Delhi District Court
State vs Kartar Singh @ Ravi on 16 August, 2024
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 759/2017)
FIR No. 1010/2016
Police Station KNK Marg
Charge sheet filed 324/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 324/34 IPC
Section
State V/s (1) Kartar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o J-86, Gali No.3, Sardar
Colony, Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(2) Avtar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o J-86, Gali No.3, Sardar
Colony, Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
......Accused Persons
Date of institution 16.12.2017
Arguments concluded on 20.07.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 16.08.2024
Decision Acquitted.
Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI
SHARMA
SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16
17:59:22 +0530
State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc.
Page No. 1 of 20
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 08.12.2016, at about 07.00 p.m. at Veer Bazar, Delhi, an information regarding a quarrel at Sector -16, Sardar Colony, was received vide DD No. 37A, PS KNK Marg. A case was registered on the complaint of one Mandeep Singh alleging that on the above said date and time, he went to Thursday market to purchase household articles at Sector 16, three boys i.e. accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi, Avtar Singh @ Sonu and their one another associate cordoned him off and started assaulting him without any reason. That accused Kartar @ Ravi was carrying one sharp edged weapon i.e. knife which struck him over his left arm and accused Avtar Singh and the third accomplice assaulted him with legs and fists. He started bleeding from his left arm and raised noises and public persons gathered at the spot, who rescued him. From there, he went to his house and made call at 100 number, PCR van came and his father accompanied him to BSA hospital for medical examination. From BSA Hospital, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital and after discharge from the hospital, he was called at PS and made his statement. Eventually, the present case was registered.
After recording the statement of other witnesses and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet had been filed under Section 324/34 IPC by the IO.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 17:59:28 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 2 of 20 -:3:- CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 18.09.2018 charge under Section 324/34 was found to be made out against both accused persons. The formal charge as above was framed against the accused persons on the said date to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ...
col. 12 third person.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 06 witnesses in all.
PW1 is SI Ramesh. He deposed that in the intervening night of 08/09.12.2016, he was working as DO from 12:00 night to 8:00 am and on that day, at about 12:10 am, HC Amarjeet came to the PS alongwith a rukka sent by ASI Begraj, on the basis of which, he registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/A on a computer with the help of computer operator. He further deposed that he also made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B and also issued certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C with respect to the present FIR.
He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Amarjeet to be handed over to IO ASI Begraj.
PW2 is Dr. Jayant Lenka, SR Safdarjung Hospital. He deposed on 09.12.2016, at about 1:15 am, patient Mandeep Singh S/o Surjan Singh came to burn Plastic Casualty being Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. 17:59:35 +0530 Page No. 3 of 20 -:4:- accompanied by his father with the history of assault near his home by unknown persons at about 8:00 pm, on 08.12.2016. That the said patient further informed him that he was first taken to BSA hospital and was medically examined vide MLC No. 15771/16. He further deposed that he had examined the said patient and found a wound of 6 x 2 x 0.5 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm which was muscle deep. He further deposed that he advised the patient for follow up in OPD and certain antibiotics and pain killers were advised. That during the course of investigation, he had issued a certificate Ex. PW2/A in this regard vide forwarding letter Ex. PW2/B. PW3 is injured Mandeep Singh. He deposed that he has been residing at H. No. J-216, Gali No. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, alongwith his family and have been selling clothes in weekly markets.
He further deposed that on 08.12.2016, at about 7:00 pm, he went to Thursday market for purchasing household articles at Sector-16, Rohini. That suddenly, three boys i.e. accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi, Avtar Singh @ Sonu and their one another associate cordoned him off and started assaulting him without any reason.
He further deposed that accused Ravi was carrying one sharp edged weapon i.e. knife and he struck the said knife over his left arm and his associates i.e. accused Avtar Singh and their third accomplice had assaulted him with legs and fists. That he bleeded from my left arm and raised noises. That few public Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 17:59:41 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 4 of 20 -:5:- persons gathered there and managed to rescue him at the hands of accused persons.
He further deposed that from the said place of occurrence, he rushed to his house. That from his residence, he had made a call at number 100 and PCR van reached at his house and his father had also accompanied him to BSA Hospital, where he was medically examined. That from BSA Hospital, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where he was medically examined. He further deposed that after he was discharged from the hospital, he was called at PS, wherein he had made statement Ex. PW3/A and police got the present case registered. He further deposed that during investigation, IO had also prepared rough site plan at his instance.
PW4 is HC Amarjeet. He deposed that on 08.12.2016, on receipt of DD No. 37A regarding quarrel at Gali no. 3, Sardar Colony, H. No. J-86, Rohini, by ASI Begraj, he alongwith ASI Begraj reached at the spot, where they came to know that the injured has been removed to BSA Hospital. That they reached at BSA Hospital, where Mandeep Singh was found admitted vide MLC. That IO collected the MLC of injured Mandeep and recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. That IO made endorsement on the statement of injured Mandeep and prepared rukka, which was handed over to him at 11:50 pm. He further deposed that he went to police station, where he presented the rukka to DO for registration of FIR. That Duty officer registered FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 17:59:48 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 5 of 20 -:6:- and he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Begraj.
