Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit @ Mita And Another on 22 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT), SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
CNR No. DLSW01-008177-2018
Sessions Case No. 242/2018
STATE Vs. AMIT @ MITA AND ANOTHER
FIR No : 171/2017
Police Station : Jaffarpur Kalan
Under Section : 307/308/341/34 IPC & 25/27
Arms Act
Date of institution : 22.02.2018
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 04.04.2018
Date of receipt by way of transfer : 21.12.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 11.07.2023
Date of judgment : 22.07.2023
a) Serial number of the case 242/2018
b) Date of commission of 20.09.2017
offence
c) Name of the complainant Sh. Rohit
d) Name, parentage and 1. Amit @ Mita s/o Late Sh.
addresses of the accused Krishan r/o VPO Gubhana,
persons Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana
2. Vinayak @ Sonu s/o Krishan
Murari r/o VPO Kair, New
Delhi
State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 1 of 18
e) Offence complained of Under Section 307/308/341/34
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
f) Plea of accused Both accused persons pleaded
not guilty
g) Final order Accused Amit @ Mita
acquitted of the offences
punishable u/s 307/34, 308/34
and 341/34 IPC
Accused Vinayak @ Sonu
acquitted of the offences
punishable u/s 307/34, 308/34
and 341/34 IPC as well as u/s
25 and 27 Arms Act
h) Date of Final order 22.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the accused Amit @ Mita is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC and accused Vinayak @ Sonu is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC as well as Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in the instant case FIR No. 171/2017 Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2017 at about 09:45 pm, at Firni Road, in front of Government school, Village State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 2 of 18Kair, New Delhi, accused persons namely Amit @ Mita and Vinayak @ Sonu wrongfully restrained the complainant Rohit, his uncle Ratan and his friend Kalu @ Gandhi Gulia by stopping their motorcycle in front of their tractor. Accused Amit @ Mita gave a blow on the head of Ratan with a stone slab (silli) and accused Vinayak @ Sonu attempted to kill the complainant Rohit by firing at him with a pistol. The said pistol, which had been snatched by the complainant Rohit and injured Ratan from the possession of accused Vinayak @ Sonu, was found loaded with three live cartridges.
3. The circumstances setting the criminal law into motion, as per the record of the case, are that on receipt of DD No. 40A dated 20.09.2017 qua the aforesaid incident, the investigating officer/PW-6 Sub-Inspector Ram Niwas alongwith Constable Devender reached at the spot i.e. in front of Government School, Kair village. Thereafter, investigating officer received DD No.41A regarding the admission of injured Ratan in the emergency ward at RTRM Hospital and he along with Constable Devender went to RTRM Hospital, where injured Ratan was found admitted and the doctor declared him unfit for statement. There, the investigating officer met the complainant Rohit, who produced one country made pistol and upon checking the same two live rounds were found in magazine and one live round was found in its barrel. Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant. On the basis of said statement, the investigating officer prepared rukka and present FIR was registered on 21.09.2017 at around 11:45 am. During investigation, site plan was prepared at the instance of State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 3 of 18complainant. Accused Amit @ Mita was arrested on 14.10.2017, his personal search was conduced and disclosure statement was also recorded. On receipt of information regarding apprehension of accused Vinayak @ Sonu by Haryana Police on 21.11.2017, the investigating officer formally arrested the said accused and recorded his disclosure statement. Identification memo was prepared at the instance of accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. In light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 04.04.2018, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
6. Vide order dated 01.09.2018 passed by Mr. Vivek Kumar Gulia, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, South West, Delhi, charge for the offences punishable under Section 307/34, Section 308/34 & Section 341/34 IPC was framed against the accused Amit @ Mita and separate charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34, Section 308/34 and Section 341/34 IPC and Section 25 & 27 Arms Act was framed against accused Vinayak @ Sonu. The charge was read over and explained to both the accused persons, State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 4 of 18who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
7. In accordance with the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., accused persons were called upon to admit or deny the relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution. Both the accused persons admitted the factum of preparation and genuineness of
(i) FIR No.171/2017, (ii) certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 40-A dated 20.09.2017, GD No.41A dated 20.09.2017, GD No.43A dated 20.09.2017, TIP proceedings of accused Amit @ Mita, MLC No.5079/17 of Ratan dated 20.09.2017, X-ray report of Ratan dated 20.09.2017, FSL report No.2017/F-8845 dated 21.02.2018 and sanction under Section 39 Arms Act dated 30.08.2018 which were accordingly, exhibited as Ex. A-1, Ex. A2, Ex. A3, Ex. A4, Ex. A5, Ex. A6, Ex. A7, Ex. A8, Ex. A9 and Ex. A10 respectively. In view of the same, prosecution witnesses namely PW Dr. Deepak Bhaskar, Dr. Nisha Gurgar, lady Head Constable Kusumlata, Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Karan, lady Head Constable Pinki, Constable Umeer, Mr. Mridul Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal), Dwarka Courts, Mr. Avinash Srivastav, Senior Scientific Officer Ballistics and Mr. Santosh Kumar Meena, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dwarka were dropped from the list of witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons.
