Delhi District Court
State vs Jaspal on 24 March, 2015
FIR No. 117/2010
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
State Vs Jaspal
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH WEST04, DELHI
Case ID:- 02404R0162532010
FIR No. 117/2010
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
State Vs Jaspal
Date of Institution of case : 16.07.2010
Date of Judgment : 24.03.2015
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 28.03.2010 b) Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/506(II)/34 IPC c) Name of Accused, his : 1) Jaspal Singh parentage & residence S/o Late Sh.Harnam Singh R/o B-13A/19, Model Town-II, Delhi. 2) Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Jaspal Singh R/o H.No. A-121, Gujrawala Town-I, Darewala Nagar, Delhi. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted 1/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:- Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
1. That on 28.03.2010, at about 11:15 p.m at B-28, Seven Seas Banquet Hall, Lawrence Road Industrial Area within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram, both the accused persons namely Jaspal Singh and Rajender Singh in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the way of complainant Sanjay Pal Singh and voluntarily caused simple hurt with glass and iron rod on the person of injured Vikram by giving beatings to him and threatened to kill them, thus both the accused persons committed offences punishable u/s 341/324/323/ 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. The Court took cognizance of the above-said offence punishable u/s 341/324/323/ 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC and as a prime facie case was made out against the accused persons for u/s 341/324/323/ 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC, charge was accordingly framed against them to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for offence punishable u/s 341/324/323/ 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:-
a) Section 341 IPC:- That the accused lawfully restrains a person, that such restraint prevented the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits and that the victim had every right to proceed beyond the circumscribing limits.
b) Section 324 IPC:- That the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, 2/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal disease or infirmity to the victim, that accused did so intentionally or with knowledge the hurt would cause bodily pain disease or infirmity to the victim and that the hurt was caused by any shooting, stabbing, cutting instrument etc.
c) Section 323 IPC:- That the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and that accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
d) Section 506 (II) IPC :- That the accused threatened someone to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause destruction of any property by fire or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment with life or for imprisonment with a term which may extend to seven years or to impute unchastity to a women or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested, that the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence and that the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
e) Section 34 IPC:-
(i) That the criminal act or a series of acts which include omissions and need not necessary be an overt act should have been done not by one person but by more then one person.
(ii) That the doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting into the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance/ advancement/ promotion of common intention of all such persons.
(iii) This Section deals with constructive criminal liability which provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. If the common intention leads to the 3/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal commission of the criminal offence charged, each one of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them ....... Nand Kishore v State of M.P (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 378: (2011) 12 SCC 120; Brathi v State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 519.
4. To prove its case, prosecution started its evidence with the examination of victims Sh. Sanjay Pal Singh and Sh. Vikram.
5. PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh deposed that on 28.03.2010, he alongwith Sh. Vikram Singh, his Jija were present at his shop. PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Pal Singh further deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he does not know the accused.
Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness and the witness admitted the statement Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The statement Ex. PW-1/A was read over and explained to the witness and witness denied to have given such statement to the police and submitted that he can not identify the accused persons. The witness denied the suggestion that he borrowed some money from accused Jaspal Singh and did not return the same, that on 28.03.2010, he alongwith his parents and relatives were present at Seven Sea Banquet Hall where reception of son of Mr. Dhawan was going on (confronted with statement Ex. PW-1/A portion A to A where it is so recorded), that he alongwith his Jija Vikram were present in abovesaid Banquet Hall and were taking drinks, that accused Jaspal alongwith his Jija Rajender were also sitting in the corner of the said Hall, that at about 11:15 p.m accused Jaspal and his Jija Rajender came there and accused Rajender was having a glass in his 4/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal hand and that accused Jaspal Singh asked him "Mere Bakaya Biyaz Ke Paise Deta Hai Ya Nahi" upon which he replied Meine Sare Paise Wapas Kar Diye Hai. The witness further denied the suggestion that when he alongwith his Jija came outside and in the meantime accused Jaspal Singh lifted the Iron Rod from there and hit it on his forehead due to which blood was oozing from his head, that accused persons had also beaten his Jija and hit the glass on the face of his Jija, that accused persons also threatened to kill him and his Jija, that accused persons were arrested on his instance (confronted with statement marked as Mark A, portion A to A1 where it is so recorded), that police officials prepared site plan at his instance, that he has been won over by the accused persons so intentionally he is not identifying them and that he had compromised the matter with the accused persons so intentionally he is not disclosing the true facts before this Court.
