Delhi District Court
State vs . Gyatro Tenzing, on 1 August, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
SC No.19/08
State Vs. Gyatro Tenzing,
S/o Sh. Tenzing Tashi,
R/o Vegabond, Tibetian Camp,
Aruna Nagar,
Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi.
FIR No.134/07
U/s 307 IPC
PS : Timar Pur
Date of Institution : 5.11.07
Arguments heard on : 1.8.08
Order pronounced on : 1.8.08
***
JUDGMENT
Accused Gyatro Tenzing has been sent to face trial for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC with the allegation that on 7.3.2007 at about 11.45 pm in room No.8, House No.202, First Floor, New Aruna Nagar, Majnu-Ka-Tila, Delhi he stabbed with knife three-four times in the abdomen of Sh. Sangay Tsering Bhutia, as a result of which he received injuries and was admitted in the Hospital. During investigation, accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, he was sent to face trial for the offence complained of.
2. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, accused Gyatro Tenzing was charged for the offence punishable 1 under Sec.307 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has examined four witnesses in all in support of its case. Accused has also been examined under Sec.313 CrPC in which he has denied the case of the prosecution.
4. I have heard Sh. S.C. Sharma, ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. counsel for the accused and carefully gone through the record.
5. PW-1 Sh. Sangay Tsering Bhutia has stated that he was running Kongapo House which is a Paying Guest House. One girl namely Lham, who was working in the building adjacent to his guest house, had been residing there for a year prior to the date of this occurrence and remained as tenant for about 4-5 months in his guest house. He has further stated that one boy used to come to meet her whose name he did not know. The said girl had not paid rent for two months and when he asked her to pay the rent, hot words were exchanged between him and the said boy. On 3.3.2007 the said girl had again started living as tenant and on 4.3.2007 she went away after locking the room No.8 situated on first floor after taking the lock from his wife and that girl took away the keys with her. PW-1 has further stated that on 7.3.2007 he alongwith his family members was 2 present on the second floor in his room and at about 11.15 pm, somebody knocked the door and shouted on which he came down and saw that quarrel was going on between the said girl and the boy and he found the door of the room No.8 open. On seeing him, the said girl went out and when he asked that boy, he abused him. When he objected by saying that as to why he had come to his guest house, the said boy took out knife and hit the same on his stomach. He tried to save himself and caught hold the hands of that boy and gave teeth bite but he again gave two-three knife blows on his stomach saying that he would not leave him alive. He has further stated that by that time his wife also came down and when she tried to save him, the said boy also gave leg blow to her due to which she fell down and when she raised alarm, the said boy ran away with knife. Thereafter his wife informed the police on telephone and the police alongwith his wife took him to Trauma Centre, Ring Road. PW- 1 Sh. Sangay has stated that he could not identify the said boy due to lapse of time and that the accused facing trial in this case whom he had seen on last two dates of hearing, was not the same boy who caused injuries to him.
6. As this witness did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identity, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP but without any success. During cross examination, 3 he has specifically denied the suggestion that the accused facing trial in this case, was the same person who caused injuries to him.
7. PW-2 Smt. R. Wangmo, wife of the injured has also deposed on the identical lines as deposed by her husband i.e. the injured and she also not supported the case of prosecution. As this witness has also not supported the case of prosecution, she was also cross examined by ld. Addl. PP but could not extract anything incriminating. She has also denied the suggestion that accused, facing trial in this case, was arrested on her identification. She has also denied the suggestion that accused facing trial in this case, was the same person who caused injuries to her husband and also gave leg blow to her.
8. PW-3 Sh. Jagdish is the eye witness. He has stated that he did not know anything about this case and that police never met him nor recorded his statement. He has also stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence and later on he came to know that the owner of the Paying Guest House was got injured by some person. As this witness also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, he was also cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State. During cross examination by the State, he has denied the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP that on 7.3.2007 at about 11.00 pm he was present in the Paying 4 Guest House or that he saw the accused Gyatro Tenzing facing trial in this case, causing injuries with a knife to the owner on his stomach and injured was removed to Trauma Centre by CAT Ambulance by his wife.
9. PW-4 SI Dharam Prakash is the IO of the case. He has stated that on the intervening night of 7/8.3.2007 while he was on patrolling duty, at about 12.15 am (midnight) on the direction of SHO, DD No.2A Ex.PW4/A was marked to him for investigation. On receipt of said DD, he alongwith Ct. Alok Kumar went to House No.202, Majnu Ka Tilla, Tibatian Camp where he came to know that injured had already been removed to hospital. Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Alok went to Trauma Centre where ASI Shambhu Dayal met him and handed over to him the MLC of the injured and one sealed pullanda. On the MLC, the injured was declared 'unfit for statement'. Smt. R. Wangmo, wife of the injured met him in the hospital and he recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A and made her endorsement Ex.PW4/B on the same and sent the rukka through Ct. Vinod for registration of the case. Thereafter he alongwith the complainant reached the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C. He also called the crime Team at the spot and got inspected the site and also lifted blood samples from the spot and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/D. There accused was searched but he could not 5 be traced. PW-4 SI Dharam Singh has further stated that on 9.3.2007 he again went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured who disclosed the name of the accused. On the same day at about 12.00 noon he received a secret information that accused was present near Tibetian School and he reached there and apprehended the accused at the instance of informer and in the mean time complainant also reached there and she also identified the accused to be the person who caused injuries to her husband. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/F. He has further stated that he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/G of the accused who also led the police party to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence. Accused took out one knife and produced the same before him. He prepared the sketch Ex.PW4/H of the knife and kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of DP and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. PW4 has further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/J of the place from where recovery was effected. Thereafter accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo is Ex.PW4/K. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter produced the accused in the Court. PW4 has further stated that on 10.3.2007 he again went to the hospital and moved an application Ex.PW4/L and obtained the 6 opinion from the doctor. He also obtained the opinion about the weapon of offence and also seized blood sample vide memo Ex.PW4/M. He has proved the MLC of the injured as Ex.PW4/N and the report of crime team as Ex.PW4/P and Q. During investigation he also obtained the report Ex.PW4/R from finger prints expert, sent the exhibits to FSL and reports Ex.PX and PY were obtained.
11. In this case, as all the material witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Sangay Tsering - the injured, PW-2 Smt. R. Wangmo - wife of the injured and PW-3 Sh. Jagdish - the eye witness have not supported the case of prosecution and have not deposed anything incriminating against the accused, PE was closed by order of the Court. As nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, this Court is left with no option but to acquit the accused. Accordingly, the accused Gyatro Tenzing is acquitted of the charge. Case property shall be confiscated to the State after the expiry of period of appeal, if any. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( PRATIBHA RANI )
Addl. Sessions Judge/Delhi
1.8.2008
7
8