Delhi District Court
State vs Anar Singh on 27 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 92/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0329072012
State
Versus
1. Anar Singh
Son of Ganga Sahai
R/o A228, Guru Nanak Marg,
Kewal Park, Delhi.
2. Mukesh
son of Anar Singh
R/o A228, Guru Nanak Marg, Kewal Park,
Delhi.
3. Bambla @ Bablu
S/o Ved Parkash
R/O Village Zamrudpur, Patri Sia Ram College,
Delhi
Also at: Vill Bela Rasoolpur, Distt. Baduan U.P.
FIR No. 12/10
PS - Adarsh Nagar
U/s. 341/324/325/308/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 17/11/2012
Arguments heard on: 27/07/2013
Date of Decision: 27/07/2013.
JUDGMENT
A case was registered on the complaint of one Jeetu son of Sh. Netrapal on 11/01/2010 u/s 323/324/34 of IPC. Prior to that, DD no.34B dated 10/01/10 was recorded at about 9.04 pm regarding quarrel at House no. 223/224, Azad Pur, SC No. 92/1 1/4 Kewal Park and copy of same was sent to SI A.P.Singh for necessary action.
During investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Accused Anar Singh, Mukesh Kumar were arrested on 11/01/2010, u/s 323/324/34 of IPC and their arrest memos were prepared. MLCs of injured persons namely Jeetu, Netrapal, Baini Ram and Bhudevi were collected and as per the opinion on MLCs, sections 325/308 of IPC were also added. Again accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar, Anar Singh and Bhambla @ Bablu were arrested. Personal searches of the accused persons were conducted and memos in this regard were prepared. Disclosure statements of all three accused persons were recorded.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all three accused persons before the Court on 29/03/12. Same was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was received on 18122012.
After hearing the arguments on charge, charge was framed against both the accused persons u/s 324/325/323/308/34 of IPC, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case prosecution has examined only PW1 to PW6 in all. PW1 is HC Raj Rani, who was working as Duty officer on 11/01/2010, at PS Adarsh Nagar from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. She has recorded the FIR of this case on receipt of rukka at about 11.30 am from SI A.P. Singh. PW1 has also proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and her endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. He has also made kayami DD no.16A.
PW2 Jeetu, complainant has stated that 10.01.2010, in the night, a quarrel had taken place outside his house in the Gali. There was crowd and light had gone so he could not see who had caused injuries to him with some sharp article. His father Nater Pal, mother Bhu Devi and tau Beni Ram had also reached at the spot and when they try to save him, those person had also caused injuries to his father, mother and tau. After sustaining injuries, he became unconscious and he regained his consciousness at about 04.0005.00 a.m. in the BJRM hospital. His mother, father SC No. 92/1 2/4 and tau were also present in the hospital. He was discharged at about 11.00 a.m and his family persons were also discharged at that time and they came to their house.
PW2 has further deposed that his father had contacted the police on the next day and Police made inquiries from him and he had told that some unknown persons had caused injuries to them. His statement was not recorded by the police. He might have signed his statement later on, which is appearing on Ex.PW2/A but he does not know the contents of his statement.
This witness has not supported the case of prosecution, so he has been cross examined by Ld APP at length, wherein again he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
PW2 HC Prahlad has recorded DD no.34B regarding quarrel at House no. 223/224, Azadpur Kewal park and sent the copy of same to SI A.P. Singh through Ct Ravi of DHG. He has proved the copy of DD as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Netrapal has stated that on 10/01/10, in the evening, he was present at his house. At that time, his brother Beni Ram was also present at his house as he had come to meet him. At about 8.30 p.m., he heard the noise of shouting of his son, at which, he alongwith his brother Beni Ram and his wife had come out of the house on Guru Nanak Marg, where some persons were beating his son Jeetu. When they tried to save Jeetu, those persons also caused injuries to them also. As it was dark, after causing injuries, those persons ran away from the spot. Later on, on 14/01/2010, police had met him and made inquiries from him and also recorded his statement, wherein he had stated the above facts to the police. He could not see those persons as it was dark at night, hence, could not identify them. He knows the accused persons as they are his neighbour but they had not caused injuries to them.
This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution, so he has been cross examined by Ld APP at length, wherein again he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
PW5 Bhudevi and PW6 Sh Beni Ram have also deposed the same facts as SC No. 92/1 3/4 stated by above two witnesses. They have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have not identified the accused persons as the same persons, who had caused injuries to them. These both witnesses have also been cross examined by Ld APP wherein again they have not supported the case of prosecution.
As none of the injured/eye witness has supported the case of prosecution, hence prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, so they are acquitted for offences 341/324/325/308/34 of IPC.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 27th of July, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 92/1 4/4