Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/99/2000 on 25 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 99/2000
Police Station: Najafgarh
under Section 325 IPC
(a) Serial number of the case : 02403RO146752003
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 25.02.2000
(c) The name of the complainant : Sh. Meer Singh S/o late Sh.
Shankar Lal R/o VPO
Paprawat, Delhi
(d) The name of the accused persons/s : Kuldeep @ Mulia S/o Sh.
his parentage and residence Rattan Singh R/o VPO
Paprawat, Delhi
(e) The offence complained of or : Under Section 325 IPC
proved
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquitted
(h) The date of such order : 25.04.2011
(i) In all cases in which an appeal lies : A brief statement of the
reason for the decision as
follows:
Police case was instituted on: 15.05.2000
Arguments were advanced on:25.04.2011
Judgment is announced on: 25.04.2011
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 25.02.2000 at about 09:45 AM at Harijan chowk near the house of Sh. Meer Singh, village Paprawat, Najafgarh, accused voluntarily caused grievous injuries to complainant on the issue of taking water.
FIR No. 99/2000 P.S. Najafgarh 1 of 3
2. On appearance of the accused, a charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined only one witness as PW1 HC Raj Kumar who deposed that on 25.02.2000, he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on receiving of DD No. 13 A regarding a quarrel, he alongwith IO HC Satbir went to the spot at village Paprawat where they came to know that quarrel took place on the issue of taking water from tank and injured was already removed to hospital by PCR van. PW1 further deposed that he alongwith IO went to Orthoplus hospital where injured/complainant Sh. Meer Singh was found admitted. IO recorded his statement and prepared rukka which was handed over to PW1 for registration of case. He further deposed about registration of case, arrest and personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW1/A.
4. Despite giving various opportunities, prosecution failed to examine any other witness. Case was kept pending for prosecution evidence for the last six years. In the present case, as per the list of witnesses only one eye witness is cited as Sh. Meer Singh. Summons issued to him received back with report expired. Report was duly forwarded by concerned SHO. PE was closed as in the absence of examination of injured person/eye witness Sh. Meer Singh, no useful purpose would be served by examining the police officials who were merely formal witnesses. As there was no incriminating evidence against accused, statement of accused was dispensed with. Final arguments were heard.
5. From the above facts, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under FIR No. 99/2000 P.S. Najafgarh 2 of 3 Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, in view above facts, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence under Section 325 IPC against the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 325 IPC.
6. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court On 25.04.2011 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka District Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 99/2000 P.S. Najafgarh 3 of 3