Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Pal Singh on 19 December, 2007
1
State v/s Jai Pal Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWALJEET ARORA: ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
FIR NO.129/94
PS:Roop Nagar
u/s 379/34 IPC
State v/s Jai Pal Singh
Date of Institution of the case: 10.11.1997
Date on which arguments were heard: 19.12.2007
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2007
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. no. of the case : 4/94/1
b) Date of commission of offence : 15.06.1994.
c) Name of the complainant : Sh.Raney Singh
d) Name of the accused, : (1) Jai Pal Singh s/o Sumaroo Singh
parentage and address r/o 5371/6, New Chandrawal,Delhi.
(2) Fateh Singh s/o Ram Kishan
r/o 5371/6, New Chandrawal,Delhi.
(3) Sohan Beer Singh s/o Late
Sh.Ram Sahai, r/o 5362/6, New
Chandrawal, Delhi.
e) Offence complained : u/s 379/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted.
h) Date of such order : 19.12.2007
i)Brief statement and reasons for the decision of the Case:-
On statement of Sh.Rami Singh s/o Attar Singh, initially a zero FIR was registered at PS Bhajan Pura which subsequently was transferred to PS Roop Nagar where FIR No.129/94 was registered.
2. It is submitted by the complainant that his son namely Sikander had a 2 State v/s Jai Pal Singh contract awarded to him by Municipal Corporation of Delhi for lifting the dead animals from different parts of the city. It was alleged by the complainant that on 14.06.1994 at about 7.30pm he along with the field officer, M.C.D. were passing through Chandrawal, Delhi, at that time they noticed a jeep bearing registration number DED/5559 with which trolley was attached wherein they found bodies of three dead cows, a calf (of cow) and a calf (of buffalo). It is alleged by the complainant that accused persons wrongly committed theft of the dead bodies of these animals as contract for lifting the same was with his son.
3. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered. After registration of the case, it was investigated. On conclusion of investigations, a charge sheet was submitted in the court for trial of accused Jai Pal Singh, Fateh Singh and Sohan Beer Singh on the allegations that they have committed theft of dead bodies of cows and calves from Chadrawal, situated within the jurisdiction of PS Roop Nagar .
4. Copies of the challans were supplied to the accused persons. Finding a prima-facie case for offence punishable u/s 379 r/w Sec.34 IPC against accused persons, requisite charge was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. Prosecution was thereafter called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. To do so , sufficient number of opportunities were granted to the prosecution. Availing the given opportunities, prosecution had examined 6 of its witnesses out of which complainant Sh.Raney appeared in the witness box as PW-3. However, his deposition was not completed as his examination-in-chief, which was deferred, was not completed by the prosecution 3 State v/s Jai Pal Singh because of his non-appearance in court thereafter. Considering the fact that the complainant did not stand the test of cross-examination, his deposition became unconsequential, so far as case of prosecution is concerned.
6. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal witnesses. Considering the fact that there was no direct evidence against accused persons during the course of trial, their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced and have perused and considered the prosecution evidence on record.
8. PW-1 HC Jagdish Prashad was the duty officer of PS Roop Nagar who had recorded FIR no.129/94, which he proved as Ex.PW.1/A. PW-5 ASI Martin was the duty officer of PS Bhajan Pura, who had recorded zero FIR of the present case, which he proved as Ex.PW.5/A.
9. PW-2 Ct.Amar appeared and stated that the accused persons were brought from PS Bhajan Pura and they had pointed the place from where dead animals were lifted on which pointing out memo were prepared as Ex.PW.2/B, Ex.PW.2/C and Ex.PW.2/D. PW-4 Municipal Health Officer appeared in the witness box and stated that the contract for lifting the dead animals Ex.PW.4/A was awarded to Sikander.
10. Besides the aforementioned evidence, no other evidence was produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. Repeated issuance of process to the prosecution witnesses were received back with report that prosecution witnesses were not available, due to which prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed.
4
11. As per deposition of PW-4 and the letter Ex.PW.4/A, for the purposes of awarding the contract to Sikander , there were certain requirements which Sikander was under an obligation to fulfill. Whether or not those requirements were completed, prosecution has failed to prove on record. Copy of the contract between Sikander and M.C.D. has also not been proved on record.
12. Besides this none of the prosecution witnesses has to put an accusing finger towards the accused persons stating that they had seen the accused persons lifting the dead animals and the place from where the same were lifted.
13. Considering the fact that material witnesses of the prosecution failed to appear in the witness box and there is no direct evidence against the accused persons that they had lifted the bodies of dead animals from the roads of Delhi, prosecution has failed to bring home the charge framed against the accused.
14. Having regards to these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons.
15. Accused Jai Pal Singh, Fateh Singh and Sohan Beer Singh are accordingly acquitted of the charge and are set at liberty. Their bail bond are cancelled and surety stands discharged.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (KANWALJEET ARORA)
Dated:19.12.07 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
DELHI.
5
State v/s Jai Pal Singh
FIR NO.129/94
PS:Roop Nagar
u/s 379/34 IPC
State v/s Jai Pal Singh
19.12.2007
Present: APP for State.
All the accused are present on bail.
No PW is present.
Process issued to prosecution witnesses have been received back unserved.
Considering the fact that the matter pertains to year 1994 and sufficient number of opportunities have already been granted, no further opportunity is being granted to the prosecution. In view thereof, prosecution evidence is closed.
Considering the fact that there is no direct evidence against accused persons , their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. are dispensed with.
Arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment of same date, accused Jai Pal Singh, Fateh Singh and Sohar Beer Singh are acquitted of the charge and are set at liberty. Their bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(KANWALJEET ARORA) ACMM/Delhi