Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Kuljeet Singh And Ors. on 22 October, 2011

            IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA, 
                 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ­ 06,
                    SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

Serial No. :  446/2 dated  01.05.2007 
Unique Identification No. 02403R0096492004 

State Vs.        Kuljeet Singh and Ors.
FIR No.          220/97
P. S.            Rama Krishna Puram
U/s              341/323/34 IPC 

JUDGMENT:

1. Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 446/2 & 19.04.1997

2.Date of commission of offence 11.03.1997

3.Name of the complainant Shailender Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Muklinath Singh R/o Shop no. 1, Kashmiri Market, Sector­1, R.K.Puram

4.Name of the accused: (1). Kuljeet Singh Persons S/o Sh. Chander Singh, R/o­ A­247, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. (P.O vide order dated 05.08.2011) (2) Vijay Pradhan Mishra S/o Sh. Avadh Bihari Mishra, R/o­House no.

1071/1, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. (P.O vide order dated 05.08.2011) FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 1 of 8 (3) Dharamdev Prasad S/o Sh. Ramroop Prasad, R/o House no. 1071/1, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.

5.Nature of offence complained of U/s 341/323/34 IPC

6.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty

7. Date reserved for order 22.10.2011

8.Final Order Acquitted

9.Date of such order 22.10.2011

10. Date of receipt of this case in this court: 02.02.2011

11. Date of institution of FIR : 11.03.1997 Date of Institution : 19.04.1997 Date of order reserved : 22.10.2011.

Date of pronouncement : 22.10.2011.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Criminal law jurisprudence, does not only require making allegations against accused persons. It requires such allegations to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Complainant in this case, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Prosecution story is that on 11.03.1997, accused Dharamdev Prasad and your co accused namely Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra (who are proclaimed offenders vide order FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 2 of 8 dated 05.08.2011) in furtherance of their common intention wrongful restrained to Shailender Kumar Singh when he was present at Kashmiri Market, Sector­I, R. K.Puram and also caused simple injury to him and thereby committed offence punishable by U/s 341/323 r/w section 34 IPC.
3. Police registered the FIR in this case on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against accused persons under the offences with which accused persons have been charged.
4. After finding prima facie case against the accused persons, summons were issued against the accused persons by the court.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined two witnesses. PW1 HC Ram Singh deposed that on 11.03.1997, he was posted at PS­R.K.Puram. On that day, he received a rukka through SI Nauwat Singh and on the basis of said rukka, he registered the case FIR no. 220/97 u/s 341/322/34 IPC, PS­R. K.Puram. After registration of the case, he handed over original rukka Ex. PW1/A and copy of FIR Ex. PW1/B to SI Nauwat Singh. PW2 Shailender Singh deposed that on 11.03.1997 at about 3pm, he was present at his shop which was situated in Kashmiri Market, Sector­1, R. K.Puram. At that time, he used to run a cloth shop. On that day, all the accused persons namely Kuljeet Singh, Vijay (who are Proclaimed FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 3 of 8 offenders vide order dated 05.08.2011) and accused Dharam Dev had caught hold of him and started giving him fists blows.

As a result of which he received internal injuries on his right abdomen. Thereafter, he went to PS­R.K.Puram where he lodged a complaint Ex. PW2/A. He was also got medically examined in AIIMS hospital. On 12.03.1997, the accused persons were arrested by the IO. Their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B to Ex. PW2/D respectively.

6. Subsequently, PE was closed.

7. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded against accused Dharamdev Prasad only (as other accused persons namely Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra are proclaimed offenders vide order dated 05.08.2011 ) in which accused Dharamdev Prasad pleaded that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case.

8. After hearing final arguments, the case is fixed for judgment.

9. Allegations against accused persons are that they had wrongfully restrained and caused simple injury to the complainant. The said facts were stated by the complainant. But complainant did not state as to for what reason, accused persons had beaten him. It was not the case of complainant that accused persons were mad people and had beaten him just like that. Therefore, the mensrea factor of the act of FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 4 of 8 accused persons was missing. Further, as per testimony of complainant PW2 , accused persons had beaten him in the presence of persons namely Triloki, Vinod and Vijay. These persons remained untraceable. The net result was that complainant had made a bald allegations against accused persons which was highly improbable. I therefore, did not find his testimony trustworthy and creditworthy. His evidence was condemned and therefore, rejected.

10. In response to the stand of complainant, I found that probable defence of accused, was believable. As per the probable defence of accused, complainant used to demand money from patri vendors and shop keepers. As per testimony of PW2 complainant , accused persons used to sell clothes on patri. So , the probable defence could be related to the facts of this case. Further, the possibility that complainant had demanded money from Raju , which led to his beatings can not be ruled out. The net result was, complainant was the person who had provoked the accused persons and complainant was the person who used to do illegal activity of demanding money from the shop keepers. In such circumstances, it was the complainant who had to blame himself for the consequences, which he faced. If the present case was viewed from the prospective of the accused persons also, then also it was the complainant who was at fault. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I found that the FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 5 of 8 possibility that accused Dharamdev was innocent, as per his reply to the incriminating evidence put to him u/s 313 Cr.P.C, can not be ruled out.

11. Keeping in mind the discussion made above, I find that prosecution has not prove its case for the offence 341/323/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Dharamdev Prasad is acquitted for the commission of the offences punishable 341/323/34 IPC. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437­A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused Dharamdev Prasad did not furnish fresh bail bond. Prosecution can examine its witnesses as and when accused Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra (who are proclaimed offenders vide order dated 05.08.2011) are apprehended. File be consigned to record room after necesssary compliance and to be revive as and when accused Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra are apprehended.

Announced in open court ( PRASHANT SHARMA) today i.e. 22.10.2011 M.M.­06, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

                                               22.10.2011




FIR No. 220/97
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram                                           Page No. 6 of 8
 State Vs.        Kuljeet Singh 
FIR No.          220/97
P. S.            Rama Krishna Puram
U/s               341/323/34 IPC 

22.10.2011
Present :        Ld. APP for State.

Accused Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra are proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.08.2011. Accused Dharamdev Prasad in person with counsel.

Summons issued to PW3, 5 and 6 as per list of witnesses received back unserved despite being directed to be served through SHO/DPC concerned. The said witnesses are struck off from the list of witness and shall not summoned again.

Keeping in mind, contents of the previous ordersheet, sufficient opportunities have granted to the prosecution to examine its witnesses. Accordingly, PE closed.

Request of Ld. APP for the State for granting another opportunity to examine its witnesses stands declined in the facts and circumstances of the case.

SA recorded.

Final arguments heard.

Vide my judgment of even date accused Dharamdev Prasad is acquitted for the commission of offence U/s 341/323/34 IPC. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437­A Cr. P.C. This FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 7 of 8 is done as accused Dhramdev Prasad did not furnish fresh bail bond. Prosecution can examine its witnesses as and when accused Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra (who are proclaimed offenders vide order dated 05.08.2011) are apprehended. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance and to be revive as and when accused Kuljeet Singh and Vijay Pradhan Mishra are apprehended.

( PRASHANT SHARMA ) M.M.­6, Saket Courts, New Delhi 22.10.2011 FIR No. 220/97 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 8 of 8