Delhi District Court
State vs Prince on 16 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANIMESH KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Prince & Ors.
FIR No. 551/2021
U/s 324/341/34 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 15.09.2021
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 11530/21
2. Name of the Complainant :Sh. Sartaj, S/o Sh.
Shamsulhaq, R/o H. No.
B-315, JJ Colony, Hastsal
Road, New Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 13.07.2021
4. Name of accused person : (1) Prince S/o Sh.
Ram Kishore, R/o A-331,
JJ Colony, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi
(2) Shoaib @ Thosi
S/o Sh. Md. Aslam, R/o
A-259, JJ Colony, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi
(3) Harish Pareva, S/o
Prahlad, R/o H. No. 33, near
Gurudwara, JJ Colony, Uttam
State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021,
PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 1 of 9
Nagar, New Delhi
(4) Aman Veera @ Amandeep
Singh, S/o Sh. Chander Mohan,
R/o H. No. A180, JJ Colony,
Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi
5. Offence charged : 324/341/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty.
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Gaurav Dutt
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Brie y stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint led by Sh. Sartaj. It was stated by the complainant that he used to put a fruit stall near LIG Flat, Hastsal, New Delhi. On 13.07.2021, at around 10 PM, when he reached at A Block, Shamshan Ghat Road, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, he met the accused Aman Veera whom he used to know from before. The said accused asked for bidi from the complainant. Complainant did not have any bidi, and, therefore, he could not give the same. However, the said accused got angry and started beating the complainant. State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 2 of 9 fl fi Thereafter, the other co-accused persons caught hold of the complainant and the accused Aman Veera hit the complaint from a bottle near his left ear due to which the complainant started bleeding profusely. Thereafter, the accused persons ed from the spot and the complainant went to DDU hospital for his medical treatment. After getting the medical treatment, the complainant led the present complaint with the police.
2.Investigation was conducted and was concluded by filing the charge sheet. Arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s 324/341/34 IPC was framed against accused persons vide order dt. 05.01.2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
3.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, one witness was examined.
4.As PW1 the complainant Sartaj posed that on the day of incident, he was at his rehri. Thereafter, some unknown persons came and asked the complainant for bidi. When the complainant refused to give the same, they started beating him due to which he sustained injuries. He filed the present complaint Ex. PW1/A with the police. Since, the State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 3 of 9 fl fi complainant resiled from his statement and did not support the case of prosecution, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein he denied all the suggestions given by him and also failed to identify the accused persons.
5.Since, the only material witness cited in the present case has failed to identify the accused persons, there being no possibility of establishing guilt of accused persons on the testimony of remaining official witnesses, examination of remaining official witnesses was dispensed with, thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Since, no incriminating material had come on record against the accused persons during testimony of PW-1 qua commission of offence U/S 324/341/34 IPC, therefore, recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr. PC was dispensed with.
6.Final arguments heard and record perused.
7.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 4 of 9 Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
" i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt".
8. It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
9.In the instant case, the only public witness of the occurrence cited by prosecution in the present case is the complainant and he has turned hostile during his examination. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein he denied all the suggestions. He was also confronted with his complaint Ex. PW1/A, however, he denied the State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 5 of 9 contents of the same. He also denied the suggestions that on 13.07.2021 at around 10 PM at Shamshad Ghat Road, A Block, Hastsal Road, the accused Aman Veera was present there. He also denied the suggestion that the other accused persons namely Prince, Harish and Toshi caught hold of him and the accused Aman Veera slammed a glass bottle on his left ear. He also failed to identify the accused persons even he was pointed towards them.
10.During his examination in chief also, the complainant had nowhere stated that accused persons were present at the spot at the time of incident or they had beaten him. There is no other eye witness of the commission of offence apart from the complainant, who has also failed to identify the accused persons in the court and the prosecution has not even produced any electronic evidence of the occurrence.
11.In the present case, from testimony of PW-1, it is clear there is no direct evidence to even support the presence of the accused persons at the spot of occurrence and there is no electronic evidence of the occurrence which could associate the accused persons from the alleged offence and could establish that the accused persons had beaten the complainant by sharp object causing hurt. In absence of State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 6 of 9 any incriminating evidence given by PW-1/Complainant, the prosecution could never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons. The testimony of remaining witnesses even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons, accordingly, examination of remaining official witnesses was accordingly dispensed with. The occurrence of incident accordingly stands not proved by the prosecution.
12.The right to speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to FIR dated 13.07.2021, thus, continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ram Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its powers available under criminal procedure code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
13.Further, in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration &Anr. 1996 SCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that valuable time of courts State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 7 of 9 should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
14.Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (CRI.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts where the onus of proving ingredients of the offences is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of the offences, thus, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
15.In view of the above discussion, since, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, thus, the accused persons Prince, Shoaib @ Those, Harish Parewa and Aman Veera @ Amandeep Singh are acquitted for offences punishable U/S 324/341/34 IPC.
16.The bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused persons at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case property if State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 8 of 9 any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
17.Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 16th September, 2023. This judgment consists of 5 signed pages.
(ANIMESH KUMAR) Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Prince & Ors. FIR No. 551/2021, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 16.09.2023 Page No. 9 of 9