Delhi District Court
State vs . Vipin Kumar & Anr. on 22 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08, WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, TIS HAZARI, DELHI. FIR No. : 185/2018 U/s : 323/34 IPC P.S. : Ranhola State Vs. Vipin Kumar & Anr. JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-004271-2021
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 2725/21
c) Name & address of the :Vijay Mohan S/o Sarat Singh
H No. 16A, Gali no. 4, Shiv
Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi.
d) Name & address of : 1. Vipin Kumar
complainant. S/o Narender Prasad
R/o A-135, Shiv Vihar, Gali no.
6, Vikas Nagar, Delhi.
2. Neeraj S/o Narender Prasad
R/o A-135, Shiv Vihar, Gali no.
6, Vikas Nagar, Delhi
e) Date of Commission of : 04.03.2018
offence
f) Offence complained off : U/s 323/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 22.03.2022
Date of Institution : 05.03.2021
Final arguments heard on : 22.03.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 22.03.2022
FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 1/6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2018 at about 11.00 PM in front of Anmol Vatika, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi, accused Vipin Kumar and Neeraj in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the person of complainant Vijay Mohan with a human tooth bite on left ear and also caused simple injuries on the person of Brij Mohan and Bharti with blunt object, and thus committed an offence punishable U/s 323/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, challan for offence 323/34 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC was framed against accused persons on 10.03.2022. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 Vijay Mohan is the complainant who deposed that he does not know anything about the present case. Ld. APP sought permission to cross- examine the witness under section 154 Indian Evidence Act. Statement recorded by the police of the witness Ex PW1/A was read over to him but he stated that he did not make any such statement.
FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 2/6
6. PW2 Brij Mohan who deposed that he does not know anything about the present case. Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine the witness under section 154 Indian Evidence Act. Statement recorded by the police of the witness Ex PW2/A was read over to him but he stated that he did not make any such statement.
7. PW3 Bharti who deposed that she does not know anything about the present case. Ld. APP sought permission to cross-examine the witness under section 154 Indian Evidence Act. Statement recorded by the police of the witness Ex PW3/A was read over to her but she stated that she did not make any such statement.
8. Ld. APP for the State requested for examination of other witnesses including the IO. Request of Ld. APP of the state was declined as the examination of the other remaining witnesses being police officials would have served no purpose in view of the testimonies of the complainant and other two public witnesses/injured persons who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence the PE was closed.
9. As no incriminating evidence was found against the accused persons in the present matter, Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.
FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 3/6
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even they have deposed that they do not know anything about the present case.
13. The witness/complainant and other injured persons have not supported the case of the prosecution qua offence under section 323 IPC. Essential ingredients of the offence remained unproved and no incriminating evidence is found against the accused.
14. It is a settled proposition of law that suspicion cannot take the place of proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:- Suspicion, FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 4/6 however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.
FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 5/6
15. In the considered view of the Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons. This is because complainant/injured PW1, injured persons PW2 and PW3 have not supported the version of the prosecution. This Court is of the view that accused persons are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt since PW1 and PW2 despite being asked specific court question regarding the injury suffered by them on the left ear, on the abdomen & right thumb, have completely absolved the accused from any blame.
16. In view of my discussion here in above, accused Vipin Kumar and Neeraj are hereby acquitted of the charged offences u/s 323/34 IPC.
17. As per section 437-A Cr.P.C accused persons are admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
Dictated & Announced (Aakash Sharma)
in Open Court MM-08/West/Delhi
On the 22nd day of March, 2022 22.03.2022
FIR No. 185/18 State V. Vipin Kumar & Anr. 6/6