Delhi District Court
State vs Manohar Lal on 3 October, 2007
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE: KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI.
SC No. 198/07
FIR NO. 674/06
POLICE STATION Nand Nagari
Under Section 308/341/506/34 IPC
Committed to Sessions on 23.5.07
Date on which reserved for
judgment 03/10/07
Date of decision 03/10/07
STATE
VERSUS
1. MANOHAR LAL
S/O RATAN PAL
2. MOHAN PRAKASH
S/O RATAN PAL
BOTH R/O 80 GUJ PLOT,
MATA WALI ROAD, MANDOLI,
DELHI. ......ACCUSED
JUDGMENT :(ORAL)
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.8.06 at about 8.30 A.M. in front of 80 yards plot, Mata Wali Gali, Mandoli, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nand Nagari, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained complainants Ratan Pal, Vinod Kumar and Kishan Pal and also criminally intimidated them by threatening to kill. Further, both the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention caused simple injuries on the person of Vinod Kumar and grievous injuries on the person of complainant Ratan Pal with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if both the accused by that act caused their death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. After recording the statement of witnesses and completing other necessary formalities, charge sheet was filed in the court.
2. After supplying copies of the documents and after hearing Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused, charge was framed against both the accused for committing offences punishable u/s 341/506/308/34 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Statement of both the accused were not recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as there is no incrimination evidence against them.
4. Prosecution in support of its case has examined Ratan Pal as PW1, Vinod Kumar as PW2, Kishan Lal as PW3 and Sunil as PW4.
5. PW1 is Ratan Pal who deposed that he does not recollect the exact time. However, the incident was about more than one year ago and there was a quarrel on the road. PW1 further deposed that he went to see what had happened there and someone also hit him on his head and he had not seen the said person who had hit him. This witness further deposed that neighbours called the police and his son Sunil brought him to GTB Hospital. PW1 further deposed that police obtained his signatures on some papers by saying that that they will take the action against the culprits. PW1 further deposed that he has not made any statement to the police. PW1 further deposed that accused persons present in court namely Manohar Lal and Mohan Parkash are his sons but they have not caused any injuries to him. PW1 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP at length but nothing incriminating has come out in evidence against the accused persons.
6. PW2 is Vinod who deposed that on 20.08.2006, it was night hours a quarrel had taken place in a plot just opposite to their house. When he was closing the shutter of his shop, his fingers came inside the shutter as he was in hurry to see what had happened there. PW2 stated that he has not made any statement to the police and accused persons are his elder brothers and they have not caused any injuries to him. PW2 was also declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP at length but nothing incriminating has come out in evidence against the accused persons.
7. PW 3 is Kishan Lal who deposed that on 20.8.06 he had gone to his tailoring shop in the morning at Bank Colony and he was informed by children that his father and his brother Vinod had received injury. PW3 further deposed that he did not know how they received injury and who caused injury to them as he was not present at house at the time of incident. PW3 further deposed that accused persons present in court are his brothers and they did not cause injury to his father and his brother Vinod. PW3 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP at length but nothing incriminating has come out in evidence against the accused persons.
8. PW 4 is Sunil who deposed that on 20.8.06 he came to know that his father and brother Vinod had received injury when he was present at his shop and he immediately came to his house and shifted his brother and father to the hospital but he did not know how they received injury. PW4 further deposed that he was not present at house at the time of incident. PW4 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP at length but nothing incriminating has come out in evidence against the accused persons.
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for accused. I have carefully gone through the case file.
10.PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are the material witnesses in this case who have not supported the prosecution case. From the perusal of evidence, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, both the accused in this case are acquitted. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharge. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced today (PRAVEEN KUMAR) in open court on 3.10.07. ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:KKD:DELHI SC. 198/07 3.10.07 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Both accused on bail with counsel.
I.O. is present.
PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are the material witnesses in this case who have not supported the prosecution case. No useful purpose will be served by examining other witnesses. Hence, PE is closed.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced today in open court, both the accused are acquitted in the present case. Their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharge. File be consigned to Record Room.
ASJ:KKD:DELHI 3.10.07