Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Akbar & Ors. on 30 August, 2018

                  IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH

                  MM­(East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

FIR No. 121/05
PS: Mayur Vihar 

Offence Complained of          : 324/34 IPC
Date of commission of Offence  : 28.03.2005
New No.                        : 11638/16
                       STATE  VS AKBAR & ORS. 

(1) Akbar, s/o Sh. Babu Badshah 
r/o House No. 28/70, Trilok Puri, Delhi 
(Since PO vide order dated 07.12.2005)

(2) Bhupinder @ Lala s/o Sh. Anand Singh, 
r/o  28/48, Trilok Puri, Delhi 

(3) Anil Kumar @ Sanjeev, S/o Anand Singh 
R/o  28/48, Trilok Puri, Delhi 

                                                                          ....................Accused

Sh. Charan Singh, S/o Sh. Kanchan 
R/o 20/72, Trilok Puri, Delhi 
                                                                        ..............Complainant


Date of Institution                                :     28.04.2008
Plea of the accused                                 :    Pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving judgment/order                    :    30.08.2018
Date of pronouncement                              :     30.08.2018
Final order                                        :     ACQUITTED
                  Brief reasons for the decision of the case: ­

1.

In brief, the story of the prosecution is that on 28.03.2005, at about 02.30   pm,   at   place   Main   Road   28   Block,   Trilok   Puri,   Delhi,     the FIR No.  121/05 State Vs Akbar & Ors.                                     Page no.1 of  5 accused   persons,   namely,   Anil   @   Sanjeev,   Bhupender   and   Akbar attacked the complainant and gave him beatings. It is further alleged that during the attack one of the accused inflicted injuries on cheeks and neck of the complainant with one steel blade and caused him simple injuries. The complainant reported the matter to the police. Accordingly,   the   present   FIR   was   registered   against   the   accused persons  on   his   complaint  for  offences  punishable   u/s  324/34   IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused   persons   for   the   above   said   offence   on   28.04.2008   in   the court.   Cognizance   of   offences   was   also     accordingly   taken   by   the court.  

2. After  the  appearance  of  the  accused  persons,  copies  of  the  charge sheet were supplied to them and the matter was fixed for arguments on the point of the charge. However, during the proceedings of the case at the stage of framing of charge, the accused Akbar stopped attending the court due to which he was declared as absconding vide order dated 07.12.2015. 

3. However, since on the basis of material available on record, prima facie offence u/s 324/34 IPC was sufficiently made out against the remaining accused, a formal charge for the said offence was framed against them on 09.02.2016. However, both the accused pleaded not guilty   to   the   charge   and   claimed   trial.   Thereafter   the   matter   was fixed for PE. 

4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined only two witnesses FIR No.  121/05 State Vs Akbar & Ors.                                     Page no.2 of  5 i.e. PW­1 ASI Rajeshwar Dubey,  the Duty Officer who registered the present FIR. The copy of the FIR is Ex. PW1/B and his endorsement made on the rukka is Ex. PW1/A. 

5. PW­2 is Retd. SI Omkar Singh, the IO of the case who deposed that after the receipt of DD No. 43­B, he reached at LNJP hospital and collected the  MLC of the complainant. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW2/A and after preparing a rukka Ex. PW2/B   got   the   case   the   registered   through   Ct.   Lakhu   Ram. Thereafter, he prepared a site plan Ex. PW2/C and on the basis of secret   information   on   19.04.2005   apprehended   all   the   accused persons and formally arrested them vide arrest memos PW2/D to F respectively and also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW2/G   to   I   respectively.   The   disclosure   statements   of   accused persons   Ex.   PW2/J   to   L   respectively   were   also   recorded   and   a pointing   memo   Ex.   PW2/M   was   also   prepared   at   the   instance   of accused persons.  

6. It   is   pertinent   to   mention   here   that   the   complainant   of   the   case namely   Charan   Singh   was   also   summoned   for   recording   of   his statement   during   PE.     However,   before   his   evidence   could   be recorded,   the   witness   expired   during   the   stage   of   prosecution evidence.   Accordingly,   as   the   main   complainant   of   the   case   had expired before deposing in the present case, the examination of other witnesses   who   were   mainly   the   police   officials   who   joined   the investigation with PW SI Omkar Singh or the Doctor who examined the complainant after he was alleged to be attacked by the accused FIR No.  121/05 State Vs Akbar & Ors.                                     Page no.3 of  5 persons, the recording of their examination was also dispensed with as   that   would   have   been   a   futile   exercise   and   accordingly   the prosecution evidence was closed after the examination of PW­2. 

7.   Further, since the main complainant himself did not depose in the court   as   he   expired   during   the   prosecution   evidecne   and   no incriminating   material   came   on   record   against   the   accused,   the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was also dispensed with as that  too would have been a totally futile exercise. Thereafter, final arguments were heard from both sides.  

8. I have heard submissions of both sides and perused the evidence on record.  As observed above,   the complainant   Sh. Charan Singh the only   material  witness   of   this   case   has   expired   before   his   evidence could be recorded.   So in view of absence of material testimony of the   complainant,   the   case   against   the   accused   persons   cannot   be proved   at   all.   It   would   be   the   complainant   only   who   could   have deposed in the court that he was attacked by the accused pesons on the day of incident. Moreover, there is no other eye witness of the alleged incident and the other witnesses examined in court i.e. PW­1 and PW­2 are only formal witnesses. Further there is even no other circumstantial   evidence   on   record   which   could   have   proved   the circumstances under which the alleged incident took place. Thus, the prosecution   has   completely   failed   to   produce   any   incriminating substantial evidence on record   against the accused persons and to prove its case against them.

FIR No.  121/05 State Vs Akbar & Ors.                                     Page no.4 of  5

9. Hence,   in   view   of   above   said   observations,   the   accused   persons namely, Anil @ Sanjeev and Bhupender @ Lala both sons of S/o Sh. Anand Singh   are   acquitted of offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC. Bail bond and surety bond of accused persons shall be cancelled only after six months in view of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. 

Ordered accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally signed by BALWINDER
                                                                       BALWINDER        SINGH
Announced in open court                                                SINGH            Date:
                                                                                        2018.09.01
on Dated: 30.08.2018                                                                    14:05:55 +0530

                                                               (BALWINDER SINGH) 
                                                            MM(East)/KKD/30.08.2018




FIR No.  121/05                   State Vs Akbar & Ors.                                     Page no.5 of  5