Delhi District Court
State vs . Kulwinder Singh & Others on 1 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No. 02403R0346592006
SC No. 66/14
FIR No. 339/05
State vs. Kulwinder Singh & Others
PS: Defence Colony
State Vs. 1. Kulwinder Singh @ Bobby
S/o Shri Raj Singh
R/o H. No. 414, Madangir,
New Delhi.
2. Umed Singh
S/o Shri Jeet Singh
R/o 118, Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi.
3. Sukhbir Singh
S/o Shri Bali Ram
R/o Vill. Janholi, P. S. Rai
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
4. Manav Diwan
S/o Shri Ramesh Diwan
R/o D794, Saraswati Vihar
Delhi.
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 18.01.2007
SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 1 of 6
Date of arguments : 22.05.2015
Date of judgment : 01.06.2015
JUDGMENT
On 22.06.2005, complainant Manish Kumar Dubey came to police station Defence Colony and gave his complaint Ex.PW7/A wherein he alleged that he was beaten by fourfive persons and his car Matiz was snatched from him by showing knife. SI Kumar Rajeev (PW7) prepared rukka Ex.PW7/B and gave the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR.
2. On the basis of rukka given by SI Kumar Rajeev, PW1 HC Abhay Singh registered FIR no. 339/2005 under section 365/399/34 of The Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") vide Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on DD no. 15A which is Ex.PW1/B.
3. Matter was investigated as per law. All the four accused persons were found involved in the commission of offence in the case and therefore, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against them.
4. Prima facie case for framing charge under section 365/394/397/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, charge for the said offences framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt against accused persons, SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 2 of 6 prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
6. PW1 HC Abhay Singh, the Duty Officer, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He registered the FIR in the case on the basis of rukka presented to him by SI Kumar Rajeev.
7. PW2 HC Jitender Singh joined the investigation in the case with PW7 SI Kumar Rajeev. According to this witness, accused Kulwinder while being in police custody, led the police party at Kiran Farm, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where at the instance of accused, one car bearing no. DL3CQ7835 was recovered. The car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The car was seized and in its search, one silver lamp (diya), three sarees in boxes, one baby suit in a box, ten audio cassettes, one petticoat and some documents were recovered and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He identified accused Kulwinder in the court.
8. PW3 HC Sunil Kumar is MCH(M) and formal witness of the prosecution. He made relevant entries in Register No. 19 at the police station as and when the case property relating to the case was deposited in the maalkhana.
9. PW4 Ct. Girish Chandra is the witness, who joined the investigation in the case with PW7 SI Kumar Rajeev.
10. PW5 Insp. Manoj Kumar is the second IO of the case, who arrested accused Manav Diwan and Sukhbir Singh vide Arrest SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 3 of 6 Memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in the court.
11. PW6 Rajbir Singh, a record clerk from AIIMS hospital is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He identified signature and handwriting of Dr. Ankur Gupta on MLC of injured Manish (Ex.PW6/A) and MLC of Sukhbir (Ex.PW6/B).
12. PW7 SI Kumar Rajeev is the first IO of the case to whom the complaint Ex.PW7/A was given by complainant Manish Kumar Dubey. He prepared site plan Ex.PW7/C at the instance of complainant. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Kulwinder Singh and Umed Singh and also arrested them. In the course of investigation, SI Kumar Rajeev seized WagonR car no. DL9CD5057 vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/E.
13. PW8 Smt. Barkha Gupta, while being posted as MM at Central Jail, Tihar, on the request of IO of the case, conducted the TIP proceedings of accused Umed Singh and Kulwinder Singh. She proved TIP proceedings of both the accused which are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/C. She also gave certificate regarding the correctness of the proceedings which are Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/D.
14. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed innocence and alleged false implication. All the four accused SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 4 of 6 opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
15. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Addl. PP for State and Shri Karamveer Singh, learned counsel for accused persons and perused the record of the case.
16. Complainant Manish Kumar Dubey was the main witness of the prosecution, on the basis of whose complaint, FIR in the case was registered. He has not been produced in the court for his deposition despite sufficient time and opportunity granted to the Investigating Officer. In the absence of examination of Shri Manish Kumar Dubey, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons.
17. As already observed, PW1 HC Abhay Singh (Duty Officer), PW3 HC Sunil Kumar [MHC(M)], PW5 Insp. Manoj Kumar (second IO), PW6 Rajbir Singh (Record Clerk) and PW8 Smt. Barkha Gupta are formal witnesses of the prosecution. The entire incident is alleged to have happened with complainant Manish Kumar Dubey. Complainant Manish Kumar Dubey was the only person, who would have thrown light regarding the robbery of his Matiz car by the accused persons. He was also the witness, who would have told as to how he was kidnapped and wrongfully confined by the offenders. Complainant was the only witness to tell the court as to who caused injuries to him at the SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 5 of 6 time of committing robbery of his car no. DL3CQ7835. Due to non examination of complainant Manish Kumar Dubey, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against any of the accused persons. The case property i.e. car No. DL3CQ7835, which is alleged to have been robbed from the complainant itself has not been produced in the court during the course of trial.
18. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused persons. All the four accused namely Sukhbir Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Bobby, Manav Diwan and Umed Singh are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under section 365/394/397/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount each in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C. Bail bonds furnished. Accepted.
19. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
st
today i.e 1 June, 2015 Addl. Sessions Judge02:South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 66/14 State Vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 6 of 6