Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir, on 2 July, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
ASJ03 & SPECIAL JUDGE (COMPANIES ACT)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State Vs. 1. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir,
S/o Sh. Anup Singh,
R/o 304/14, Kanjhawala Road,
Bawana, New Delhi.
2. Jaideep Dahiya @ JD Pardhan,
S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh,
R/o B8, Gali No. 5B,
Vijay Nagar Colony,
Bawana, New Delhi.
3. Rahul Dabas @ Maya,
S/o Sh. Ran Singh,
R/o 1290, Dada Shahad,
Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi.
4. Lalit @ Laden,
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh,
R/o VPO Goyla Kalan,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
5. Pawan @ Mona,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o VPO Barona,
District Sonepat, Haryana.
Page No. 1 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
2
● CNR No. : DLSW010023462015.
● Registration No. of the Case : SC/440777/2016.
● SC Number : SC/168/2015.
● FIR Number : 649/2014.
● PS : BHD Nagar.
● Under Section : 307/387/120B/34 IPC.
● Date of Institution : 05.08.2018.
● Case committed to the Court of
Sessions for : 01.09.2015.
● Case reserved for Judgment on : 02.07.2018.
● Judgment announced on : 02.07.2018.
● Final Order : Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The following is a brief account of prosecution case and other relevant facts:
1.1 In this case, the FIR was registered on complaint Ex.PW3/A of Sumit Kumar (PW3), who mentioned that on 17.10.2014, at about 8.30 pm, he was sitting in the last cabin of Siti Cable office and then one security guard came and told that phone has come from his house and he should talk to family members. Then he heard sound of firing of bullets in the office.
Page No. 2 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
3 As a result of that, he alongwith that security guard kept hiding in that cabin and after some time, he went out and saw the bullet marks in other cabin and the guard room. Further, the leg of security guard Dilip Singh (PW1) got injured on account of the said firing.
1.2 During investigation, owner of Siti Cable namely Dharampal Dagar (PW6) informed that accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir had made extortion call to him some time before the incident and further, coaccused persons Jaideep Dahiya @ JD Pardhan, Rahul Dabas @ Maya, Lalit @ Laden and Pawan @ Mona were identified by injured Dilip Singh during their production in the Court.
2. After culmination of investigation, all the accused persons were chargesheeted and produced before the Court of Ld. Area MM. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 CrPC.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
3. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, vide Page No. 3 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
4 order dated 11.03.2016, charges were framed under Section 307/387/120B IPC against accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir and under Section 120B/307/387/34 IPC against remaining four accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. For proving its case, prosecution has produced six witnesses.
4.1 PW1 Dilip Singh and PW3 Sumit Kumar, though deposed about the incident, but they failed to identify any of the accused persons.
4.2 PW4 Const. Mahesh and PW5 Const. Udha Ram were examined as witnesses of the investigation. 4.3 PW6 Dharampal Dagar deposed that about 1015 days prior to the incident, he received a call from accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir, who threatened him to handover money for running the cable business smoothly. He further mentioned that on the date of incident, he suspected accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir for committing alleged offences. However, during cross examination, he mentioned that he did not know accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir and he had never met him.
Page No. 4 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
5 Further, he mentioned that he does not identify the voice of accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir and the caller had only informed that he is Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir.
5. Since the only eye witness Dilip Singh (PW1) failed to identify any of the accused persons and the rest of the witnesses were either formal witnesses or witnesses of investigation, the prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed.
6. As no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused persons, their statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
7. I have heard the State through Sh. Girish Kumar, ld. Additional PP for State and all the accused persons through ld. counsel Sh. Naresh C. Sharma. Record is also gone through.
8. It is evident that PW1 Dilip Singh was the only eye witness in this case. Though as per prosecution case, he had identified all accused persons except accused Rajesh Bawania @ Page No. 5 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
6 Karambir as the culprits, who had fired at him on the date of incident, but he failed to identify any of them during trial. He had deposed that due to dark, he could not see any of the assailants. Further, he denied to identify any of the accused persons during their production in Dwarka Courts after their arrest. Further, he denied the suggestion regarding extortion call made by accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir.
9. Another material witness Dharampal Dagar (PW6) had also clarified during his cross examination that he did not know accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir and he did not meet him ever and he cannot identify his voice. Though he has deposed that though once a caller had stated that he is Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir, but it is noteworthy that the said call was not recorded in this case. In absence of recording of extortion call, which could have been matched with voice sample of accused, the testimony of PW6 Dharampal Dagar cannot be said to be incriminating to prove the fact that it was accused Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir, who had called him for demanding money. Thus, there remains no doubt that there is no incriminating evidence on record, which would connect the accused persons Page No. 6 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
7 with the alleged offences.
10. Since rest of the witnesses were related to investigation, no purpose would have been served by examining them and in order to avoid that futile exercise, the prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed. In absence of any incriminating evidence, statement u/s 313 CrPC of all the accused persons was also dispensed with. On this aspect, reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Another", 1996 JCC 507, wherein it was held as under:
"... ... ... when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
11. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any incriminating evidence to establish involvement of all the accused persons in the incident, in which the assailants fired at the injured in order to kill him and made an extortion call to PW6 pursuant to a conspiracy.
Page No. 7 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.
8 CONCLUSION:
12. For the hereinabove recorded reasons, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case u/s 307/387/120B/34 IPC against the accused persons. Accordingly, all five accused persons Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir, Jaideep Dahiya @ JD Pardhan, Rahul Dabas @ Maya, Lalit @ Laden and Pawan @ Mona are required to be acquitted in this case. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court
Digitally signed
on 02nd day of July 2018. VIVEK by VIVEK
(total 08 pages) KUMAR GULIA
KUMAR Date:
GULIA 2018.07.04
11:27:36 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR GULIA)
ASJ03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW), New Delhi.
Page No. 8 of 8 State Vs. Rajesh Bawania @ Karambir & Others;
FIR No. 649/14 of PS BHD Nagar.