Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj on 10 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
MM02, PHC, NEW DELLHI
STATE Vs. MANOJ
FIR No. 963/2014
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
U/s : 325 IPC and section 23 J. J. Act
CNR No. : DLND020069152014
Date of commission of offence : 01.11.2014
Date of institution of the case : 09.12.2014
Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajeet Singh
Name of accused and address : Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Salikram
R/o H.NO. 6A/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant
Kunj Near Gausala Mandir, New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 325 of IPC & 23 J.J. Act
State Representation : Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused Representation : LAC Ms. Niharika
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Judgment Reserved on : 28.07.2023
Date of judgment : 10.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The Prosecution has filed the charge sheet against accused Manoj Kumar u/s 325 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.11.2014 at about 10:00 AM at Pitambar School, H.NO. 37/9, Kishangarh, New Delhi accused being in the actual charge of or control over Juvenile, namely, Subhod aged about 12 slapped on the ear of Subodh due to which his ear drum got damaged and FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 1 of 17 thus he committed the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC & 23 J.J Act.
2. Upon completion of investigation the challan was filed in the court. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned for trial. Copies u/s 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused. The charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 325 IPC & 23 J.J Act on 29.01.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCES :
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(3.1) HC Ravinder Kumar was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 05.11.2014, he along with SI Sudhir Kumar were on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. He deposed that on that day at about 09:38 PM SI Sudhir received DD no. 76B regarding tearing of eardrum of a boy by teacher at house No. 37/9, Kishan Garh, thereafter, he along with IO reached at the spot where two ladies namely Suman Chaudhary and her mother Rashmi. Rashmi informed that on 01.11.2014 her son Subhod who studied in 4th Standard at Pitambar Public School went to the school and when he was giving sharpner to another student, school teacher Manoj slapped on his ear due to which blood was oozing from the ear. He deposed that Rashmi further told that Subhod informed them about the incident after that he reached at home. He deposed that they along with Subhod reached at Pitambhar Public School to meet the principal and informed the principal regarding incident, thereafter principal told them to go the Ahuja Clinic along with teacher Manoj. He further deposed that they visited the Ahuja Clinic where after examining, doctor told that the eardrum of Subhod has been torn. He deposed that Rashmi told IO that FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 2 of 17 since the teacher Manoj has undertaken to take all the expenses of the treatment of the Subhod, therefore, she did not inform the police about the incident on that day. He deposed that Rashmi told him that there was immense pain in the ear of the Subhod therefore called at 100 number but they did not gave any written complaint. He deposed that IO prepared the rukka on the DD no. 76 B and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR register. He deposed that after registered FIR he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR along with original rukka to the IO. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
Despite opportunity, accused did not cross examine the witness. (3.2) HC Hemraj was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 06.11.2014 he received rukka at about 12:10 AM by Ct. Ravinder sent through SI Sudhir on the basis of which he recorded FIR of the present case, copy of which is Ex. PW2/A and he endoresed on the rukka which is Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that after the registration of the FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Ravinder to be handed over to SI Sudhir. He deposed that he has brought original FIR.
Despite opportunity, accused did not cross examine the witness.
(3.3) Sh. Ajit Singh was examined as PW3. He deposed that he has son, namely, Subham, Sachin and Subodh. He deposed that Subhod is a student of 6th class and he is studying in a Govt. School in Sector12. He deposed that around 2 years ago, his son Subodh got injury on his ear in the school and someone called him about the same, thereafter he went to the school and there police officials met with him and they asked him about the reason of the injury. He further deposed that he did not know FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 3 of 17 the reason of the injury as some persons were saying that teacher/master namely Manoj had caused the abovsaid injury. He deposed that he asked her son Subodh about the reason of the injury then he replied that he had fall down in the school. He deposed that he gave a complaint of the abovesaid incident to the police the same is Ex.PW3/A. During cross examined by the Ld. Substitute APP, witness admitted that the complaint Ex. PW3/A has been given by him to the police and he also admitted that on 01.11.2014, teacher Manoj had slapped his son Subodh on his ear in the school due to which his son Subodh had paid in his ear.
