Delhi District Court
State vs Mahabir Prasad & Others/ Fir 170/05. on 5 April, 2010
1
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 2409/08.
FIR NO.170/05.
PS : KESHAV PURAM.
U/S. 308/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. MAHABIR PRASAD
S/O. SHRI RAMDEO PRASAD
R/O. A-1/239, LAWRENCE ROAD,
KESHAV PURAM, DELHI.
2. JUGNU GUPTA
S/O. SHIV NARAIAN GUPTA
R/O. A-238, SWAROOP NAGAR,
DELHI.
3. DINESH GUPTA @ MINTU.
S/O. SHIV NARAIAN GUPTA
R/O. A-238, SWAROOP NAGAR,
DELHI.
Date of Institution : 20.12.2005.
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 16.12.2008.
Arguments heard On : 31.03.2010.
Order Announced On : 05.04.2010
Shri P.K. VERMA, LD. APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI R.N. SHARMA, LD. COUNSEL FOR ALL ACCUSED
PERSONS.
STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
2
JUDGMENT
1. The facts as projected in the chargesheet that on 09.04.2005 on DD No.50B, SI Ram Kanwar and Ct. Naveen went to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, where MLC of Injured Yash Pal Sharma obtained and doctor declared, Injured unfit for statement. On the basis of DD No.50, IO prepared rukka and send for registration of FIR for commission of offence under Section 308/34 IPC registered. During investigation statement of Injured Yash Pal Sharma recorded and at his instance site plan prepared. Offence punishable under Section 341/34 IPC later on added. Accused Mahabir Prasad arrested on the identification of Injured, he pointed out the place of occurrence and his disclosure statement also recorded. Co- accused Jugnu Gupta and Dinesh Gupta @ Mintu were arrested later on when they were on anticipatory bail. The final result on MLC obtained, which was described as grievous. After completion of investigation chargesheet filed for trial of offence punishable under Section 341/308/34 IPC.
STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
3
2. Learned MM after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions.
3. My learned predecessor vide order dated 05.07.06 framed the charge for trial of offences punishable under section 308 read with 34 IPC to which all three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of the present case examined PW1 HC Gurbaksh Singh Duty Officer, PW2/complainant Yash Pal Sharma, PW3 HC Tej Ram, who joined the alongwith the IO for arrest of the accused Mahavir Prasad. PW4 Dr. Seema Patni, who roved the MLC Ex.PW4/A and the opinion for injuries as grievous. PW5 HC Navin, who initially joined the investigation and took the rukka for registration of FIR, PW6 SI Ram Kumar Yadav Investigation Officer of the case. PW7 Dr. Mohd. Arshad, CMO, who proved his endorsement of unfit for statement of patient on MLC Ex.PW7/A. STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
4
6. Statement of all the three accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which all accused persons pleaded their innocence and they wish not to examine witnesses in their defence.
7. I have heard Shri P.K. Verma APP for the State and Shri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused persons and gone through the record.
8. The vital witnesses of the prosecution is PW2 Yash Pal Sharma/Injured, who deposed that on 9.4.2005, he was residing at House No.A-1/238B, Keshav Puram, Delhi and working at Ghazipur Mandi. At about 7 P.M. he had returned to his house thereafter went outside alongwith his friends. At about 10 P.M., he was returning back alongwith his friends and reached at in front of Gurudwara situated at A-1 Block, Keshav Puram, and turning to the street which leads to his house then saw one person Mahavir Singh alongwith his two brother in law Jugnu Gupta and Mintu @ Dinesh Gupta. He correctly STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
5identified all the accused persons. He further deposed that Jugnu Gupta and Mintu Gupta told accused Mahabir Prasad "Isko Jaan Se maar do, iski vajah se hum badnaam ho rahe hain". Then accused Mahabir Prasad with one hockey and Jugnu Gupta and Mintu Gupta with iron rods in their respective hands in front of the house hit on the face. He further deposed that when he tried to ran away, accused Mahabir caught him from behind then co-accused Jugnu Gupta and Mintu Gupta hit iron rods. His friends tried to intervene, who had also received injuries and ran away from the spot. He further deposed that accused Jugnu Gupta has hit with iron rod at his head. He deposed that he saw Mr. Raju Bhatia, who was present there, who intervened, but thereafter Injured became unconscious. He further deposed that all the three accused persons gave him beating with leg blows, fist blows and one with weapons. He regained consciousness at JPN Hospital and admitted in ICU when police reached there, he was not feeling comfortable. On 12.4.2005 he was discharged from the hospital. On the same day his statement recorded by STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
6the police. Police also prepared site plan of place of occurrence. On 21.4.2004 he joined the investigation with SI Ram Kumar, HC Tej Ram and went to the house of accused Mahabir Prasad, who was arrested at his instance. He proved arrest memo Ex.PW2/A, personal search memo Ex.PW2/B. He further proved the disclosure statement and pointing out memo Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that on he had cordial relations with Smt. Mansha Mittal, who reside at his neighbourhood but accused Mahabir Prasad at suspicion about the relation with her. He deposed that he received injuries at the face and all the bones of face had been fractured. He also received injuries on his head.
