Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Arun Kumar@Guddu on 19 October, 2024

                                 IN THE COURT OF MS. GARIMA JINDAL,
                          JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,NORTH, ROHINI
                                           COURTS, DELHI
GARIMA
                   State Vs Arun Kumar @ Guddu and Ors.
                   FIR No. 122/2018
Digitally signed   PS Adarsh Nagar
by GARIMA
                   U/s. 342/323/120B/386/365/120B/34 IPC
Date:
2024.10.19         CIS No. 10214/2021
15:28:31 +0530     CNR No. DLNT020148012021

                                                    JUDGEMENT

1) Date of commission of offence : 12.05.2018

2) The name of the complainant : Ujale S/o Sh. Md. Nasim R/o B-529, Gali no. 4, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.

3) The name & parentage of accused: 1) Amit Panwar S/o Bhopal Singh

2) Arun Kumar @ Guddu S/o Brijpal Singh

3) Mukesh Kaushik S/o Sh. Prem Kaushik

4) Pushpender S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh

4) Offence complained of : 342/323/120B/386/365/120B/34 IPC

5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

6) Final order : Acquitted Date of Institution : 22.11.2021 Judgment reserved on : 27.09.2024 Judgment announced on : 19.10.2024 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:

1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.05.2018 at about 7.30pm at Jal Board office, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention abducted the complainant and his brother in scorpio car bearing no. WB 74 AA 6673 with intention to secretly and wrongfully confine them and also gave them beatings and left them at the hotel room and demanded Rs. 1 lakh Cr. Case. 10214/2021 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Guddu and Ors.

from them after wrongfully confining them and put them in fear of death or grievous hurt and also ATM Card, mobile phone and keys of I20 car from them and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 342/323/120B/386/365/34 of IPC.

GARIMA

2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet against the accused persons 1) Amit Panwar S/o Bhopal Singh, 2) Arun Kumar @ Guddu S/o Digitally signed by Brijpal Singh, 3) Mukesh Kaushik S/o Sh. Prem Kaushik , 4) Pushpender GARIMA Date:

S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh and 5) Ankit Tomar S/o Sh. Vinod Thakur (kept in 2024.10.19 15:28:36 column no. 12) for offences u/s 342/323/120B/386/365/34 of IPC was filed +0530 in the court on 23.11.2021. Since the accused Arun Kumar @ Guddu had expired, proceedings against him were abated(vide order dated 28.11.2022) and cognizance against rest of the accused persons was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 13.04.2022. Charge qua the offences was framed against the accused persons on 28.11.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to substantiate the allegations leveled against the accused, prosecution has cited 16 witnesses. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses. A perusal of the said list of witnesses reveals that witness no. 1 i.e. complainant- Ujale and witness no. 2/Md. Jahangir are the only public / eye witness cited by the prosecution, who are also the victim in the present case and have remained unserved despite issuance of NBWs through DCP concerned and were thus dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 20.08.2024. The remaining witnesses are the police witnesses / formal in nature, who joined the investigation later on, out of which prosecution examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1/ Rajnish is a formal witness who was summoned to provide the CCTV footage, however, the relevant record was not available with him. PW-2/Abhishek Jain is a formal witness being the bank official of HDFC Bank who has proved the bank account statement of account bearing no. 50100214361886 in the name of Md. Jahangir. PW-3/ Lalit Singh is also a formal witness being the branch relation officer in Axis Bank and has Cr. Case. 10214/2021 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Guddu and Ors.

proved the account opening forms of banks in the name of Md. Jahangir.

It is pertinent to mention here that despite issuance of several processes against witness no. 1 i.e. complainant- Ujale and witness no. 2/Md. Jahangir, they have remained unserved. The said witnesses remained unserved even on issuance of NBWs through concerned DCP. Accordingly, despite best efforts, the eye witnesses/ victim/ complainant in the present case remained untraceable. The other witnesses in this case are the police witnesses / formal in nature, who joined the investigation later on. It was submitted by the Ld. counsels for the accused and this court was also mindful of the fact that the examination of other witnesses would not have served any fruitful purpose, hence, further PE was closed vide order dated 20.08.2024 and since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.

5. This court is of the view that in view of non appearance of the complainant / eye witnesses/ on account of being untraceable, the identification of the accused has remained in question. Statement of the complainant recorded by the police u/s 161 of Cr.PC has been perused, however, there is no evidentiary value of the said statements as the same were made to the police. Thus, the identity of the accused remains doubtful in absence of any eye witness.

6. Thus, in view of the above, there is nothing on record pointing towards guilt of accused and thus, accused persons are acquitted in the present case for offences u/s 342/323/120B/386/365/120B/34 IPC as there is no incriminating evidence against them. Digitally signed by GARIMA Announced in open court GARIMA Date:

2024.10.19 on 19th October 2024.

15:28:42 +0530 (Garima Jindal) Judicial Magistrate First Class-06 North District Rohini Courts,Delhi Cr. Case. 10214/2021 State Vs. Arun Kumar @ Guddu and Ors.