During cross examined by the defence counsel, he admitted that the complaint Ex. PW3/A had been given by him by some other teacher of the school and he did not go the police station for giving his abovesaid statement and the same had been given in eh PS by some other teacher.
(3.4) Sh. Subodh was examined as PW4. He deposed that he did not the exact date but in the same year, when prayer was going on in his school, he saw that sharpner of one child who was standing ahead to him was fallen, thereafter, he picked up the same and handed over the child who was standing ahead to him, Manoj Kumar came near to him and slapped on his left ear. He deposed that due to this, blood was oozing from his ear, thereafter principal took him at a private clinic where doctor examined his ear and doctor told him that there is injury in the inner part of his ear in the presence of his father.
During cross examination (application u/s 311 Cr.P.C), he deposed that the prayer was performed in the morning at about 08:00AM on the FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 4 of 17 day of incident. He deposed that he did not remember the name of the students who were standing ahead of him. He deposed that on the day of incident, the blood was oozing from his left ear. He admitted that the blood stain were there on his shirt. He deposed that the said shirt was not handed over to the Police officer. He deposed that his medical examination was done by some Dr. Mr. Pahuja. He further deposed that he visited for his medical examination on the next day of incident. He admitted that his medical documents were prepared by the doctor. He deposed that police did not take him for the medical examination. He deposed that on the day of the incident he went to his house during the school time before school lunch time i.e. around 10:30AM. He deposed that his brother came to his school to take him home on the day of the incident at around 10:30AM. He deposed that his brother came to his school as the principal called his brother and informed him about his ear pain.
(3.5) Sh. Shubham was examined as PW5. He deposed that in the year 2014 his brother namely Subodh was studying in Pitambar Public School, Kishangarh, New Delhi. He deposed that his mother told him that one teacher namely Manoj slapped his brother Subodh when he was standing during the prayer of the school while he was giving sharpner to one of child who was standing ahead of his brother. He deposed that he called at 100 number, police came at around 7 to 8 PM. He deposed that his father gave a complaint to the police and he also narrated all incident to the police.
During cross examination, he deposed that he came to know about the incident in the evening when the blood was oozing from his brother's FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 5 of 17 ear. He deposed that he was not informed by the school principal about the ear pain of his brother. He deposed that the blood was not on his brother's shirt but blood was there in his ear. He deposed that his mother took his brother to the doctor and after sometime he also visited the clinic of doctor. He further deposed that he gave a complaint to the police on the day of the incident.
(3.6) Insp. Sudhir Kumar was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 05.11.2014 he received DD No. 76 B regarding a quarrel at Pitambar Public School, Kishangarh. he along with Ct. Ravinder had gone to the school where they met with Suman/Shubham along with the other family members and the victim Subhod. He deposed that on inquiring from victim's family they came to know that on 01.11.2014, the victim Subhod had picked up a fallen duster and was giving the same to his classmate while the prayer was going on. He further deposed that he was told that on this one of the teacher namely Manoj came there and had hit the victim a slap on his ears. He also deposed that he was told that the victim had informed about the incident to his parents when he reached the home. He deposed that he was told that the family members had reached the school to talk to the Principal and the Teacher regarding the incident. He deposed that he was told that the victim was taken to a nearby Ahuja clinic, Vasant Kunj. He also deposed that he was told that a settlement was done between the victim's family and accused but on 05.11.2014, as due to severe pain the ears of the victim the family of the victim had made a call to the PCR, however, the family members refused to give any written statement in this regard despite my insistence. He also deposed that he registered the case by making a Rukka which is now Ex. PW6/A. He FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 6 of 17 deposed that the family members of the victim were reluctant to join the investigation despite his insistence. He deposed that on15.11.2014, the family members of the victim came with an application requesting to close the case the same was taken on record and the same was already Ex. As PW 3/A. He deposed that he gave notice to the accused to join the investigation. He deposed that accused told him that he by mistake had slapped the victim on his ears and had taken him to the clinic as well and had settled the matter with the victim's family, however, he have not recorded his disclosure statement in this regard. He deposed that he asked the victim for his medical examination but all the time the family of the victim had refused for the same which is also mentioned in their aforesaid application. He deposed that he prepared the chargesheet.
