Delhi District Court
Case No.57927/16 State vs Arun Kumar Page No. 1 / 9 on 21 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE NO. 57927/2016
FIR No. 404/13
P.S Janak Puri
U/S 308/323 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
ARUN KUMAR
S/O SH.JAI SINGH
R/O A4/8, P & T COLONY,
JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.07.2016
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21.12.2016
DATE OF DECISION : 21.12.2016
JUDGEMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2013 on receiving DD no.62B by SI Mukesh regarding admission of Mahipal Singh in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital vide MLC No. 5121/13, he reached at the hospital, where he had collected the MLC no. 5121/13 and as the injured was not in a fit condition, his statement could not be recorded by SI Mukesh and DD no. 62B was kept pending. On 01.11.2013, complainant Jaidev S/o Sh.Mahipal Singh reached at the PS and got recorded his statement wherein he has stated that Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 1 / 9 he is studying in 11th Class. On 31.10.2013, at about 04:00 PM, He was playing in the park of B Block alongwith his two friends namely Vishnu and Shreyansh, where accused Arun & his friends were already playing. In the meanwhile, an altercation took place between them on the issue of place of playing Cricket and accused Arun caused head injuries by dragging him on the ground. He has further stated that thereafter, one local resident namely Sh.Ramesh had intervened in the matter and settled the same and thereafter, Sh.Ramesh left the said Park. Thereafter, his father Sh.Mahipal Singh came at the spot and saw the injury on the head of his son. He enquired from accused Arun about the injury, upon which, accused Arun had abused his father and hit him with Cricket Bat on his head. On receiving the head injury, his father Sh.Mahipal Singh fell down on the ground and thereafter, accused Arun fled away from the spot. The injured Sh.Mahipal Singh was taken to Mata Chanan Devi hospital, where he has been treated.
2. On the basis of statement of complainant Jaidev, case FIR no.404/13 U/s 308/323 IPC was registered and the investigation of this case was carried out. During investigation, Jaidev was also got medically examined and his MLC was collected. Accused was arrested. His personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded and in pursuance to which, one Cricket Bat and three Wickets were taken into possession vide seizure memo. MLC of injured was collected and thereafter Section 323 IPC was added. MLC of injured Mahipal Singh was collected Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 2 / 9 upon which the doctor had opined the nature of injuries as "Grievous". After completion of the proceedings, charge sheet U/s 308/323 IPC was filed against the accused.
U/s 308/323 IPC was filed against the accused.
3. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 308/323 IPC against the accused was framed by this Court on 07.09.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses i.e. i.e.PW1 Sh.Mahipal Singh, PW2 Sh.Jaidev and PW3 Sh.Shreyansh.
5. PW1 Sh.Mahipal Singh has deposed that he did not remember the date of incident. His son Jaidev, aged about 18 years, was playing in park of B Block in P&T Colony, Janak Puri, Delhi, with some other children. He was returning from his office. While playing his son Jaidev had suffered some injuries and he was taking his son to hospital, in the meanwhile, some hard object struck on his head. He has further stated that he did not know with which he got the injury. He had not seen the person who had thrown that hard object against him.
This witness was turned hostile and crossexamined by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State, wherein he has admitted that after getting injured, he fell unconscious and he was taken to Mata Chanan Devi hospital. He has also admitted that police had made enquiries from him, however, he did not know if police had recorded his statement and no statement was readover and explained to him. He has further stated that he had not given any statement mark PW1/A to the police. This witness has denied Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 3 / 9 the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he is deposing falsely that police had not recorded his statement on 12.12.2013 and statement Mark PW1/A was recorded on his narration and he had after reading the same, admitted it to be correct. This witness has admitted that the incident took place on 31.10.2013 at about 04:00 PM. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he came to know that his son Jaidev had been beaten by Arun and he had gone in the park and asked Arun as to why he had beaten his son. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that when he was addressing accused for his bad conduct, he had hit with the cricket bat on his head. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he is deliberately not deposing against the accused Arun as he has compromised the matter with him. This witness has admitted that father of accused is also working in same department where he is working and he reside in the same colony where accused lives alongwith his family. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that being residents of same colony, he has compromised with the accused.
