Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ramesh Yadav on 24 April, 2015
FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 37/15 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0056462014 State Vs. 1. Ramesh Yadav S/o Sh. Jamuna Parsad R/o Jhuggi No. A244, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. 2. Rajender Yadav S/o Sh. Shiv Parsad Yadav R/o Jhuggi no. A258, Shahbad Diary, Delhi. 3. Rullo Devi W/o Sh. Ramesh Yadav R/o Jhuggi No. A244, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. 4. Raj Kumari @ Guddi W/o Sh. Rajender Yadav R/o Jhuggi No. A258, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. FIR No. : 96/12 Police Station : Shahbad Dairy Under Sections : 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 01.05.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 24.04.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 24.04.2015 State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution had charge sheeted four accused persons named therein, to face trial in respect of offences U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC on the allegations that on 23.03.2012 at about 9.30 P.M in front of House no. A214, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mahendra Park, all of them in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Ajay and Hari Charan with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by their said act, they would have caused the death of said persons, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They have also been charged with offences punishable U/s 325/323/34 IPC on the allegations that on the aforesaid date, time and place, all of them in furtherance of their common intention, also voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Smt. Meera and simple hurt to Smt. Renu and Ms. Meenu.
2. In brief, it is alleged in the charge sheet that on receipt of DD no. 49A at 9.30 P.M on 23.03.12, HC Balwan alongwith Ct. Amit reached the place of information where it was revealed that injured persons had already been removed to M.V hospital by PCR Van. No eye witness was available at the spot. Accordingly, both of them rushed to M.V hospital and obtained MLCs of all the injured persons. HC Balwan recorded statement of complainant Ajay Kumar and got the FIR in question registered.
3. It is further claimed that investigation was entrusted to HC Balwan who prepared site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses. He also arrested accused persons namely Ramesh Yadav, Rajender Yadav, Rullo Devi and Raj Kumari @ Guddi. He also obtained opinion State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 about the nature of injuries on MLCs of the injured persons.
4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
5. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
6. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charge u/s 308/323/325/34 IPC against all the accused persons vide order dated 17.07.14 to which all the said accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses namely PW1 HC Hoshiar Singh, PW2 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW3 Sh. Hari Charan, PW4 Sh. Smt. Meera, PW5 Sh. Kiran, PW6 Smt. Meenu and PW7 Smt Renu till 24.04.2015.
8. Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on any material point, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
9. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with.
10. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and ld. proxy counsel on behalf of all the accused persons. I have also gone through State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 the material available on record.
11. Before discussing the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief the testimonies of the aforesaid star witnesses examined by prosecution during trial.
POLICE WITNESSES:
12. PW1 HC Hoshiar Singh: He is the Duty Officer who has proved factum regarding registration of FIR in question. He proved computerized copy of FIR as Ex PW1/A and his endorsement as Ex PW1/B made on the rukka. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
13. PW2 Sh. Ajay: He is the complainant on whose statement FIR in question came to be registered. According to case of prosecution, the incident in question had taken place in his presence and this witness was also caused hurt by the accused persons. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution on any material point.
He deposed that on 23.03.12, at about 3.00 P.M, an altercation had taken place between his family and the family of accused persons. However, the matter was compromised between them. On the same day at about 10.00 PM, while he alongwith his family members were present in their house, 2025 public persons suddenly gathered in front of their house and started pelted stones at their house on which he alongwith his family members namely Hari Charan, Meera Devi, Renu, Kiran and Meenu came outside the house. The said unknown persons State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 assaulted them with fist and kick blows.
He categorically deposed that accused persons are his neighbourers and they had, in fact, came there to rescue them from those unknown assailants. He also deposed that none of the accused herein, was amongst the assailants and all the assailants were unknown persons who fled away from the spot.
He further deposed that some one made PCR can at 100 number on which PCR Van came and removed him as well as his injured family members to hospital where police made enquiry from him and also obtained his signatures on certain documents. His statement was not recorded by the police at that time.
The aforesaid witness was cross examined at length by Ld Additional PP who put all the relevant suggestions on the lines of prosecution story to him but he denied the same. He denied to have told the police that accused persons had visited his house or that they were having bricks and stones with them or that the accused persons had given fist blows to him as well as to his other family members. He also denied to have made statement Ex. PW2/A to the police and explained that he had not made any such statement to the police but police had obtained his signatures on some blank documents.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW3 Sh. Hari Charan, PW4 Smt. Meera, PW5 Smt. Kiran, PW6 Smt. Meenu, PW7 Smt. Renu: According to the case of prosecution, these public witnesses except PW5 Ms. Kiran had also sustained injuries during the incident in question at the hands of accused persons while PW5 allegedly witnessed the said incident. However, they have also not supported the State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 case of prosecution on any material point including on the point of identity of accused herein to be the assailants involved in the offences committed against them.
15. All the aforesaid five public witnesses also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW2 Sh. Ajay Kumar, during their respective chief examination. They also gave clean chit to all the accused persons by testifying that the accused persons had rushed to the spot in order to help them from the clutches of offenders and the assailants were unknown persons who managed to flee away from the spot after causing injuries to them. Nothing material came on record even during their cross examination by Ld Additional PP on behalf of State, who put all the relevant suggestions to them on the lines of prosecution story. Not only this, they also denied to have made any statement before the police. However, all these five witnesses have not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
16. Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that all the six star witnesses of prosecution i.e PW2 to PW7 did not support its case on any material point and thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. As already discussed above, all the six key witnesses i.e PW2 to PW7 have failed to support the case of prosecution on every material point. PW2 to PW7 have not identified the accused herein to be the assailants involved in the commission of offence. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses more particularly PW2 to PW7, the entire case of prosecution has fallen down like a pack of cards. According to the case of prosecution, the aforesaid public witnesses alone had witnessed the incident. State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 7 FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015 Thus, all of them alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial. However, none of them deposed on the lines of prosecution case as mentioned in the chargesheet. None of said public witnesses identified the present accused as assailants involved in the commission of offence. Rather, all of them testified that accused herein had tried to rescue them from the hands of the offenders. In view of testimonies of said public witnesses, Court is of the view that the entire case of prosecution has become doubtful.
18. The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something would have come on the surface in the deposition of said eye witnesses, but all of them turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination on behalf of State connecting the accused persons with the offence charged against them.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accused persons namely Ramesh Yadav, Rajender Yadav, Rullo Devi and Raj Kumari @ Guddi are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 24.04.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 7
FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015
State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 7
FIR No. 96/12 U/s 308/325/323/341/506/34 IPC; P.S. Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 24.04.2015
State V/s Ramesh Yadav Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 7