Delhi District Court
State vs . Prakash Etc on 17 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Prakash etc
FIR NO: 886/96
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 304 A/338/427/34 IPC and
3,4,5 Explosive Substance Act
Unique ID no. 02403R0360692003
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 970/2 (2.9.2003) Date of its institution : 10.7.2000 Name of the complainant : SI Suresh Chand Date of Commission of offence : 8.11.1996 Name of the accused : Sh. Prakash, S/o Sh. Roshan Offence complained of : 304 A/338/427/34 IPC and 3,4,5 Explosive Substance Act Plea of accused : Not guilty Case reserved for orders : 30.3.2012 Date of judgment : 17.5.2012 Final Order : ACQUITTED BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the aforesaid accused persons upon the police report filed by State Vs. Prakash etc 1/7 FIR no. 886/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar u/s 304 A/338/427/34 IPC and 3,4,5 Explosive Substance Act.
2. The prosecution story is that on 8.11.1996 at about 5.30 pm on the first floor (Barsati Floor), H.No. BI/528, Madangir, New Delhi accused Prakash alongwith co accused Roshan and Rajinder in furtherance of their common intentions while manufacturing crackers unauthorizedly at the abovementioned rented premises without anylicence in a rash and negligent manner caused death of Prakash and Sonu which is an act not amounting to culpable homicide and also committed mischief causing loss/damage exceeding amount Rs.50/ and thereby committed an offence u/s 304 A/427 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by police station Ambedkar Nagar and a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. During the trial accused Roshan expired and Rajinder was discharged and the trial continued against the accused Prakash. The charge was framed against the accused Prakash u/s 304 A/427 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove his case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.
5. PW 1 is Sh. Pyare Lal who deposed that about 1011 years back from the date of his testimony, he received information from his wife that a house caught in fire adjacent to his house on account of manufacturing of crackers in the said premises.
State Vs. Prakash etc 2/7 FIR no. 886/96
One person also died. However, he deposed that he do not know who was
manufacturing or storing the crackers in the said premises nor he identified the accused in the Court, thereby hostile to the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
6. PW 2 is Sh. Ram Charan who deposed that he was working as a labourer on daily wages basis and he was not present at the time of incident. He do not know if any tenants were residing there in the house nor he know the accused present in the Court thereby hostile to the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
7. PW 3 is Sh. Lalit Kumar who was the supervisor in DDA and deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW 2, thereby hostile to the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
8. PW 4 is Sh. Lalit Kumar who deposed that he do not know from where accused Roshan Lal belonged nor he know the accused Prakash present in the Court.
9. PW 5 is HC Lalu Singh who is the formal witness in this case and deposed that on 8.1.1996 on receipt of DD no.19, he reached the spot and found materials meat for manufacturing fire works and one bag was found towards toilet, glass pens of the windows were found broken and proved his involvement alongwith State Vs. Prakash etc 3/7 FIR no. 886/96 certain documents like seizure memo of chemical naushad as Ex.PW5/A.
10. PW 6 is Inspector K.P. Singh who only deposed that the further investigation of the case was handed over to him.
11. PW 7 is Inspector Suresh Chand who was the subsequent investigating officer of this case and proved his investigation. He deposed that o 11.1.1996 he was in charge of police post and on receiving of WT at 5.45 pm that at Gurudwara Road Madangir regarding the blast. He reached there and found explosive substances there. He proved certain documents like rukka as Ex.PW7/A, site plan as Ex.PW7/B, disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW7/D, pointing out memo as Ex.PW7/E, personal search of the accused as Ex.PW7/G.
12. PW 8 is Sh. Ranjeet who deposed that he has no knowledge about this case, thereby becoming hostile to the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
13. PW 9 is Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj who proved the post mortem report of the deceased Rakesh as Ex.PW9/A.
14. PW 10 is Sh. Mahesh who proved the report no. 1477/96 on the person of Sonu as Ex.PW10/B.
15. PW 11 is HC Birender Singh who proved the FIR as Ex.PW11/A upon a State Vs. Prakash etc 4/7 FIR no. 886/96 rukka Ex.PW11/B.
16. PW 12 is HC Ramesh in whose presence dead body of the deceased was identified by his relative.
17. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case.
18. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence were put to the accused to which he denied and further submits that he want to lead defence evidence.
19. DW 1 is Sh. Prakash who deposed that he was not doing the business of manufacturing of crackers and his father was doing the said business.
20. DW 2 is Sh. Gullu who also deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW
1.
21. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the only irresistible conclusion is the conviction of the accused persons.
22. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for accused that from the facts of the case, no offence is made out and there are several contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and therefore, the accused should be acquitted.
23. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the parties, I proceed to State Vs. Prakash etc 5/7 FIR no. 886/96 adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case: Whether the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged or not.
24. In this case, there are two types of witnesses, one are the witnesses of fact as prosecution believes and others are formal witnesses of police who have done formal investigation or took part in the investigation like doctors who conducted post mortem etc but are not the witnesses of fact nor are direct evidence of the incident. I have seen the testimony of all the witnesses of the fact. These are PW 1 Sh. Pyare Lal, PW 2 Sh. Ram Charan, PW 3 Sh. Lalit Kumar, PW 4 Sh. Lalit Kumar, PW 8 Ranjit. I find one thing similarity in the testimony of all these witnesses when they said that they do not know anything about this case. When none of the public witness or the witnesses of the fact have deposed against the accused, I do not find any reason to convict the accused in the present case. The accused Prakash cannot be convicted on the testimony of only the police witness or medical witnesses because they were not the witnesses of fact and they are only formal witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident, there is no evidence that actually the accused was involved in the manufacturer of crackers. There is no evidence that he was actually the owner of the house in which the crackers were being manufactured and sold.
25. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that there State Vs. Prakash etc 6/7 FIR no. 886/96 is no evidence to convict the accused. Hence, the accused Prakash is acquitted of the charges with which he is charged.
Announced in the open court (Samar Vishal)
on 17.5.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate05,
South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Prakash etc 7/7 FIR no. 886/96