6. PW2 Sh.Jaidev has deposed that he is studying in B.Com (Hons.) IInd Year. However, he did not remember the date of incident. He has further stated that in the evening, on the relevant date, he was playing alongwith his friends in B Block park in P & T Colony. While playing, he fell down and suffered injury on his forehead. Someone informed his father and his father came there Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 4 / 9 and was taking him to hospital. In the meanwhile, something struck on the head of his father. He could not see who had thrown that hard object, which hit his father. He has further stated that his father fell unconscious and he was taken to Mata Chanan Devi hospital. Police reached there and told him to visit PS alongwith his father. This witness has further stated that on the next day, he had gone to PS, where he was made to sign some documents. He had not read the contents of those documents. He has further stated that he had not given any statement to the police and Ex.PW2/A is not his statement. However, this witness has identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW2/A. He has further stated that he had never given any such statement as recorded vide Ex.PW2/A. This witness was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State wherein he has denied the suggestion that he alongwith his father have compromised the matter with accused Arun as they live in the same colony. This witness has admitted the date of incident as 31.10.2013. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that accused Arun had beaten him on the issue of place of playing cricket and caused head injuries by dragging him on the ground. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that one local resident Sh.Ramesh had settled down their quarrels. This wtiness has admitted that his father had reached in the park and asked him about the injuries suffered by him. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 5 / 9 Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he had stated that accused Arun had caused him the injuries. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that accused Arun had abused his father and hit his father with cricket bat on his head causing him severe injuries. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he has deposed falsely that police had obtained his signatures without allowing him to read contents of Ex. PW2/A and his statement was recorded correctly as narrated by him by the police. This witness has identified his signatures at point A on Ex.PW2/B. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that Site plan Ex.PW2/B was prepared at his instance. This witness has admitted the suggestion that accused Arun was arrested vide Memo Ex.PW2/C in his presence. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that police had seized Cricket Bat vide Seizure memo Ex.PW2/D, however, he has identified his signatures at point A. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that police had not seized the cricket bat alongwith the wickets and the bat which accused had used to hit his father was seized by the police. This witness has Voluntarily deposed that he did not know whether his father suffered injury with the bat or not. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he is deliberately deposing falsely in order to avoid conviction for the accused as they have compromised with him. He has further stated that statement Mark PW2/E was never recorded by the Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 6 / 9 police at his narration. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that police had seized the offending Cricket Bat alongwith the Wickets after keeping the same in a cloth pullanda and he is deposing falsely in favour of the accused.
7. PW3 Sh.Shreyansh has deposed that he did not remember the date of incident. His friend Jaidev, who resides in their colony had suffered head injury while playing in the park. His father came there and tried to take him to the doctor. In the meanwhile, some hard object hit the father of Jaidev. He had not seen the object as well as the person, who had struck that object against Sh.Mahipal, father of Jaidev.
This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State, wherein he has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely and suppressing true facts at the instance of accused Arun as well as Sh.Mahipal. He has further denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that keeping in view the compromised arrived at between accused and Sh.Mahipal, he is deposing falsely. He has further denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that statement Mark PW3/A was recorded by the police on his narration and accused Arun had hit Sh.Mahipal with Cricket Bat on his head. It is wrong to suggest that he has deposed falsely that statement Mark PW3/A was not recorded on his narration.
8. I have heard Sh.Kailash Nath, ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State and perused the record carefully. and Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State and Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 7 / 9
9. In the present case, PW1 Sh.Mahipal Singh and PW2 Jaidev are injured witnesses. However, they both have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 Sh.Mahipal Singh has deposed that when he reached in the park, he saw his son Jaidev had suffered some injuries and when he was taking him to hospital, in the meanwhile, some hard object struck on his head, however he did not know with which he got the injury as he had not seen the person who had thrown that hard object against him. This witness was declared hostile and crossexamined by the ld.Addl.P.P.for the State wherein he has denied all the suggestions put to him. He has also denied the suggestion put to him by the ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that he is deliberately not deposing against the accused as he has compromised the matter with him being the same residents.
10.PW2 Jaidev has deposed that while playing, he fell down and suffered injury on his forehead. Someone informed his father and he reached at the spot and while taking him to hospital, something struck on the head of his father, however, he could not see who had thrown that hard object, which hit his father. This witness was also declared hostile and crossexamined by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State wherein he has denied the suggestion put to him that he is deliberately deposing falsely in order to avoid conviction for the accused as they have compromised with him.
11.PW3 Shreyansh is friend of PW2 Jaidev. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and was crossexamined by Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 8 / 9 the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State wherein he has denied all the suggestions put to him.
12. I am of the view that testimonies of other witnesses were formal in nature and no purpose will be served by keeping the matter for further P.E. Accordingly, PE was ordered to be closed.
13.As no incriminating evidence has come against the accused, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be dispensed with.
14.In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Arun Kumar is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 308/323 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount in view of Provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
15.Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after expiry of period of filing appeal, if any.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA)
COURT ON: 21.12.2016 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.
Case No.57927/16 State Vs.Arun Kumar Page No. 9 / 9