State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 5 of 189. PW-1 Sh. Rohit is the complainant, PW-2 Sh. Ratan @ Dana is the injured and PW-3 Sh Kalu @ Gandhi Gulia is the driver of the tractor. They are all eye-witnesses to the alleged incident.
10. PW-4 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh is a relative/neighbour of the complainant who had removed the injured Ratan to the hospital in his car.
11. PW-5 Ms. Jyoti is the Head Mistress, Government Primary School, Gobhana, Jhajjar, Haryana who had brought the record pertaining to the date of birth of the accused Amit @ Mita.
12. PW-6 Sub Inspector Ram Niwas is the investigating officer in the present case. PW-7 Head Constable Kuldeep Yadav had participated in the investigation of the present case.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
13. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, vide order dated 05.06.2023, both accused persons have denied the entire incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that no public witness has deposed against them. Accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
14. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Mr. Girish Kumar Manhas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Mayank Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons have been duly considered.
State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 6 of 18ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons in respect of the offences punishable under Section 307/308/341/34 IPC and Section 25 & 27 Arms Act, the prosecution was required to prove the identity of the accused persons as the assailants, the factum of attack by accused Amit @ Mita with stone slab (patthar ki silli) upon the head of the injured Rattan, the factum of happening of the alleged incident of firing of bullet by accused Vinayak @ Sonu at the complainant in the alleged manner, the factum of use of the country made pistol by accused Vinayak @ Sonu in the incident and the factum of recovery of country made pistol as alleged.
16. For proving the aforesaid aspects, the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses, out of which PW-1/complainant Rohit, PW-2 injured Ratan @ Dana, PW-3 Sh. Kalu @ Gandhi Gulia and PW-4 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh are the most important witnesses being the victim/injured and eye-witnesses of the alleged incident.
17. PW-1 Sh. Rohit is the complainant and one of the victims in the present case. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 29.09.2017, when he was going to his house at Jagratpur with his uncle Ratan and friend Kallu@Gandhi after emptying the tractor and had reached at Phirni road, near school Kair village, at about 9:45 pm, two boys, who were coming on Pulsar motorcycle from opposite side, stopped their motorcycle on the speed breaker, in front of the tractor. He further deposed that State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 7 of 18when they requested them to get aside, the said boys became furious and one of them took out a pistol like arm. He deposed that Kallu @ Gandhi, who was driving the tractor, accelerated the tractor, however, before that his uncle Ratan had already gotten down from the tractor. He deposed that at some distance he asked Kallu to stop the tractor near a turn as his uncle Ratan had been left behind and in the meantime one of his uncles namely Mr. Vijay Pal also came there. He deposed that he alongwith his uncle Vijay Pal immediately reached at the spot and found the said two boys scuffling with his uncle Ratan. He deposed that with the help of his uncle Vijay Pal he saved his uncle Ratan. He further deposed that he caught hold of one of the two boys and in the meantime the other boy picked up a sandstone (silli) which was lying nearby and hit the same on the head of his uncle Ratan and fled away. He deposed that he apprehended the boy who was carrying pistol like arm and his uncle Vijay Pal snatched the arm from the possession of the said boy. He deposed that the other boy, who had been caught hold of by him, also fled away from the spot after releasing himself from his hands. He deposed that he cannot identify the said two boys. He deposed that he with the help of his uncle Vijay Pal removed his uncle Ratan to RTRM hospital, J.P. Kalan. He deposed that his uncle Vijay Pal had handed over the said pistol to a police official in the hospital itself. He deposed that his statement Ex. PW1/1, bearing his signature at point A, was recorded by the police in the police station. He deposed that during investigation, he had shown the spot to the police and police prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/2, bearing his signature at State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 8 of 18point A. He deposed that he cannot identify even the pistol which was snatched from one of the boys at the spot by his uncle Vijay Pal. He deposed that his uncle Vijay Pal can identify the said pistol. He deposed that he did not know anything else.
18. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State as he was resiling from his previous statement on the point of identification. In his cross-examination on behalf of the State, the complainant PW-1 admitted that he had narrated the true facts in his statement Ex. PW1/1 given to the investigating officer. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had threatened him and his uncle Ratan, "Tum jante nahi mera naam Sonu hai aur sabhi log mujhse darte hai". Despite the accused persons having been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, PW-1 failed to identify them as the assailants and stated that he did not know them. He deposed that he could not say whether the accused persons were the persons who had attacked him and his uncle and fired upon him as it was dark and he could not see their faces. He deposed that the quarrel had lasted for about 10 minutes till he and his uncle Vijay Pal reached the spot. He admitted that he had overpowered the person who was carrying the pistol and his uncle had snatched the pistol. He denied the suggestion that it was accused Vinayak @ Sonu who had been overpowered by him and from whose hand the katta had been snatched by his uncle Vijay Pal. He deposed that police officials had gone to Kair Village and brought one person with them, however, that person was not the person who had attacked them. He denied having given the statement Mark PW-
State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 9 of 181/1. He denied the suggestion that he had gone with police officials to the house of accused Vinayak @ Sonu where his parents met them and told them that they were not aware about whereabouts of accused Vinayak @ Sonu. He denied the suggestion that accused Vinayak @ Sonu was previously known to him or that he had entered into out of court settlement with accused persons or that he was deliberately deposing falsely with intent to save the accused persons.
19. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 complainant shows that while he has affirmed the prosecution version regarding occurrence of the incident of quarrel, he has deposed that the same had occurred on 29.09.2017, rather than 20.09.2017, which is the date of occurrence mentioned in the tehrir Ex.PW1/1. Further, his testimony in the court is inconsistent with the version contained in his complaint/tehrir Ex.PW1/1. While in the complaint Ex.PW1/1, he has stated that he and his uncle had both got down from the tractor after the accused persons had started abusing them, in his testimony as PW-1, the complainant has deposed that only his uncle Ratan had gotten off the tractor and he had returned to the spot after getting the tractor stopped at some distance. While in his complaint Ex.PW1/1, the complainant has stated that Mr. Vijay Pal, who belonged to his village, had arrived at the spot after the offenders had fled from the spot on their motorcycle, in his testimony as PW-1, he deposed that Mr. Vijay Pal had arrived when he had got the tractor stopped near a turn at some distance from the spot and he along with Mr. Vijay Pal thereafter went to the spot and found the offenders scuffling with his uncle Ratan. While in his complaint State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 10 of 18Ex.PW1/1, the complainant has stated that the driver of the motorcycle who had disclosed his name as Sonu had taken out a pistol from his dub and fired at him though the pistol misfired, in his testimony recorded in the court, he simply deposed that one of the boys on the motorcycle had taken out a pistol like arm, without specifying as to whether it was the driver of the motorcycle or the pillion rider. While in the complaint Ex.PW1/1, the complainant had stated that he along with his uncle Ratan had caught hold of and snatched the pistol from the assailant Sonu, in his testimony, PW-1 has deposed that he had apprehended the boy who was carrying the pistol like arm and his uncle Vijay Pal had snatched the pistol. While in his complaint Ex.PW1/1, the complainant had stated that he had handed over the pistol snatched from the rider of the motorcycle to the investigating officer Sub Inspector Ram Niwas, in his testimony recorded in the court, he deposed that his uncle Vijay Pal had handed over the said pistol to the police official in the hospital. Thus, in his testimony recorded in the court, the complainant/PW-1 has completely digressed from his earlier version as recorded in his complaint Ex.PW1/1. His testimony is, therefore, not found to be reliable.
