Delhi District Court
India In Case Titled "Satish Mehra vs . Delhi Administration & Anrs" 1996 on 11 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State v. Pardeep & Ors.
FIR No. 878/05
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 324/341//34 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1743/2/10
Date of Institution : 18.11.2006
Date of Commission of Offence : 11.10.2005
Name of the complainant : Dharambir
S/o Samre Lal
R/o D-22, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Pardeep
S/o Ram Mahesh
R/o A-7, Gali No.2, Ambika Enclave
20 Feet Road, Nihal Vihar, Delhi
A-2 Lalu
S/o Kanwar Pal
R/o R/o A-7, Gali No.2, Ambika Enclave
20 Feet Road, Nihal Vihar, Delhi
A-3 Balbir
S/o Kanwar Pal
R/o R/o A-7, Gali No.2, Ambika Enclave
20 Feet Road, Nihal Vihar, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 324/341/34 IPC
State v. Pardeep & Ors. U/s 341/324/34 IPC 1/4
FIR No. 878/05, PS Paschim Vihar
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 28.01.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 11.02.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 324/341/34 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2005, complainant Dharambir was selling papayas at Nihal Vihar Pul near Bus Stop, Route no.910. At about, 12.30 pm, the accused persons namely Pardeep & Lalu, who also used to sell Papayas came there on cycles and told the complainant not to sell papayas there. When the complainant objected to the same, all the accused persons started abusing the complainant and started beating him. In the meantime, brother of the accused Lalu namely Balbir also came there and started beating the complainant. When the complainant tried to rescue himself from the accused persons, accused Balbir and Pardeep caught hold of the complainant and accused Lalu hit the complainant with a sharp edged weapon on his right thigh. All the accused persons fled from the spot. Thus, accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 324/341/34 IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused persons and thereafter charge under Section State v. Pardeep & Ors. U/s 341/324/34 IPC 2/4 FIR No. 878/05, PS Paschim Vihar 324/341//34 IPC was framed against the accused Pardeep, Lalu and Balbir vide order dated 13.04.2011 by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e SI Bahadur Singh as PW-1. This witness had recorded the present FIR on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Mahabir. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW1/B.
5. The prosecution summoned the complainant Dharambir. However, the complainant Dharambir has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. The name of complainant Dharambir was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 17.12.2014. In the absence of complainant's testimony, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs" 1996 JCC 507, "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, recording of statement of accused persons was also dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record. State v. Pardeep & Ors. U/s 341/324/34 IPC 3/4 FIR No. 878/05, PS Paschim Vihar
7. In the case at hand, the injured /complainant Dharambir has remained unserved even through DCP concerned and his name was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. In absence of their testimony, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had voluntarily restrained the complainant, gave beatings to him and caused simple injuries to the complainant by a sharp weapon.
8. In view of the above discussion, court is of the opinion that the guilt of the accused persons have not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Pardeep, Lalu and Balbir are acquitted under Section 324/341/34 IPC.
9. As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused persons are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
ANNOUNCED ON 11.02.2015 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /11.02.2015 State v. Pardeep & Ors. U/s 341/324/34 IPC 4/4 FIR No. 878/05, PS Paschim Vihar