Delhi District Court
State vs . Suresh Kumar on 2 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI
MM8 (CENTRAL):DELHI
State Vs. Suresh Kumar
FIR No. : 217/2003
PS : New Delhi Railway Station
U/s : 393/394/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 26/06/2003
Date of reserve of order : 21/06/2014
Date of announcement : 02/07/2014
J U D G M E N T
Unique I.D No. 02401R0768722003
1. Serial No. of the case : 123/2
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Abhijeet Mitra
3. Date of incident : 20/04/2003
4. Name of accused person : Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ghamandi Lal R/o Village & PS Fara, Dist. Mathura, U.P.
5. Offence complained of or proved : Under Section 393/394/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
8. Date of such Order : 02/07/2014 FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 1 of 7 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The brief facts of case of prosecution are that accused Suresh Kumar alognwith coaccused Pappu ( Proclaimed offender in this case) in furtherance of common intention attempted to commit robbery of a gold chain from the neck of Seema Mitra and while attempting the said robbery, coaccused Pappu voluntarily caused injuries on the body of complainant and his wife with sharp edge weapon at plateform number 4/5 Sadar side at 4.00 P.M on 20.04.03 within jurisdiction of PS NDLS. after investigation, I.O had filed final report u/s 173 CrPC and accused has been charged for committing offence u/s 393/394/34 IPC.
2. After supply of documents to the accused, charge under Section 393/394/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 23.04.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses i.e. FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 2 of 7 PW1 ASI Ved Prakas, PW2 Constable Rajbir, PW3 SI Dharam Singh, PW4 Abhijeet Mitra, PW5 Ms. Soma Mitra PW6 Ct.
Mukesh, PW7 HC Rajender, PW8 SI Darpan Singh, PW9 Naresh Kumar, PW10 Constable Sudevan and PW11 ASI Raghubir Singh. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC on 06.08.2013 wherein the accused has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent.
5. Prosecution has produced 11 witnesses to substantiate its case and accused preferred not lead any evidence in his defence. I have gone through the material on record, testimony of witnesses and considered final argument of Ld. APP and Ld. LAC for accused.
6. PW3 SI Dharam Chand also testified that when he reached near FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 3 of 7 coach no. S10 of Poorva Express, accused Suresh Kumar had been caught by HC Ved Prakash and Constable Rajbir. PW3 further testified that at the spot complainant Abhijeet and his wife Soma were having injuries and blood was oozing out.
7. PW4 Abhijeet Mitra testified that his wife had raised an alarm and she had pointed out towards accused who was trying to snatched her chain. he further testified that he had heard the cry of his wife and found that she was assaulted with sharp edge weapon by one person and that person had also assaulted him with sharp weapon in between his neck and cheek. PW4 also stated that he alongwith his wife sustained injury and said persons who assaulted both of them had runaway from the spot. PW4 also stated that in the meanwhile police came there and they caught accused Suresh Kumar and took him and his wife to hospital.
8. PW5 Sh. Som Mitra stated that she had seen accused Suresh Kumar trying to snatch her gold chain and she had raised alarm to draw attention of her husband to ask accused Suresh Kumar, in the meanwhile one another boy came there and assaulted her hand with FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 4 of 7 a sharp edged weapon. PW5 further testified that she had started crying and that person also assaulted with a sharp weapon to her husband at his neck and cheek.
9. During cross examination of prosecution witnesses ( complainant PW4 and victim PW5 ) no plausible suggestion has been given by the counsel for accused and given suggestion does not spell out any probable defence story. There is no any fatal contradiction or infirmity in the case of prosecution, which had been exposed by accused by way of cross examination of prosecution witnesses have chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. He opted such course of action at his own peril. It is also noticeable that accused did not cross examined majority of prosecution witness despite opportunity and legal aid counsel afforded to him.
10. Accused did not bring any material on record suggesting any previous inimical relation with complainant and his victim wife who could have deposed falsely against him as they were innocent FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 5 of 7 passenger came at the site of incident for catching train.
11. Meanwhile, in course of trial of this case, accused Suresh Kumar had been declared proclaimed offender vide judicial order dated 11.02.13 and he has been charged for committing offence punishable u/s 174 A IPC. Accused did not establish any defence as to why he did not appear before the court despite laps of 30 days from proclamation u/s 82 CrPC. It is noticeable accused had appeared on several last date of hearing before the court prior to initiation of proceedings u/s 82 CrPC.
12. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has manage to prove its case and accused did not create any reasonable doubt in the veracity of case of prosecution. Accused also failed to prove any plausible defence in response to the charge framed against him as he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
13. For the forgoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. Hence, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 394 FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 6 of 7 IPC and 174 A IPC. Convict be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Rakesh Kumar Rampuri)
on 02/07/2014 MM02 (Central) THC/Central
FIR No. 217/2003 Page No. 7 of 7