During cross examination, he deposed that he received the DD on 05.11.2014. He deposed that he was in the Police Station when he received the DD. He deposed that he reached the spot via my own private vehicle. He deposed that whole family of the victim i.e. brother, mother etc. He deposed that he had inquired from the victim as well. He admitted that there is a delay of 05 days from the side of the complainant to lodge the complaint. He further deposed that the reason for the delay was stated to his by family members was that they had settled the matter with the accused. He deposed that he registered the FIR on the same day of receiving the DD. He admitted that the family of the victim had told him during the investigation that the PCR call was mistakenly done. He admitted that the family of the victim had refused for medical examination of the victim several times despite my several request in this regard. He also admitted that he never went to the house of the victim. He deposed FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 7 of 17 that he never visited the school on the date of incident. He admitted that that there is no medical document is placed on record to prove that the victim had received injuries on his ears. It is correct that I had not examined any public person. He deposed that he had not made witness any of the school children or teachers who were present in the Assembly prayers of the school on the date of incident. I had not examined the child whose sharpner had fallen and the victim was picking it up and was returning it to him. He deposed that he went to Ahuja Clinic but Ahuja Clinic did not provide any medical or treatment document regarding the victim. He deposed that doctor at Ahuja Clinic had told him that the victim had narrated the incident of his being slapped by the accused due to which ear drums were damaged. He deposed that he neither recorded the Doctor Ahuja's statement nor cited him as a witness and he neither examined the Principal of the School nor cited him as a witness. He admitted that there is no medical proof of immense pain which errupted on 05.11.2014 in the ear of the victim. He admitted that in all the said statements the witnesses has stated that no such incident had occurred and the PCR call was done mistakenly and even he child himself has stated in his statement u/s 161 CrPC that there is no incident of his ear drums being damaged.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC was recorded by the court. The accused stated that he has falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent person and no such incident had ever taken place. He stated that no blood stained clothes were ever recovered bythe police. He stated that no MLC of the victim was prepared FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 8 of 17 despite several requests made by IO. He stated that the victim attended the school for complete day on the day of incident and no complaint ever reached him regarding the said incident. Accused choose to lead DE.
5. Accused examined Ms.Rita Thakur as DW1. She deposed that he has come from school i.e. Pitamber Public School as principal in the said school. She deposed that accused had worked in the said school since from 20112016. She deposed that his behavior towards children was good and never any complaint came against him. She deposed that the child namely Subodh Chaudhary (admission no. 1041) was present in the school in class 4C on dated 01.11.2014. She further deposed that on the same day, no complaint was received from the said child or even on the next day no complaint was made by him to her. She deposed that on 5th of November, 2014, the said child did not attend the school and he was marked as absent and the child had attended the school on dated 01.11.2014 and 03.11.2014 for the full day. She deposed that no such incident was reported to her on dated 01.11.2014 or 03.11.2014. She has brought the attendance register in which the presence of abovesaid child is marked on the said date and same is now Ex.DW1/A (OSR) and the copy of the same was taken on record.
During cross examination, she admitted that she was not present at the spot when the abovesaid child was slapped by the accused and no CCTV camera was installed where the said incident took place.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. counsel for the accused and have perused the record carefully.
FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 9 of 17LEGAL POSITION
7. Before discussing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in detail, I find it apposite to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
8. Section 322 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous harm which is a punishable offence u/s 325 IPC. It reads as under:
"322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
Explanation.A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
9. "Grievous hurt" is defined in section 320 IPC in the following manner:
"Grievous hurt. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous": (First) Emasculation.
(Secondly) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) Privation of any member or joint. (Fifthly) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. (Sixthly) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (Seventhly) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 10 of 1710. A bare reading of the provision enshrined in section 322 IPC clearly suggests that the person causing hurt must have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt and the hurt which is caused in consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 IPC. It is not sufficient that the hurt which is caused is "grievous" if there is no prior intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra' 1982 SCC Online Bom 266 wherein while discussing the scope and applicability of section 325 IPC, it held the following:
"The Judge is not to trouble himself with seeking for direct proof of what the offender thought was likely to happen, but is to infer the nature of his act, taking him to have intended grievous hurt, or at least to have contemplated grievous hurt as likely to occur, when he did what everybody knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, and the more certainly drawing this conclusion where there is evidence of previous enmity against the party who was suffered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensure from it, then although grievous may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be his duty to convict the offender of simple hurt only. A person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and the intention correspond, or when grievous hurt has been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. Though grievous hurt may be caused in an assault, it does not at all follow that the person who assaulted is guilty of causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A person is only liable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code if he voluntarily cause grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt" according to section 322 means if he intends to cause grievous hurt or knew himself to be likely to cause such hurt."