He further deposed that on 14.12.2016, he met with IO ASI Begraj near PCR office, Sector-17 and he joined the investigation with ASI Begraj and reached at Sardar Colony. That they reached at H. No. J-86, Gali no. 3, Sardar Colony, where accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi was found. Th at there was injury on the head of Kartar Singh. He further deposed that IO interrogated and arrested accused Kartar Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A. Personal search of the accused was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/B. PW5 is ASI Begraj. He deposed that on 08.12.2016, on receipt of DD No. 37A Ex. PW5/A regarding quarrel in gali no. 3, Sardar Colony, H. No. J-86, he alongwith HC Amarjeet Singh reached at the spot, where they came to know that injured had been removed to BSA Hospital. They reached at BSA Hospital, where they found Mandeep Singh admitted in the hospital vide MLC. He further deposed that he collected the MLC and recorded statement of Mandeep Ex. PW3/A and attested his signatures. He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW5/B and prepared rukka which was handed over to HC Amarjeet for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the spot and at the spot, HC Amarjeet handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka for further investigation. He further deposed that efforts were made to find out the independent eye witnesses, but no one was found at the Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 17:59:54 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 6 of 20 -:7:- spot, who had seen the incident.
He further deposed that on 14.12.2016, he alongwith HC Amarjeet reached near PCR office, on the dividing road of Sector-16,17 and they reached at H. No. J-86, Gali no. 3, Sardar Colony with complainant. That the complainant identified the accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi, who was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that there was injury on the head of accused Kartar Singh.
He further deposed that on 18.12.2016, at the instance of complainant, he prepared site plan Ex.PW5/C. That he obtained the opinion of doctor on the MLC of Mandeep from Safdarjung Hospital and placed the same on record.
He further deposed that on 11.02.2017, he went to the house of accused Avtar Singh @ Sonu, who found at his house. He interrogated and arrested accused Avtar Singh @ Sonu vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/D. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/E. He further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses, prepared chargesheet, which was forwarded by the SHO and sent to court by the ACP concerned.
PW6 is Dr. Bandita, Medical Officer from BSA Hospital, who has deposed that on 08.12.2016, at 8:34 pm, Mandeep S/o Suraj, 21 years male was brought by the PCR with alleged history of physical assault approximately one hour back, as told by the patient himself and there was wound on left Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. 18:00:02 +0530 Page No. 7 of 20 -:8:- forearm. She further deposed that on examination, patient was conscious oriented. That on local examination, there was incised wound left forearm (middle 1/3) lateral aspect approximately 4.5 x 2 x 1 cm. That patient was referred to Ortho SR for further management and opinion. She further deposed that MLC No. 15771 dated 08.12.2016 Ex. PW6/A was prepared by Dr. Anurag Tyagi, JR, who signed at point A. That the patient was examined under her supervision and control and the MLC also bears her signature at point B. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Kartar Singh and Avtar Singh was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2019 wherein they denied all the evidence put to them and stated that they have falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Avtar Singh further stated that all are interested witnesses who have deposed against him since an FIR no. 1009/16 u/S. 307 IPC, PS KNK Marg was registered against the complainant at the behest of Kartar Singh and the present FIR is counter blast to FIR No. 1009/16. He further stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. He was not present at the spot on the alleged date of incident. That his identities are highly disputed and that is the reason, he has have not been named in the FIR. He further stated that the complainant Mandeep Singh inflicted injuries to his brother by a knife, who sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. He further Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 18:00:08 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 8 of 20 -:9:- deposed that the present FIR has been registered in order to counter FIR No. 1009/16. That even otherwise the complainant has caused self inflicted injuries and therefore, the present case is outcome of false facts. He further stated that on the alleged date and time of incident, he had gone to Wazirpur to take money from his driver since he ply a RTV from Sector-16 to Wazirpur.
Accused Kartar Singh stated that all are interested witnesses who have deposed against him since an FIR no. 1009/16 u/S. 307 IPC, PS KNK Marg was registered against the complainant at his behest and the present FIR is counter blast to FIR No. 1009/16.
He further stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. That on 08.12.2016, at about 7:00 pm he had gone to Veer Market, C Block Sector 16, Rohini to purchase vegetables and other house hold articles and while he was purchasing the same, complainant Mandeep Singh along with his associates namely Bunty, Commando and Bhugi assaulted him. That complainant Mandeep assaulted him with a knife and others gave him kicks and fists blows. That he sustained injuries on head and other parts of my body.
Accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence and examined DW1 Mr. Sunil Thakran in their evidence. He has depsosed that as per record, the complainant in case FIR No.1009/2016 PS KNK Marg is accused Kartar Singh and Mandeep Singh @ Mufa, Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando have been arrayed as accused.Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 18:00:22 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 9 of 20 -:10:-
5. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by Mr. Raghav Kapoor, ld. Counsel for the complainant and Mr. S.P. Dhankar, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons.
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case vide the testimony of complainant, PW3, who was the material witness/complainant.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved.
8. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Dhankar, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons have argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. Further, testimony of police witnesses cannot be relied upon. It was also argued that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife has not been recovered and the injury, if any, is self inflicted. That the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant to escape from the consequences of the cross FIR bearing no.1009/2016 Which had been Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 18:00:29 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 10 of 20 -:11:- registered against the complainant party and the present case is merely an afterthought. That the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the accused persons deserve acquittal.
9. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
10. Both the accused persons had been charged for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.
11. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under :
SECTION 324 IPC "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 18:00:36 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 11 of 20 -:12:- SECTION 34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
12. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 18:00:42 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 12 of 20 -:13:- important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS/INJURED
14. At the very outset it is important to note the law on the relevant point regarding the testimony of an injured witness.
In the case of Abdul Sayed Vs. State of M.P. decided on 14.09.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon Digitally signed by SHEFALI SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. 2024.08.16 18:00:50 +0530 Page No. 13 of 20 -:14:- unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
In State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors (2011) 4 SCC 324, it is held as under:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence."
The above mentioned observations are also reiterated in the latest case of Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 1200-1202 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8628626 of 2019, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the present case the prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW3 Mandeep Singh. He had deposed that on 08.12.2016 at about 7.00 p.m. the accused persons Kartar Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 18:00:57 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 14 of 20 -:15:- Singh @ Ravi, Avtar Singh @ Sonu and one another associate assaulted him without any reason and that accused Kartar @ Ravi was carrying one sharp edged weapon i.e. knife which stuck him over his left arm and accused Avtar Singh and the third accomplice assaulted him with legs and fists. He further deposed that he started bleeding from his left arm and raise noises and public persons gathered at the spot, who rescued him.
However, accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi had sustained head injuries in this incident at the behest of complainant party as is proved by the prosecution in the cross case bearing FIR No.1009/2016 PS KNK Marg and it is highly improbable that in such a scenario accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi would be an aggressor or have the intention to cause hurt.
PW3 Mandeep Singh further stated that he was wearing a jacket. In all possibility, there should have been a cut mark on the jacket as well. But the IO failed to seize any such clothes of victim which was a material piece of evidence.
Further, in his cross-examination he admitted that he never made any 100 number call from the spot and that accused Avtar Singh was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Thereafter, he again changed his statement and stated that accused Avtar Singh was very much present. The very testimony of the injured is under cloud and not of that a sterling quality on the sole basis of which the accused can be convicted. Thus, this court proceeds to delve upon the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 18:01:10 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 15 of 20 -:16:- MEDICAL EVIDENCE
15. PW2 Dr. Jayant Lenka from Safdarjung Hospital has examined the patient and proved that the injury mentioned could be self inflicted or other wise and no conclusive opinion could be discerned from his testimony.
PW6 is Dr. Bandita proved the MLC No. 15771 dated 08.12.2016 Ex. PW6/A of patient Mandeep Singh. She proved that on local examination, there was an incised wound on the left forearm of the patient, who was examined in her supervision. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that such an injury may have been self inflicted. Thereafter, upon her re-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as further cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused persons suggested that the probability of such injury being self inflicted cannot be ruled out. She explained that if somebody wants to inflict injury on himself on his own, he would generally do so on his wrist and forearm. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the injury had been inflicted by the accused persons as the very doctor who had examined the patient has not ruled out such a possibility.
Further, even the weapon of offence has neither been recovered as thus, not put to the concerned doctor for examination, who could gave her opinion as to whether the said injury could have been inflicted by the alleged weapon.
The testimony of the injured was not corroborated by the medical evidence and the possibility of the injury being Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. 18:01:17 +0530 Page No. 16 of 20 -:17:- self inflicted cannot be ruled out.
NO OTHER MATERIAL/PUBLIC WITNESSES
16. There is no other public or any other independent witness, who has been examined by the prosecution. The injured had claimed that he was rescued by the public persons. In this regard reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-
In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 18:01:22 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 17 of 20 -:18:- "3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation.
A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 18:01:28 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 18 of 20 -:19:- proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
WEAPON OF OFFENCE NOT RECOVERED
17. There is no weapon of offence seized whatsoever and thus, the manner in which the injury was inflicted is under doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that if at all the complainant had sustained injuries, they were caused by the accused persons using the alleged weapon of offence.
18. The remaining witnesses were formal police witnesses who merely deposed regarding the manner of investigation and the documents prepared.
CONCLUSION
19. The testimony of the injured Mandeep Singh is improbable as there is inconsistency in his testimony during the cross-examination as discussed above and it is highly improbable that the accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi who had himself sustained multiple stab injuries on his vital part of the body as has been discussed in the connected FIR bearing no. 1009/2016 which is prior in time, could have given any blow to Mandeep Singh with a sharp edged weapon. The alleged weapon was also not Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 18:01:35 +0530 State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 19 of 20 -:20:- recovered and as such, even the testimony of the doctor, who had examined Mandeep Singh pointing out that the injury could have been self inflicted. There is no other public witness and in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, accused Kartar Singh @ Ravi and Avtar Singh @ Sonu stand acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 18:01:43 +0530 Dictated and announced (Shefali Sharma) in the open Court on 16.08.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 20 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 759/17, FIR No. 1010/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Kartar Singh Etc. Page No. 20 of 20