Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Jagdish Kumar S/O Tej Ram, on 21 July, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL LD. ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.245/09
ID No.02404R0040422008
PS Sultan Puri
FIR No. 573/08
U/s 302/308/324/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Jagdish Kumar S/o Tej Ram,
R/o H.No. 51, Extension IIA,
Nangloi, Delhi.
2. Vinod S/o Ramphal,
R/o H.No. A3/369,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
3. Sewa Ram @ Sabia S/o Pia Ram,
R/o A4/105, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
4. Surender @ Sonu S/o Hans Raj,
R/o H.No. 31, Extension II,
Nangloi, Delhi.
Date of Institution in this Court : 07.01.2009
Date of Judgment : 21.07.2011
State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08
2
JUDGEMENT:
1. In brief the prosecution story is that on 31.08.2008, a DD No. 64 was received at PS Sultan Puri, thereby information was received that one Vinit Kumar S/o Laxman Singh had been admitted to SGMH Hospital and he had died. Thereafter one SI Sanwar Mal along with Ct. Narsingh reached the said hospital and obtained the MLC of the deceased and in the hospital he could not find any eye witness, thereafter, he reached the spot i.e. house bearing No. A5/17, Sultan Puri, which was found locked and he also found blood stains in front of the shops of A5 Block, Sultan Puri and therefore, he wrote a rukka and got an FIR registered U/s 302 IPC.
2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation(s) was handed over to Inspector Yashpal Singh. A crime team was called to the State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 3 spot. Injured Rajender @ Raja was medically examined and during the investigation(s), it was revealed that on 22.04.2006, one daughter of Raghubir Singh S/o Puran Singh, namely, Mamta Rai @ Babli had eloped with his neighbour Sanjay S/o Ramphal, regarding which an FIR No. 617/06, U/s 363 IPC had been lodged at PS Sultan Puri and the said Mamta after residing for two years at Nangloi came to the house of Sanjay two months ago and was also pregnant and there was tension between the families over this incident and the family members of Sanjay used to say that Sanjay had taken away their daughter, in a manly manner.
3. On 31.08.2008, relating to aspect of pregnancy of Mamta, his brother Chaturbhuj and elder brother of Sanjay, namely, Krishan had an altercation at around 8:15 p.m. A PCR call was also made and he was also medically examined at SGMH Hospital. State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 4
4. On 31.08.2008, at around 9:00 p.m, the wife of Krishan, namely, Anita informed his mama Hansraj at Nangloi, regarding the said quarrel. Consequently, from there the mama of Sanjay, Hansraj, his son Surender @ Sonu along with their chacha Jagdish reached Sultan Puri and there the younger brother of Sanjay, namely, Vinod stated that a lesson has to be taught to the family members of Mamta and they should be finished.
5. Thereafter, all the aforesaid persons i.e. Vinod, Jagdish, and Surender, after having armed themselves with dandas and pipes and sharped edged weapon reached the house of Raghubir, which was locked, thereafter they made a lalkara and asked them to come down and when they did not open the door, they started abusing and told them to come down.
6. On hearing the commotion, many public persons of the area State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 5 gathered there, including one Peera Ram, who tried to stop the accused persons and at this Vinod exhorted that he should be caught hold off and consequently all the accused persons started assaulting the said Peera Ram with their weapons.
7. At this, one Rajender @ Raja, who was running a tea shop on the road, tried to save Peera Ram. At this, Vinod stated that he was also the sympathizer of Peera Ram, therefore, he should also be taught a lesson. Many public persons had also gathered there in the meanwhile and somebody from the crowd stated, that the accused persons be caught hold off. At this, in order to scare the crowd, Vinod assaulted one person on his head with a lathi blow, who started running towards his house and all the three accused persons ran after him and Vinod stated that " yeh sala Raghubir ka pakka himayati lagta hai, bachne na paye, ishko khatam kar State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 6 do". Thereafter, Surender @ Sonu assaulted the said person with the iron pipe on his head and Jagdish assaulted him on his face with some sharp edged weapon.
8. At that very time, son of Peera Ram, namely, Sewa Ram @ Sabia came there with a knife in his hand and said that these persons be stopped, who had assaulted his father and they should be taught a lesson. However, all the aforesaid accused persons saved them somehow. However, the other person, who had been just assaulted by the aforesaid accused persons, as mentioned above, namely, Vinod, Jagish and Surender could not save himself and Sabia thinking him to be the sympathizer of above accused persons, stabbed him with knife on the left buttock of the said persons, who fell down in front of shops of A5 Block, Sultan Puri, whose name was later on revealed as Vinit Kumar S/o Laxman. State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 7
9. After the registration of the FIR U/s 302 IPC at PS Sultan Puri, investigation(s) were taken up.
10. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The relevant exhibits were also sent to FSL Rohini for forensic evaluation.
11. Thereafter, four accused persons, namely, Jagdish, Vinod, Sewa Ram and Surender @ Sonu were arrested and their separate disclosure statements were also recorded.
12. Accused Vinod got recovered one lathi from one room of his house, which was also seized, whereas accused Sewa Ram @ Sabia got recovered one knife from one dilapidated house, which was also seized, whereas accused Surender @ Sonu got recovered one iron pipe from his house, which was also seized. State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 8
13. After completion of the investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 302/323/324/34 IPC r/w section 25/27 Arms Act was filed in the court.
14. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, a charge U/s 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, whereas an additional charge U/s 324/308/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, except accused Sewa Ram @ Sabia, vide detailed order, dt. 09.12.2009, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
15. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case has examined 14 witnesses. PW1 is SI Manohar Lal, the draftsman, who has proved the scaled site plan of the spot, Ex.PW1/A, PW2 is HC Vinod Kumar, duty officer, who has proved the copy of the FIR, Ex.PW2/A, and has also proved the DD No.4A and 5A, Ex.PW2/C, State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 9 PW3 is Raghubir Singh, who is the witness, regarding the fact that his daughter Mamta was taken away by one Sanjay and due to this he had registered an FIR at PS Sultan Puri and due to which a quarrel had taken place between his son Chaturbhuj and one Kishan, relative of Sanjay, PW4 is Chaturbhuj, who has turned hostile, PW5 is Sanjay, who has also turned hostile, PW6 is Om Prakash, who has also turned hostile, PW7 is Trilok Chand, who has also turned hostile, PW8 is Shambhu Nath, who has also turned hostile, PW9 is Prem Lala, who has also turned hostile, PW10 is Mohan Kumar, who has also turned hostile, PW11 is Suresh Kumar Goyal, who has also turned hostile, PW12 is Rajender @ Raja, who has also turned hostile, PW13 is Krishan Kumar, who has also turned hostile and PW14 is Rajbir Singh, who has also turned hostile.
State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 10
16. PW Priyanka, PW Peera Ram and PW Meera were dropped by Ld. Addl. PP on 19.05.2010, as they were related to one of the accused person, namely, Sewa Ram, as PW Peera Ram was the father of said accused, PW Meera was the mother of the said accused and PW Priyanka was the daughter of said accused.
PW Raju was dropped by the Ld. Addl. PP on 20.09.2010, as he was a witness of hearsay.
PW Chandra Devi, the wife of the deceased had died. As per the report on thesummons, dt. 30.11.2010, which was sent through I.O and which were also accompanied by the death certificate of said Chandra Devi W/o deceased.
PW Laxmi Narain and PW Vimal were the witnesses of the dead body identification and PW Dharmender was the witness of superdari of motorcycle. Therefore, they were not examined. State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 11
17. It was prayed the Ld. Defence counsels, that in the present case, all the material prosecution witnesses, examined by the prosecution so far had turned hostile, none of them had supported the prosecution story at all, and rest of the prosecution witnesses were formal in nature including the police officials, even if all of them are allowed to be examined, even then it was not going to improve the case of the prosecution a little bit and it shall be impossible to secure the conviction of the accused persons on the basis of the testimonies of the remaining prosecution witnesses.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the state had strongly opposed the same and he had prayed that I.O be examined including the other prosecution witnesses.
19. After going through the rival contentions.
20. It was found in the present case, that all the material State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 12 prosecution witnesses, including PW4 Chaturbhuj, PW5 Sanjay, PW6 Om Prakash, PW7 Trilok, PW8 Shambhu Nath, PW9 Prem Lata, PW10 Mohan Kumar, PW11 Suresh, PW12 Rajender, PW13 Krishan and PW14 Rajbir, who were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution at all, regarding the incident, dt. 31.08.2008, despite lengthy cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP.
21. PW Priyanka, PW Peera Ram, PW Meera were dropped by the Ld. Addl. PP on 19.05.2010, as PW Priyanka is the daughter of accused Sewa Ram, and PW Peera Ram is the father of this accused, and PW Meera is the mother of this accused and in these circumstances, since all of these witnesses were related to this accused, therefore, Ld. Addl. PP dropped them, on 19.05.2010.
22. PW Raju was dropped by Ld. Addl. PP on 20.09.2010, as he State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 13 was a witness of hearsay.
23. PW Chandra Devi, the wife of the deceased had died, as per report on the summons, dt. 30.11.2010, which were sent through I.O, and which were also accompanied by the death certificate of said Chandra Devi, wife of deceased.
24. PW Laxmi Narain and Vimal were the witnesses of dead body identification and PW Dharmender was the witness of Superdari of motorcycle.
25. The rest of the prosecution witnesses were police officials or doctors or other formal witnesses, even if all of them would have been allowed to be examined, even then it would have been impossible to secure the conviction of the accused persons on the testimonies of the said remaining prosecution witnesses.
26. And the rest of the prosecution witnesses were of recoveries State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 14 of weapons of offence(s), but even if they had been examined, they would have at the most proved corroborative evidence, whereas in the present case, no substantive evidence had come on the record in the shape of testimonies of the eye witnesses, as discussed above, who had all turned hostile. Even if, the testimony of those corroborative witnesses of recovery of weapons had been examined, even then it would have been impossible to connect the same with the accused persons for the offence(s) U/s 302/308/324/34 IPC, for which all the accused persons had been charged in the present case.
27. In these circumstances, no fruitful purpose was to be served by continuing with the trial, same would have been a sheer futile exercise. No purpose would have been achieved by doing so.
28. Therefore, even examination of the I.O would not have been State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08 15 of any help as well, for the reasons discussed above.
29. In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence was closed. The request of the Ld. Addl. PP to the contrary was declined.
30. The statements of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. PC were dispensed with, as no incriminating evidence had come on the record to connect them with the commission of offence(s) U/s 302/308/324/34 IPC, for which they had been charged.
31. Consequently, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charge(s) U/s 302/308/324/34 IPC. Accused Vinod and Sewa Ram be released from J.C, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds of accused persons, who are on bail/interim bail are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Original document(s), if any be returned after cancelling the endorsement(s), if any on the same. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
On 21.07.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge
Rohini Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Jagdish etc. PS Sultan Puri FIR No.573/08