20. Even otherwise, in his testimony as PW-1, the complainant Mr. Rohit expressed his inability to identify the offenders. Despite the accused persons having been specifically pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, PW-1 did not identify them as the offenders/assailants stating that he did not know the accused persons and could not say if they were the assailants as it was dark and he could not see the faces of the State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 11 of 18assailants. He denied the suggestion of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the accused persons had threatened him and his uncle/chacha Ratan, "tum jante nahi mera naam Sonu hai aur sabhi log mujhse darte hai".
21. PW-2 Mr. Ratan @ Dana is the injured in the present case. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 31.10.2018. Since he had resiled from his previous statement given to the police on the point of identification, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State sought permission to cross examine PW-2 and the same was allowed. However, cross examination of PW- 2 on behalf of State was deferred on 31.10.2018 at request on behalf of State. Thereafter, since PW-2 Ratan @ Dana was reported to have expired, vide order dated 15.01.2019, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the testimony of PW-2 Ratan @ Dana recorded on 31.10.2018 cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons being incomplete.
22. PW-3 Mr. Kalu @ Gandhi Gulia is also an eye-witness to the alleged offence having been the driver of the tractor. He deposed that 20.09.2017, he alongwith his friend Ratan and Rohit were going home from Najafgarh via Kair Village on a tractor which was being driven by him. He deposed that when they reached Kair Village at night, two persons coming on a motorcycle from the side of the village suddenly came in front of their tractor, and a quarrel ensued. He deposed that PW-1 Rohit and PW-2 Ratan got off from the tractor, whereafter he left the spot driving his tractor away. He deposed that he did not know as to what happened thereafter. He deposed that he cannot State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 12 of 18identify the persons who had come on motorcycle as it was dark. He further deposed that he did not know as to whether the said two boys were accompanied by any other person or not. He deposed that, on the day following the day of incident, one police official had called him on his mobile phone, however, no police official had come to him personally. He deposed that neither he was called to police station nor was his statement recorded in the present case. He further deposed that he came to know later on that Ratan had suffered injuries in the quarrel.
23. PW-3 was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State as he had resiled from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen that one of the accused had taken out a pistol and pointed at Ratan. Despite the accused persons having been specifically pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, PW-3 did not identify the accused persons as the assailants, stating that he did not know the accused persons and could not tell if they were the persons who had attacked injured Ratan as it was dark. He denied having made the statement Mark 3/A to the police. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons being under threat, coercion, duress imparted upon him by the accused persons or that he had been won over by the accused persons or that he wanted to protect the accused persons from due process of law.
24. Going by the testimony of PW-3, he had not witnessed the commission of the alleged offence involving firing on PW-1 complainant Mr. Rohit by accused Vinayak @ Sonu and attack State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 13 of 18on the head of PW-2 injured Mr. Ratan with a stone slab (silli) by accused Amit @ Mita. He has not even identified the accused persons as the boys who had stopped their motorcycle in front of the tractor driven by him on the day of the alleged incident. The testimony of PW-3, therefore, does not aid the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused persons in respect of any of the offences for which they are charged.
25. PW-4 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh is the friend/neighbour of the complainant and injured, who had taken the injured Ratan to RTRM hospital in his car. In his testimony in the court, PW-4 deposed that on 20.09.2017 while going to Dwarka from his village, when he reached at the turn of Kair village, he saw his nephew Rohit @ Kala coming. He deposed that upon asking, Rohit @ Kala informed him that a quarrel was taking place at some distance behind and the assailants, who were in possession of pistols, were giving beatings to Ratan. He deposed that he instructed Rohit to stand behind the person carrying the pistol after going to the spot and to give signal to him. He further deposed that, at the spot, Rohit stood behind one Sunil s/o Sh. Rajender @ Rajji, r/o Kair village and Rohit grabbed him from behind. He deposed that then he caught hold of the pistol which Sunil was carrying in his hand. He deposed that at that time, there were other persons also with Sunil and one of them had hit Ratan with a stone (silli) on his head due to which Ratan fell down and blood started oozing out. He deposed that he snatched the pistol from the hand of Sunil. He deposed that then he took Ratan and Rohit to RTRM hospital. He deposed that he had made a video with his mobile phone at the time of taking Ratan inside State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 14 of 18the hospital in his car, that he handed over the said pistol to the Duty Constable of RTRM hospital and that he also prepared a video at that time from his mobile phone. He deposed that thereafter, he and Rohit were taken to police station Jaffar Pur Kalan, where enquiry about the incident was made from him and he had given his statement in writing. He further deposed