Delhi District Court
State vs . Guddu, Kalpnath And Rajinder, Fir No. ... on 25 October, 2012
State Vs. Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder, FIR No. 525/06, P.S. Model Town, U/s 323/324/34 IPC IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. : 525/06 PS: Model Town U/s: 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Guddu, Kalp Nath and Rajinder JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 356/06
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.03.2007
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 17.08.2006
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Brahamdev Pathak
E. NAME OF THE : (1) Guddu
ACCUSED S/o Sh. Hiralal
(2) Kalpnath
S/o Sh. Hiralal
(3) Rajinder
S/o Sh. Jai Ram
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s 323/324/34 IPC
G PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquitted.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 25.10.2012
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as unfolded from the Page No. 1 State Vs. Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder, FIR No. 525/06, P.S. Model Town, U/s 323/324/34 IPC chargesheet are that on 17.08.2006 at about 10:00 pm at , Plot No. A40, Opposite Industrial Service Lane, Jhuggi Kaushal Puri, Delhi, the accused persons namely Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder Kumar in furtherance of their common intention gave slaps and fist blows to the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pahtak and they voluntarily caused simple injuries to him. It is further alleged that the accused Guddu gave a teeth bite on the chest of the complainant and thereby voluntarily caused simple hurt to him. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak, the present FIR No. 525/06, u/s 323/324/34 IPC was registered at PS Model Town, Delhi against all the three accused persons. On conclusion of the investigation, the present challan u/s 323/324/34 IPC was filed in the court.
2. All the accused persons were summoned by the court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to all the three accused persons namely Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder Kumar. Prima facie charge U/s. 323/324/34 IPC was made out against all the accused persons. Accordingly, on 15.04.2011 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In the instant case, no witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case.
4. The complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak and the other person namely Smt. Subhadara Devi are the only alleged eyewitnesses of the incident. However, the said witnesses have remained untraceable, with the report that their jhuggi have been demolished. Thus, no prolific purpose would have been served by summoning the said witnesses at the same address. They were even summoned through DCP N/W, but it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal Page No. 2 State Vs. Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder, FIR No. 525/06, P.S. Model Town, U/s 323/324/34 IPC witnesses, who are admittedly not the eyewitness to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the said witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.
5. In the case in hand, no witness has been examined by prosecution and therefore, no incriminating evidence against them in respect of the offence U/s 323/324/34 IPC has come on record. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against either of the three accused persons, therefore, their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with. Subsequently, the case was listed for final arguments.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused . I have carefully perused the case file.
7. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
8. In the present case, there are two alleged eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak and Smt. Subhadra Devi. However, they have remained untraceable. The said witnesses are vital/material/crucial witnesses for proving the prosecution version as the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the foundation laid down by the statements given by them to the police. The nonexamination of the said witnesses has proved fatal to the prosecution case as in absence of their indispensable testimony the prosecution case cannot be substantiated. Therefore, the prosecution version as well as the complaint of the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak has remained unproved.
Page No. 3State Vs. Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder, FIR No. 525/06, P.S. Model Town, U/s 323/324/34 IPC
9. If, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed to have been established that the complainant/injured Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak sustained injuries in an incident that occurred on date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution, in that case also it cannot be conclusively inferred that he received the said injuries due to criminal assault committed by the accused persons, unless the identity of the perpetrator of the said offence is established beyond any reasonable doubt. The identity of the accused persons is most germane aspect of the criminal trial. In the present case, no witness has appeared in the court to identify the accused persons as perpetrator of the present offence. Therefore, identity of the accused persons have not been established. Thus, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused persons to substantiate the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the culpability of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading convincing and cogent evidence and thus, it has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it. Hence, all the three accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the accused persons namely Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder are acquitted for the offences U/s 323/324/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DHEERAJ MOR)
Today i.e. 25.10.2012. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Page No. 4
State Vs. Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder, FIR No. 525/06, P.S. Model Town, U/s 323/324/34 IPC FIR NO. : 525/06 PS: Model Town U/s: 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Guddu, Kalp Nath and Rajinder File taken up today as 23.10.2012 was holiday on account of Dusshera.
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the state.
All the three accused persons namely Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder are on bail with counsel.
No PW is present.
Summons issued to the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak and Smt. Subhadara Devi through D.C.P., N/W, received back with the report that they are not traceable as their respective jhuggies have been demolished. Therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by issuing fresh summons to the said witnesses at the same address.
In the instant case, complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar Pathak and Smt. Subhadara Devi are the only eyewitnesses to the incident and several opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to examine the said witnesses. But they have remained untraceable. This time summons to the said witnesses, were issued through DCP concerned. But it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are admittedly formal witnesses, who are not the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Therefore, they are not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused persons for the offence U/s 323/324/34 IPC. Hence, the examination of the remaining witnesses shall be a futile exercise. Thus, PE stands closed.
In the instant case, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. Therefore, the statements of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. P. C. are dispensed with.
Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
Vide separate judgment of even date announced in the open Court the accused persons namely Guddu, Kalpnath and Rajinder stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 323/324/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for next six months.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi/25.10.2012 Page No. 5