing her signature at point A. During the cross examination the witness deposed that she has mentioned injuries no. 1 and 2 as incised wound therefore the nature of weapon used was sharp and such sharp injuries can be sustained by fall on sharp object.
7. PW-2 Sh. Mahesh Chand TGT from GBSSS No.2, Sector-01, Rohini deposed that he has brought the original school leaving certificate of accused Rahul and that he has seen the copy of the said certificate on the judicial file which is Ex. PW-2/A(OSR).
The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted as this witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
7/7 FIR No. 347/12U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul
8. PW-3 Ct. Jai Singh deposed that on 13.09.2012, upon receiving of DD no. 100B, he along with PSI Parveen reached at the spot i.e. near Malik Properties Wali Gali Budh Vihar-I, Delhi where they came to know that injured has already been shifted to SGM Hospital, that thereafter, he along with IO reached at the said Hospital and IO obtained the MLC of injured and recorded his statement, that during the process of investigation, the date has been changed from 13.09.2012 to 14.09.2012 as it was the intervening night, that IO prepared the rukka on the statement of injured and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered, that he went to PS and got registered the FIR by DO, that he returned back and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO, that IO prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of the injured/complainant, that on the same day, the accused was produced along with the knife by SI Virender Singh at PS: Vijay Vihar, that the witness correctly identified the accused Rahul present in the Court, that accused was arrested by PSI Parveen Kumar vide arrest memo and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A respectively, that the sketch of knife was prepared by the IO, that the knife was also seized after putting into a pullinda and sealed with the seal of PK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C bearing his signature at point A and that his statement was recorded by the IO in this case. The case property was exhibited as Ex. P-1.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that the call of DD no. 100 B was received at about 8.12 pm, that he does not remember the exact time when they reached at the said Hospital, that he remained at the said Hospital for about 20-30 minutes, that his statement was recorded by the IO in the PS, that 7/7 FIR No. 347/12 U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul the site plan was prepared by the IO at the spot i.e. near Malik Properties, Budh Vihar-1, Delhi and that he does not remember which document was prepared at the PS by the IO. The witness denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot along with the IO and that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
9. PW-4 Constable Shankar No. 2702 (OD), posted at PS Alipur proved the DD No. 100 B dated 13.09.2012 which is already placed on judicial file. The same is Ex. PW-4/A(OSR).
The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted as this witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
10. On 29.11.2014 it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that as per the instruction of accused he does not dispute X ray opinion and X ray reports no. 3960 dated 13.09.2012 of injured Sumit Solanki which is marked as Mark A. Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for accused to this effect was recorded. In view of the same, the witnesses qua the aforesaid documents were dropped.
11. Vide order dated 08.12.2014, the prosecution evidence was closed by this Court and matter was fixed for recording of statement of Accused.
12. On 13.12.2014, statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 of code of criminal procedure in which he denied all the allegations made against him and stated 7/7 FIR No. 347/12 U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence and thus defence evidence was closed.
13. At the time of final arguments it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of relevant sections are completed. In reply to this it is argued on behalf of accused that accused is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the present case and prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts as the complainant/ injured could not be brought to depose due to his death and the remaining witnesses are not material.
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state as well the defence counsel.
15. Perusal of the record shows that the injured namely Sumit Solanki has already expired without getting his examination recorded. It is also clear from the nature of allegations levelled against the accused that the complainant/ injured would have been the best and the only witness to establish the identity of the accused as the person who assaulted him. It is evident that there is no other eye witness of the incident who would have established the identity of the accused as well as the fact that the accused had hit the injured/ complainant thereby causing hurt to him. Furthermore, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during the trial can in no manner establish that it was the accused who caused hurt to the injured as all these witnesses are police witnesses or 7/7 FIR No. 347/12 U/s. 323/341/324 IPC PS: Vijay Vihar State Vs. Rahul Doctor who being formal in nature had not witnessed the incident and their testimonies are based upon the version narrated to them by the injured Sumit Solanki who died before his testimony could be recorded.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and present circumstances, this Court is of the view that the evidence brought on record dehors the testimony of the complainant is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and hence criminal liability for offences punishable u/s 324 & 341 IPC can not be fastened upon the accused. Accordingly, accused Rahul is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 324 & 341 IPC levelled against him.
Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS) today i.e on 19.12.2014 MM-04/North West, DELHI 19.12.2014 7/7