that while later he was allowed to leave, Rohit was made to stay at the police station. He further deposed that in the night, Rohit had called him and informed that he had been confined in the police station. He deposed that when he talked to SHO Inspector Dharambir, he told him that he would not leave Rohit till the next day. He deposed that in the morning, he again called at police station to know the FIR number and he was informed that they had withheld the roznamcha and the FIR had not been registered. He deposed that in the noon time, he again called at police station and he was informed about the FIR number and the name of investigating officer Sub Inspector Ram Niwas. He deposed that thereafter, he had got the FIR printed from the website of Delhi Police and was surprised to see that the contents of FIR were totally different from the reality. He further deposed that then he wrote an e-mail to the Commissioner of Police for complaint against Sub Inspector Ram Niwas and SHO Inspector Dharambir and that vigilance inquiry was initiated against the said police officials in DCP office, Dwarka wherein he had given his statement. He deposed that he had also given the videos made by him in the hospital by saving the same in a compact disk. He deposed that he later came to know through RTI that no action had been taken against Sub Inspector Ram Niwas and SHO State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 15 of 18Inspector Dharambir. He deposed that accused Amit @ Mita and Vinayak @ Sonu were not present at the time of the incident and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further deposed that his statement was never recorded by the investigating officer in the present case.
26. PW-4 was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. He denied having made the statement Mark 4/A before the investigating officer. He further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons being under threat, coercion, duress imparted upon him by the accused persons or that he had been won over by the accused persons or that he wanted to protect the accused persons from due process of law.
27. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW-4 specifically admitted that accused persons present in the court on the day of his examination were not the assailants in the present case.
28. As per the prosecution's case, the limited role of PW-4 Mr. Vijay Pal in the present case was that he had taken the injured Ratan to the hospital along with the complainant Rohit. However, completely departing from the case of the prosecution contained in the charge sheet as also from his statement Mark 4/A, PW-4, in his testimony recorded in the court, has introduced new facts. While as per the complaint Ex.PW1/1, PW-4 Mr. Vijay Pal had arrived at the spot after the assailants had fled from the spot on their motorcycle after having fired at the complainant Rohit and caused injuries with a silli on the head of injured Ratan, in his State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 16 of 18testimony, PW-4 has deposed regarding him having witnessed the injured Ratan being hit on the head with a stone. While he has deposed regarding the presence of one Sunil s/o Rajender @ Rajji r/o Kair Village at the spot and the said person having carried a pistol in his hand, he did not attribute any other role to the said Sunil in commission of the alleged offences. Moreover, he completely absolved the accused persons Amit @ Mita and Vinayak @ Sonu of having had any complicity in commission of the alleged offences, stating that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thus, PW-4 has also not supported the case of the prosecution and his testimony does not aid the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused persons.
29. From the testimonies of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 discussed above, it is evident that none of them have identified the accused persons as the persons who had allegedly stopped their motorcycle in front of the tractor aboard which PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were going home, or as the assailants who had allegedly fired at the complainant Rohit or attacked the injured Ratan with a silli on his head on the day of the alleged incident. None of the said witnesses have identified the accused Vinayak @ Sonu as the assailant who was carrying the alleged pistol (forming part of Ex. P-1) and had fired from the same at complainant Rohit. Further, as already pointed out above, none of the aforesaid witnesses have supported the case of prosecution with regard to the manner in which the alleged offences had been committed. The contradictions and deficiencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses falsify the prosecution version of involvement of the accused persons in the present case as well as State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 17 of 18the manner of occurrence of the alleged incident.
30. All the remaining witnesses cited or examined by the prosecution are formal/police witnesses and their testimony is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons or either of them.
31. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused Amit @ Mita and Vinayak @ Sonu. Accordingly, the accused Amit @ Mita is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC, Section 308/34 IPC and Section 341/34 IPC and accused Vinayak @ Sonu is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC, Section 308/34 IPC, Section 341/34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 Arms Act.
32. Necessary bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. with sureties along with passport size photographs and proofs of residence of the accused persons as well as sureties and proof of soundness of the sureties have been furnished by the accused persons and accepted.
33. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 22nd July, 2023.
(MANIKA) Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Amit @ Mita and Anr.
FIR No. 171/2017 PS J.P. Kalan Page 18 of 18