Delhi District Court
Sc No. 416/2022 State vs . Ravi Kumar on 7 August, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No : DLST01-008052-2022
SC No. 416/2022
FIR No. 448/2013
Under Section. 307/452/34 IPC
Police Station Ambedkar Nagar
STATE
Vs.
Ravi Kumar & Anr.
1. Ravi Kumar (Proceedings abated)
S/o Sh. Chailu Ram,
R/o H.No. C-1220, Tigri Khanpur, New Delhi
& E-64, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
2. Neeraj,
S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh,
R/o H.No. C-335, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
.....Accused
Date of Committal : 06.09.2022
Final arguments heard on : 07.08.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 07.08.2023
Final Judgment : Acquitted
SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar
FIR No. 448/2013
2
JUDGMENT
The version of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is as under:
1. On 20.09.2013, upon receipt of DD No.35-A regarding quarrel, SI A.K. Jha along with Ct. Satish reached the spot at H.No.19/517, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi where they came to know that injured was taken to Max Hospital Saket.
Meanwhile, he received DD No.70B regarding MLC No. 3343/13 of injured Arun Malhotra. SI A K Jha along with Ct. Satish had reached to MAX Hospital where injured Arun was found admitted as per MLC No. 3343/13 wherein alleged history of assault an hour before arrival to emergency was mentioned. Patient was at his office when people came to his house, sparkled some powder over his eyes and stabbed him over the abdomen and upper limbs. Thereafter, statement of injured Arun was recorded who stated that he is in property business and his office is situated at 19/536, ground floor, DDA Flats, Madangir. Two- three years back he employed one Ravi for cleaning work. He was removed from services on account of his misconduct. He used to call him to employ him again. On 20.09.2013 at about 3.00- 3.30 p.m. he had gone to take rest after having lunch at room H.No. 19/517, ground floor, DDA Flats, Madangir. When he opened the door, Ravi alongwith Gaurav and Gattu were already present there. Ravi sprayed 2-3 times something on his eyes and due to which he was unable to see. Gaurav and Gattu SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 3 caught hold of him and Ravi inflicted stab injuries upon him. He started bleeding and started shouting and public persons started gathering there. Ravi alongwith his two associates started running away from the spot. However, public persons managed to apprehend Ravi at the spot and handed over him to PCR. He was taken to Max hospital by his neighbours. Thereafter, SI A.K. Jha along with Ct. Satish reached the spot i.e., H.No. 19/517, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi where he came to know that one person namely Ravi involved in the incident has been handed over to the PCR Van and taken to PS. Thereafter, SI A.K Jha had prepared the rukka and got the FIR Registered under Section 307/452/34 IPC through Ct. Satish.
2. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation, IO prepared the site plan. No CCTV cameras were found installed at the spot. Thereafter, IO SI A.K. Jha along with Ct. Satish reached the PS where HC Gunjeet Singh had handed over the accused Ravi Kumar to him and informed that accused Ravi Kumar had committed the offence in this case. On the personal search of the accused Ravi Kumar, a knife was recovered. Thereafter, IO prepared the sketch of the knife and sealed with the seal of AKJ. Thereafter, accused Ravi Kumar was interrogated and his personal search was conducted. Thereafter accused was arrested vide arrest memo. At the time of his personal search, nothing was recovered. However, accused Ravi Kumar had disclosed the IO about his blood stained clothes which were worn at the time of commission of offence. His SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 4 clothes i.e., blood stained jeans, blood stained shirt and vest were seized by the IO with the seal of AKJ. During investigation, IO SI A.K. Jha had produced accused Ravi Kumar in the court and he was sent to judicial custody. During further investigation, IO had collected the pasting file of the accused Ravi Kumar from the Nagar Nigam Prathmik Bal Vidyalaya No.1 to ascertain the date of birth of the accused.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation, IO had collected the MLC of the injured Arun Malhotra from MAX Hospital, Saket, New Delhi on which the nature of injury was opined as 'Grievous'. IO has further obtained the expert opinion on the MLC of the accused Ravi from JPNATC, AIIMS New Delhi wherein doctor has opined that "after perusal of the above mentioned document and given weapon, I am of the opinion that: 1. Possibility of injury mentioned in the MLC No. 389916 being self inflicted cannot be ruled out. 2. Injury mentioned in the MLC No. 389916 could be possible from the weapon of offence produced".
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that during further investigation, on 15.01.2014 investigating officer had come to know that another accused Neeraj S/o Sh. Prempal Singh in this case, had surrendered in the Saket Court. IO had interrogated the accused and arrested him after taking the permission from the court concerned after moving an application for the same. After interrogation, disclosure statement of the accused was recorded.
SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 5 Thereafter, accused was sent to judicial custody. Third accused Gaurav in this case could not be arrested despite efforts made by the IO. Thereafter, IO A.K. Jha was transferred and investigation was handed over to I.O./SI Vinod Bhati.
5. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet against the accused Ravi Kumar and Neeraj Kumar under Section 307/452/34 IPC was filed by the I.O. before the Court of Ld. MM on 05.05.2022, on which cognizance was taken, however, during the course of proceedings it was apprised to the court that the accused Ravi Kumar was expired, hence the proceedings against the accused Ravi Kumar stood abated vide order dated 06.09.2022. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case file was placed before the court of Ld District & Sessions Judge on 06.09.2022. Later on, the case was assigned to this court on 12.09.2022.
6. Vide order dated 17.12.2022, charge for the offence under Section 452/307/34 IPC was framed against accused Neeraj. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Prosecution has cited 10 witnesses. On 24.04.2023 statement of accused under 294 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in view of admission of documents, witness mentioned in the list at Serial No.3 Ct. Satish, S.No.4 Duty Officer SI Liyaqat Ali (who would have proved the original FIR), S.No.5. Dr. Sharang Sachdev (who would have proved the MLC of the injured Arun Malhotra), SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 6 S.No.6. Dr. Sandeep Yadav (who would have proved the MLC of the accused Ravi Kumar), S.No.7. Dr. Azfar Mateen (who would have proved the opinion on MLC), S.No.8 Principal of M.C. Primary School No. 1 (boys), Sector-5, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi (who would have proved the pasting file of accused Ravi) were dropped. Prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e. PW-1 Arun Malhotra/injured, PW-2 SI Vinod Bhati (2nd IO), PW-3 HC Gunjeet Singh (retired), PW-4 Inspector Anand Kumar Jha (1st I.O.). After examining the said four witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.07.2023 as the material witness/injured turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with as no incriminating material came on record so as to be put to the accused.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. PP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.
9. Complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 Arun Malhotra, who is injured/victim. As per his version, on 20.09.2013, at about 03.00-03.15 pm, he had gone to take rest after his lunch at room no. 19/517, Ground Floor, DDA flats, Madangir. When he opened the lock of the door, he realised that only one round of lock is there, however, he believed that he might have forgotten then to lock it three times and opened the door. It was quite dark in the room. However, Ravi was there and he immediately sprayed something on his eyes and due to SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 7 which he was unable to see much. Two of his associates caught hold of him whereas Ravi inflicted repeated stab injuries upon him. He started bleeding and he started shouting and therefore, public persons started gathering there and all of three started running away from the spot. However, public persons managed to apprehend Ravi at the spot itself. PCR was called, he was taken to MAX hospital by his neighbours. Ravi was calling the names of his associates but as on date he was unable to recollect their names. In the hospital, he was medically examined and treated. In the hospital, police officials met him and recorded his statement as Ex. PW 1/A. During investigation, he had shown and explained the place of incident to the police. He cannot identify any of the offender.
10. As PW-1 during his examination-in-chief had come out with a contrary version as stated by him in his previous statement as Ex.PW-1/A, he was cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State after taking permission from the Court. During his cross-examination he denied the name of the other offenders are Gaurav and Neeraj @ Gattu. He further denied that all the three offenders i.e., Ravi, Gaurav and Neeraj @ Gattu were known to him even prior to the incident and therefore, he had identified them soon after entering the room where the incident had taken place and he had given their names in his statement Ex.PW1/A. He was confronted with his statement from point B to B and C to C where these facts have been mentioned. Accused Neeraj was pointed out and shown to SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 8 him, however PW-1 failed to identify him. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and purposefully neither identifying accused Neeraj nor admitting his true and correct statement given to the police. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not admitting the facts that accused Neeraj @ Gattu was also known to him even prior to the incident and therefore, named by him in his complaint statement Ex. PW 1/A as he has been won over by him either by threat or coercion.
11. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj was known to him even prior to the incident. He denied that he was not identifying the accused under threat or coercion. However, he admitted that due to dark and spray on his eyes, he could not see the offenders.
12. PW-2/SI Vinod Bhati deposed that on 18.09.2020, he was posted as SI at PS Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and further investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He further deposed that he perused the file and found that investigation was complete and therefore, he prepared the charge sheet against the accused persons and filed the same in the court.
13. During his cross examination, PW-2 replied that he had not verified the correctness of the evidence collected by the previous IO before filing the charge sheet. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the charge sheet against the accused persons without application of mind and in a routine manner.
SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 9
14. PW-3 HC Gunjeet Singh (retired) deposed that on 20.09.2013, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, he was on duty with ERV from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. On that day, at about 03.00-03.30 pm, he received a call from duty officer regarding a quarrel at Madangir near Madangir Mandir. Thereafter, he along with staff went to the spot in ERV vehicle. At the spot he saw many public persons were gathered and they produced one person namely Ravi whose name he came to know later on. Public persons told him that the above said accused Ravi was responsible for the quarrel and thereafter he conducted the search of the accused Ravi and one knife was recovered from his pocket. Thereafter, he took the accused Ravi to PS and handed over his custody as well as knife to the duty officer. His statement was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that IO prepared the sketch of the above said knife vide sketch memo as Ex. PW 3/P-1 bearing his signature at point A and also seized the same vide seizure memo as Ex.PW 3/P-2 bearing his signature at point A. He has identified the seizure memo of clothes and sample seal as Ex.PW 3/P-3. He has also identified the seizure memo of clothes of accused Ravi as Ex. PW 3/P-4.
15. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-3 denied the suggestion that he has never joined the investigation of this case at any point of time.
SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 10
16. PW-4/I.O. Inspector Anand Kumar Jha deposed that on 20.09.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Dr. Ambedkar Nagar. On that day he was on emergency duty from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. Upon receiving DD No.35-A, he along with Ct. Satish went to the spot at H.No. 9/517, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi. At the spot, they came to know that the injured has already been taken to MAX Hospital Saket, New Delhi. In the meantime, beat officials reached there. He left the beat officials at the spot and went to the MAX hospital along with Ct. Satish where injured Arun Malhotra was found under treatment vide MLC. He collected his MLC. The injured was declared fit for statement by the doctor. He recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, they went to the spot, where he prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW 4/P-1 bearing his signature at point A and handed over to the Ct. Satish to get the FIR registered from the PS. He prepared the site plan in view of the enquiry and statement of the complainant which is already Ex.D-
3. In the meantime, Ct. Satish also reached the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter they returned to PS.
17. PW 4 further deposed that in the PS, HC Gunjeet met him and handed over one person namely Ravi Kumar S/o Chailu Ram. He further informed him that Ravi had caused offence in this case and one knife has been recovered from him. He prepared the scaled sketch of the recovered knife which is already Ex. PW 3/P-1 bearing his signature at point B. The SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 11 recovered knife was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of AKJ and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 3/P-2 bearing his signature at point B. Accused Ravi was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 4/P-2 and Ex.PW 4/P-3 bearing his signature at point A on each. He deposed that he could identify the accused Ravi if shown to him however, proceedings qua accused Ravi Kumar have been abated vide order dated 06.09.2022 of Ld. CMM upon his death. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ravi which is now Ex. PW 4/P-4 bearing his signature at point A. In pursuant to his disclosure statement the clothes worn by accused Ravi were sealed in the pullanda with the seal of AKJ and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 3/P-4 bearing his signature at point B since he was wearing these clothes at the time of commission of offence and were having blood stains on it. He recorded the statement of witnesses and case properties were deposited in the malkhana. He also visited the hospital again where he seized the sealed clothes of the victim Arun along with sample seal of the hospital vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 3/P-3 bearing his signature at point B. The case property was deposited in the malkhana.
18. PW 4 further deposed that on 15.01.2014, he went to Saket court where accused Neeraj had moved an application for surrender cum bail. With the permission of the court, accused Neeraj was interrogated and he was arrested vide memo already Ex. D-4 bearing his signature at point A. His personal search was SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 12 conducted vide memo already Ex D-5 bearing his signature at point A. He identified the accused Neeraj in the court. He also recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 4/P-5 bearing his signature at point A. Accused was sent to JC. Thereafter he obtained opinion on the nature of injury on the injured and collected medical documents from the hospital. In the opinion of doctor the nature of injury was dangerous in nature on the MLC already Ex. D-1 along with other medical documents. He also obtained subsequent opinion to connect the weapon of offence on the injury sustained by the accused as per his MLC is marked as X-1. His letter for the opinion as Ex. PW 4/P-6 bearing his signature at point A. The opinion received from FMT AIIMS, New Delhi as Ex. PW 4/P-7. He deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses as and when they took part in the investigation. Thereafter, on being transferred, he handed over the case file to the MHC (R). He had identified the case property i.e., knife produced by MHC (M) and proved the same as Ex PW 4/P-8.
19. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that he has not conducted the investigation of this case fairly and properly. He further denied that accused Neeraj has been falsely implicated in this case.
20. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. the injured PW-1 being relied upon by the prosecution has turned completely hostile. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl.
SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 13 Public Prosecutor at length but PW-1 did not change his stand. Nothing substantial could be extracted from this witness during his cross-examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. There is no other eye witness cited. There is no iota of evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence. PW-1 who is injured/victim of the offence has though stated regarding infliction of injuries on the date of incident but denied that accused was the assailant or he had inflicted injuries upon him.
21. PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 are police witnesses and their testimonies are formal in nature and they have only proved various stages of investigation.
22. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Neeraj. Accordingly, accused Neeraj S/o Prem Pal Singh is acquitted of the charge of offence under Section 307/452/34 IPC. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged.
23. In terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. accused Neeraj is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court for a period of six months for his appearance before Hon'ble High Court in event the State wishes to file the appeal challenging the present judgment. Accused Neeraj has furnished SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013 14 bail bond and surety bond. Same have been accepted for a period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed bySANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.08.07 SINGH 17:04:21 +0530 Announced in open Court (Sanjeev Kumar Singh) on 07.08.2023 Additional Sessions Judge-3 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 416/2022 State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No. 448/2013