Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Arjun, S/O Apooswamy on 29 May, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH) : DELHI
SC No.146/09
FIR No.106/08
PS Subji Mandi
U/s 147/148/149/323/426/436/452 IPC
State Versus 1. Arjun, S/o Apooswamy
R/o Shop No.54, Madrasi Colony,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
2. Ramu, S/o Apooswamy
R/o Shop No.15, Madrasi Colony,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
3. Apee, S/o Geettoo
R/o Jhuggi No.15, Madrasi Colony,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
4. Ramesh, S/o Geettoo
R/o Jhuggi No.15, Madrasi Colony,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
5. Seth, S/o Palneeappam
R/o Jhuggi No.22, Madrasi Colony,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
Date of Institution of case : 07.08.2008
Date on which arguments heard : 29.05.2009
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.05.2009
J U D G M E N T
1. Succinctly stated, allegations against the above named State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 1 of pages 7 accused persons were to the effect that on 30.04.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. in the area of Madrasi Colony, Mori Gate, Delhi they all alongwith coaccused Maniappam, Gittoo, Laxman and Sikandar (who were discharged vide order dated 22.09.2008) and many other persons (who could not be arrested) formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, namely to cause hurt to the general public, to set the Balmiki mandir on fire and also to trespass in the house of the complainant Bunty and other offences and further while forming said unlawful assembly they all were armed with deadly weapon such as iron roads, dandas etc. and further in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they caused hurt to the complainant Bunty and others, burnt the pandal of Balmiki mandir, broken the window pane of the vehicles and also broken the wall of the complainant and they also caused hurt to the complainant Bunty and others and also committed trespass by entering into the house of complainant after having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and others. On the basis of said allegations charges u/s 147/148/149/323/426/436/452 IPC were framed against the above named five accused persons to which State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 2 of pages 7 they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In it support, prosecution has cited as many as eighteen witnesses, out of them PW Bunty, Pradeep Kumar, Sumit and Vinod Bharti were the material public witnesses/star witnesses and rest of the witnesses were official/formal witnesses.
3. Today, the case was fixed for remaining prosecution evidence as PW1 Sumit & PW2 Bunty have already been examined on 22.04.2009 and 18.05.2009. Today, two more witness namely PW3 Vinod Bharti and PW4 Pradeep were also examined by the prosecution and thus by now the prosecution has examined all the material public witnesses/star witnesses cited by it, but none of them has supported the case of the prosecution in his testimonies recorded before the court and ultimately all of them were declared the hostile witnesses. The remaining witnesses to be examined are the formal/ official witnesses.
4. In his statement recorded on oath on 22.04.2009 PW1 Sumit could not tell the date, month and year of occurrence, however, he claimed that it was the incident of one year back, when a function of chatti of his nephew was being solemnized at Balmiki Mandir Mori State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 3 of pages 7 Gate and there at around 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. he came to know from Bunty that around 10/15 boys of Madrasi Colony had beaten him after entering into fight with him. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and during the said cross examination he denied of having made any statement to the police while claiming that he had not witnessed the occurrence and nothing had happened in his presence. The statement Ex.PW1/A was read over to him but he denied each and every contents of the same. He was failed to identify all the five accused persons present in the court while claiming that they were not amongst the boys who had forcibly entered into their place and gave them beatings and had damaged their property.
5. Like PW1, PW2 Bunty, the injured/complainant, had also not supported the story of prosecution. He only stated that it was the incident of around 10.00 a.m. in the morning when he after attending the function of chatti, was retuning from tanga stand, 10/15 boys who were drunk started misbehaving with him and one of them caught his collar and started beating him. He received injuries and ran State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 4 of pages 7 towards the function after getting him relieved. Thereafter, those boys entered into the tent of the function and started damaging the goods. They had broken out the wall. Then police was called. He too was failed to identify the accused persons as the boys amongst the assailants. He clearly deposed that these boys were not amongst the boys who had caused mischiefs by fire and forcibly entered the tent and his house and caused him injuries with dandas and sariaas. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in details but it remained as a futile exercise as nothing incriminating could be brought out from him against the accused persons. The contents of statement Ex.PW2/A allegedly recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to him but he disowned the same by claiming that no such statement was given by him to the police.
6. PW3 Vinod Bharti and PW4 Pradeep Kumar have also not supported the prosecution's version. In their identical respective statements recorded on oath, they both have claimed that they do not know as to who had caused injuries to whom and they could not identify by the assailants. They both claimed that none of the accused persons present in the court was amongst the assailants. They were State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 5 of pages 7 also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length but again nothing incriminating could be taken out from them against the accused persons. They both disowned the statements Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW4/A allegedly recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
7. The remaining witnesses are police official/formal witnesses and no fruitful purpose will be served by examining them in the court in the event when the aforesaid star witnesses have turned hostile. In view of the aforesaid situation, the prosecution evidence was closed vide the order of even date. Since nothing incriminating against the accused persons have been brought on record, so statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
8. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
9. The instant case is solely based on the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW4 and incidentally all of them have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. In these circumstances, I have no option but to acquit all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. They stand acquitted State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 6 of pages 7 accordingly. Their bail bonds are discharged.
10. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR) court today on 29.05.2009) ASJ04 (NORTH)/DELHI State Vs. Arjun & Ors. Page no. 7 of pages 7