11. The above mentioned ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of 'Rabari Varva Jesang Vs. State of Gujarat' 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 68 wherein it was held that :
"Courts should not overlook the act itself. In considering the act not only the result but knowledge or intention is to be considered. If the act was such that FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 11 of 17 nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensue from it, then, although grievous hurt may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be Court's duty to convict the offender of simple hurt, judging that grievous hurt was not in his contemplation; for, according to Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code, a person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and intention correspond or when grievous hurt had been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. In the instant case, from the act of the petitioneraccused intention of causing grievous hurt cannot be inferred. In view of this, the conviction of the petitioneraccused for the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be set aside."
12. Hence, conjoint reading of the provision enshrined in section 325 IPC and the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Courts enlightens that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt u/s 325 IPC only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge (while doing the said act) that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused.
13. Further, section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 reproduced hereinafter :
"Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed o neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both'.
14. Section 23 of the JJ Act stipulates for the punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child. It is an essential ingredient of section 23 of JJ Act that some sort of physical or mental cruelty must have had happened to the Juvenile. The factum of cruelty, either physical or mental, can be assessed from the deposition of the child/ victim or any other witnesses to that effect.
FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 12 of 17APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
15. Having discussed the legal positions involved in the present case, I shall now be discussing the culpability of the accused persons in the present case on the basis of materials available on record and in the backdrop of discussed legal position.
16. In total, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses. Out of these witnesses, PW3 is the father of victim/ complainant, PW4 is the victim and PW5 is the brother of the victim. PW1, PW2 and PW6 are police witnesses which are formal in nature.
Throughout the testimony of all the prosecution, the missing part is the consistency in the story of the witnesses. No two witnesses have deposed on similar lines qua the details of the offence or qua the investigation conducted. There are major contradictions available on record qua the testimony of all the witnesses. This is a classic case where the full criminal justice machinery was involved without any investigation being done by the IO. It is necessary to point out that the present offence relates to causing grievous hurt to the victim child but no MLC is on record to substantiate the same. Without MLC it becomes doubtful whether any injury happened or not ? This is further substantiated by the contradictory depositions of witnesses.
PW3 in his chief has deposed that he was informed about the incident by the school authorities and when he went to school, he met the police officials there itself. PW3 further deposed that when he asked his son/ victim/ PW4 about the injury, the victim/ son said that he had fallen down and received the injury. It is also important to point out a relevant piece of evidence which is Ex.PW3/A. Ex.PW3/A is a document written by the father of the complainant to FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 13 of 17 the IO requesting him to close the case as the PCR call was made by mistake and no injury has been caused to his victim son namely Subodh.
17. Further, PW4 who is the victim, in his testimony has deposed that he was taken by the Principal to a private clinic of doctor Pahuja. At this stage, it is important to point that during the testimony of all the witnesses, the private clinic to which the victim was taken, has been referred as Dr. Ahuja, but PW4/ victim in his testimony has stated the said doctor to be Dr. Pahuja. Be that as it may, the relevant point is that neither any MLC of the private Doctor Ahuja/ Pahuja is on record, nor Dr. Ahuja/ Pahuja is a prosecution witness to prove the injury of the victim/ PW4. It is a case where the injury in itself has become a questionable point. It is not clear to this Court whether any injury actually happened or not. It is not clear to this Court as to how the charge was framed in this case without any MLC being on record. When the injury in itself is questionable, there is no point dwelveing into the question of simple or grievous injury. This was a fit case where the IO ought to have filed a cancellation or a closure because there are no record of whatsoever nature to prove the existence of any injury to the victim child/ PW4. Even if I do not take into consideration the point of MLC, the IO had not seized any cloth/ shirt of the victim in which it is alleged that blood stains were found after the victim was hit by the accused. PW4 has very specifically in his crossexamination stated that when he was slapped by the accused, blood started oozing out from his left ear and it got spread on his shirt. PW4 has also stated during his crossexamination that school authorities have informed about the incident to his brother and his brother came to pick him from the school. On the other hand, PW3 has stated that he was informed about the incident by the school authorities and it was he who reached on the spot first.
FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 14 of 1718. PW5 was examined and has deposed that he was informed qua the slapping of his brother (PW4) by the accused and he reached the spot. No details in the nature of date, time or incident, is there in his deposition. It is surprising to see that PW5 was neither crossexamined by the prosecution, nor any leading question was put to the witness. During his crossexamination, PW5 deposed that the victim child/ PW4 was taken to the Doctor by his mother. Again at the cost of repetition, it is important to point out that all the witnesses have given a different account of story as to how the incident happened, who was informed about the incident, who reached at the spot first, who took the victim child to the doctor and what treatment was advised by the doctor.
19. PW6 was examined as IO and he has deposed that on 05.11.2014, PCR Call was received vide DD No.76B regarding of tearing of ear drum of a boy by the teacher/ accused. IO has further deposed that he reached on the spot and was informed by the mother of the victim that his child was slapped by the accused on 01.11.2014 and as a result of the same, ear drum of the victim has raptured. IO has deposed that he insisted the family person to go for medical examination but the same was refused by the victim and the family person of the victim. At this juncture, it is important to point out that the incident relates to date 01.11.2014 and the PCR call was made on 05.11.2014 but it is not clear as to how the IO registered an FIR U/s 325 IPC without having any MLC qua the same and any other document that can show that grievous injury was caused to the victim. During crossexamination, IO has specifically deposed that no medical of the victim was conducted even after the registration of FIR. IO has also deposed that no Principal, students, teachers or any other person present at the spot of incident was made a witness, or even statement U/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded. IO has failed FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 15 of 17 to explain as to why Dr. Ahuja/ Pahuja was not made to join the investigation as witness when it is on record that Dr. Ahuja/ Pahuja was the one who conducted medical examination of the victim.
20. As a result of reading the entire evidence alongwith the records at hand, major drawback appears in the investigation done by the IO, some of them are pointed below : i. Without any MLC, how FIR U/s 325 IPC was registered ?
ii. What efforts were made by the IO to collect the MLC/ medical record from Dr. Ahuja/ Pahuja ?
iii. Why was Dr. Ahuja/ Pahuja not made a witness to enter the witness box of this Court ?
iv. Why the shirt of the victim having blood stains was not seized by the IO ?
v. What investigation qua the cruelty of the child U/s 23 JJ Act was conducted by the IO ?
ORDER :
21. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presummed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is always on prosecution and it never shifts. I find major contradictions in the testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW5. Not only major contradictions, there is no MLC to support whether any injury was caused to the victim child/ PW4, let alone simple or grievous in nature. During the crossexamination, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have frequently changed their versions and have not remained consistent.
FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 16 of 1722. Prosecution was under a duty to prove that injury was caused to the victim child and the same was caused by the accused. But in the absence of any material on record to substantiate that injury was caused to the victim child, it cannot be proceeded further to examine whether the injury was caused by the accused or not. In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid reasons, it is not safe to convict the accused for the offence U/s 325 IPC on inconsistent testimonies and in the absence of proof of injury.
23. As regarding section 23 of JJ Act, there is not even an iota of evidence available to support that any sort of cruelty, mental or physical, was caused to the victim child by the accused. There is nothing in the testimony of either PW3, PW4 or PW5 to suggest that the accused caused any cruelty on the victim child.
24. Hence, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and accused namely Manoj Kumar is acquitted of offence punishable U/s 325 IPC and section 23 of JJ Act.
25. File be consigned to record room.
26. This judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR TRIPATHI MANI MANI Date: TRIPATHI 2023.08.10 16:35:06 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi) 10th August 2023 MM02/ PHC/ NND/ Delhi FIR No. 963/2014 PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Manoj Kumar Page 17 of 17