9. In the cross examination he deposed that he had taken liquor alongwith his friends at Rampura on 09.4.05 and the boozing session started at about 7:30 P.M. and went on upto 8:30 P.M. He was at the stand situated at A-1 Block, Keshav Puram alongwith his friend but no waiting for any bus. He denied the suggestion that about 6:30 P.M. on 09.04.05 he had teased Smt. Mansha Mittal at STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
7bus stand and remained there till 6.45 p.m. He further deposed that he went to Rampura on a scooter with his friend and returned with his friend on a bike. The scooter belong to one Ajeet and bike of his friend Mont. At the time of attack by the accused persons he was riding bike. He was confronted with his state Ex.PW2/DB where these facts were not recorded. He further deposed that he was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, which also known as J.P.N. Hospital. He was confronted with his statement where name of his friend Mintu was not mentioned. He further explained that when he tried to ran away from the spot, he was caught by the accused, on confronting with his statement, where it was not so recorded. He further confronted with his statement where it was not recorded that Jugnu Gupta and Mintu Gupta were having iron rods. He was also confronted about statement of Mahabir Prasad caught him from behind, which was not recorded in the statement. He further deposed that he told to the police that in his statement his friend Mintu was present at the time of incident, but police did not record such statement.
STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
8He did not make any complaint to the higher officers. He further deposed that he has no knowledge about the fact that in his statement Raju Bhatia's name recorded by the police or not. He was also confronted with his statement regarding the weapon i.e. Hockey and Iron Rods, which was not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He admits that he regained his consciousness on 10.4.2005, but he was not able to speak. He further deposed that on 10.4.2005/11.4.05, he had told the names of the accused persons to the police. He further admits that his parents and brother in law were well aware of the fact that accused persons inflicted injuries to hum on 10.4.05 itself. He denied that he was tutored by the police outside the court. He further deposed that he came to know about the registration of the FIR against him under Section 354 IPC after 1-2 days of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had fallen on a stone in an inebriated condition and received injuries after knowing that accused Mahabir Prasad's wife had lodged FIR against him under Section 354 IPC. He denied that accused persons involved by giving STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
9false statement.
10. My attention has been drawn on the statement of PW2, Ex.PW2/DB recorded on 12.4.05 by ASI Ram Kunwar. The first fact came which is contrary to the first statement of Injured regarding the consumption of liquor by him, however, the MLC specifically mentioned about the consumption of alcohol by him. The other fact which is important that in this statement he named one of his friend or other known person Raju Bhatia, who was present at the time of incident, however, when he appeared in the witness box he stated that he has no knowledge whether Mr. Raju Bhatia was present or not but one of his friend Mintu was present there. He also changed his version to the fact that he was coming on a motor bike after consuming the liquor with his friends on the bike of Mintu, who was present at the time of incident but ran away when he was attacked by the accused persons. Another important aspect is that he admitted that the accused Mahabir Prasad's wife lodged FIR against him Ex.PW1/DB under Section 354 IPC. PW2 Yash Pal Sharma also made STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
10drastic improvement when appeared in the witness box in respect of the weapons. He assigned specific role to accused Mahabir Prasad by saying that he was having one hockey and co-accused Jugnu Gupta and Mintu Gupta were having iron rods. The Investigation Officer PW6 SI Ram Kumar Yadav did not make any effort to trace out these weapon of offence. The Investigation Officer also not explained why he had not recorded the statement prior to discharge of Injured/PW2 Yash Pal Sharma from the hospital. The Investigation Officer did not record disclosure statement of any of the accused persons or their friends. The Investigation Officer further also not investigated the fact whether Mr. Raju Bhatia was present or Montu was present at the time of incident. The statement of PW2 Yash Pal Sharma is having material improvement and contradictions to its original statement made to the police. These material aspects casts doubt on veracity of statement of PW2 Yash Pal Sharma, who was on the same day alleged in the another incident of outrage of the modesty of accused Mahabir Prasad's wife. PW2 Yash Pal STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.
11Sharma concealed the material fact about consumption of liquor around 1-2 hours prior to the incident. The prosecution story is surrounded by doubts. Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimonies of witnesses especially PW2 Yash Pal Sharma/Injured. Benefit of doubt granted to all three accused persons.
11. In view of the above observations and discussion, all the three accused persons are acquitted. Their personal bond and bail bonds are discharged. Session file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 05.04.2010.
STATE VS MAHABIR PRASAD & OTHERS/ FIR 170/05.
PS-KESHAV PURAM//U/S.-308/34 IPC.