6. PW-2 Sh. Vikram, S/o Sh. Baldev Singh Sohal deposed that on 28.03.2010, he was present alongwith Sh. Sanjay Pal at his shop. PW-2 Sh. Vikram further deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he does not the accused.
Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness and the witness was read over and explained his statement marked as Mark A portion A to A1 upon which the witness denied to have given such statement to the police and deposed that he can not identify the accused persons. The witness denied the suggestion that on 28.03.2010, he alongwith his parents and relatives were present at Seven Seas Banquet Hall where reception of son of Mr. Dhawan was going on (confronted with statement marked as Mark A portion A to A where it is so recorded), that he alongwith his brother in law Sanjay Pal were 5/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal present in abovesaid Banquet Hall and were taking drinks, that accused Jaspal alongwith his Jija Rajender were also sitting in the corner of the said Hall, that at about 11:15 p.m accused Jaspal and his Jija Rajender came there and accused Rajender was having a glass in his hand, that accused Jaspal Singh asked his brother in law "Mere Bakaya Biyaz Ke Paise Deta Hai Ya Nahi" upon which he replied Meine Sare Paise Wapas Kar Diye Hai, that when he alongwith his brother in law came outside in the meantime accused Jaspal Singh lifted the Iron Rod from there and hit it on his forehead due to which blood was oozing from his head, that the accused persons had beaten him and hit the glass on his face and he sustained injuries, that accused persons also threatened to kill him and his brother in law, that accused persons were arrested at their instance, that he has been won over by the accused persons so intentionally he is not identifying them, that he had compromised the matter with the accused persons so intentionally he is not disclosing the true facts before this Court.
7. During the prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant/ star witness PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Pal Singh and PW-2 Sh. Vikram are not supporting the prosecution as they failed to tell anything about the case, that they did not identify the accused persons present today in the Court as the assailants who had beaten them and thus resiled from their statement recorded earlier, that no material could be extracted from the cross examination of the aforesaid witness by the state and that the witnesses have turned hostile in toto. It is submitted that there is no other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove that accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt or wrongful restraint or committing criminal intimidations to the complainants. It is submitted that no 6/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused as remaining witnesses are all police/ medical witnesses who are formal in nature and the fact that accused persons were the assailants who voluntarily caused hurt or wrongful restraint or committed criminal intimidation to the complainants which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused persons can not be proved at all by the remaining prosecution witnesses.
8. Submission of Ld. APP for the State and defence are heard. Record perused.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused are not baseless. Considering the record, the fact that the complainant/star witnesses PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Pal Singh and PW-2 Sh. Vikram are not supporting the prosecution and is resiling from their statement recorded earlier regarding accused persons being the assailants as well as the fact that there is no other eye witness of the incident to establish the fact of voluntarily causing hurt or wrongful restraint or committed criminal intimidation to the complainants by the accused persons which is necessary element for completion of offence punishable u/s 341/324/323 506(II) read with Section 34 IPC, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is closed and recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record.
Considering the aforesaid discussion and the present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused persons namely Jaspal Singh and Rajender Singh are hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 7/8 FIR No. 117/2010 PS Keshav Puram U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC State Vs Jaspal 341/324/323/ 506 (II) read with Section 34 IPC levelled against them.
Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
on 24.03.2015 MM-04/NORTH WEST:DELHI
24.03.2015
8/8