Delhi District Court
State vs . Kishan & Anr. on 27 August, 2015
Page No. 1 of - 4 -
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA :
M.M.03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Kishan & Anr.
FIR NO. : 586/1999
P.S. : Hauz Khas
U.S. : 365/323/34 IPC
JUDGMENT:
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 02403R0487182003 date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : Satender Singh S/o Sh. Sarjeet Singh R/o H. No. D452/1B, Sangam Vihar New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of offence : 19.08.1999
d. Name of the accused : 1. Kishan S/o Sh. Lalu Ram R/o: H. No. 23/335, West Sagarpur Jagdamba Vihar, Janakpuri, N.Delhi.
2.Naresh S/o Sh. Babu Lal R/o H. No. 123/3, Block D, Gali No. 3, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 365/323/34 IPC f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Date reserved for orders : 26.08.2015 h. Final order : Acquitted i Date of such order : 27.08.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION: FIR No. 586/99 State Vs. Kishan & Anr.
Page No. 2 of - 4 -
1. In brief, the facts of the prosecution is that on19.08.1999, one call was received at PS Hauz Khas regarding abduction of one Satender Singh by five persons. Thereafter police registered the FIR No. 586/99 u/s. 365/323/34IPC on DD No. 79B and carried out investigation. Statement of witnesses including the victim were recorded. Victim Satender that he was abducted by five persons who took his forcible signature on one paper and got written that he had teased daughter of one of the accused and also snatched her chain.
After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against two accused persons namely Kishan and Naresh only as remaining accused persons could not be arrested. During investigation accused persons refused to participate in TIP. Thereafter on 09.08.2005 charge u/s. 365/323 IPC was framed against the accused.
2. Prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses to support its case.
3. PW1 Satender Singh deposed that he was taken by 2 / 3 persons and not by five persons. This witness deposed that he had compromised with accused persons as they were not the same person who had abducted him. This witness turned hostile.
4. PW2 Ravinder also turned hostile and has not supported the FIR No. 586/99 State Vs. Kishan & Anr.
Page No. 3 of - 4 -
case of prosecution.
5. PW3 is SI Pravin Kumar. This witness arrested both the accused persons and seized the vehicle from which victim was kidnapped.
6. PW4 ASI Krishan Pal is duty officer who proved the FIR.
7. PW5 Bhuwan Ram is record clerk who proved the MLC Ex PW5/A.
8. PW6 is Retd. HC Leela Singh. This witness was initial IO. This witness handed over investigation to SI Parveen.
9. PW7 is Ct. Bheemudu. This witness joined investigation with SI Parveen Kumar.
10. PW8 SI is Yudhvir Singh. This witness was given further investigation. This witness moved application for TIP proceedings but accused persons refused to participate.
11. PW9 ASI Krishan Pal is duty officer. This witness inadvertently was examined twice. Once PW4 and 2nd time as PW9.
12. PW10 Surender Kumar is driver. This witness also turned hostile and deposed that he could not see the face of the accused persons who quarreled with victim.
13. PW11 is Ct. Liladhar Arya who is also formal witness.
FIR No. 586/99 State Vs. Kishan & Anr.
Page No. 4 of - 4 -
14. Vide separate statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC, both the accused persons admitted the TIP proceedings.
15. Statement of both the accused persons recorded u/s. 313 CrPC whereby both the accused denied the evidence against them.
16. In the present case all material witnesses including victim turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.
17. Since, all the material witnesses turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution nor identified the accused persons as the same persons who abducted the victim Satender Singh, both accused persons are acquitted for the offences they were charged with.
18. To come up for filing of bail bond u/s. 437A CrPC on 31.08.2015.
Announced and dictated in (ANKIT SINGLA)
the open court on 27.08.2015 MM(03)/South District
Saket / New Delhi
FIR No. 586/99 State Vs. Kishan & Anr.