Delhi District Court
State vs Ganpat on 11 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MR. GAURAV GOYAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, CENTRAL DISTRICT: DELHI.
FIR No. 444/2014
PS - Sadar Bazar
U/s - 326/34 IPC
State Vs. Ganpat
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 305189/2016
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-013379-2016
(c) Date of commission of 22.10.2014 offence
(d) Name of the complainant Ms. Geeta, W/o Late Ramchander
(e) Name of the accused Ganpat, S/o Niranjan, R/o person(s), his parentage and House No. 9717, Gali No. 8, residence Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi.
(f) Offence(s) complained of Section 326/34 IPC & 174A or proved IPC (g) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty (h) Final Order Acquitted.
(i) Date of institution of case 27.07.2016 (J) Date of judgment 11.01.2024 FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.1-8 Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Gaurav Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:06:25 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 Brief reasons for the decision of the case
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 21.10.2014 at about 10.00 pm at house no. 11032, Gali Peepal Wali, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bazar, the accused caused grievous hurt to complainant Geeta with a dangerous weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 326/34 IPC.
The Charge and Plea of Accused
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, accused was duly summoned. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and a formal charge for commission of offences U/s 326/34 IPC & 174A IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During course of trial, accused pleaded guilty for offence u/s 174 IPC and he was convicted on his plea of guilty and was sentenced for imprisonment already undergone by him in custody. Further trial continued with respect to charges under section 326/34 IPC against accused Ganpat.
Admission/Denial of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the following documents u/s 294 Cr.PC FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.2-8 Digitally signed by Gaurav Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:06:41 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with. FIR Ex.A-1, A-2 & A-3, MLC no. 7395/14 of patient Geeta dated 21.10.2014 Ex.A-5 & DD No. 79B dated 21.10.2014 PS Sadar Bazar Ex. A-6.
Prosecution Evidence
5. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses:- PW1/Geeta (Complainant), PW2/HC Awadesh Tomar (IO of the case), PW3/HC Samander Singh, PW4/HC Praveen Kumar, PW5/SI Mohd. Saleem (1st IO) & PW6/ASI V. P. Singh.
6. The prosecution also relied on the following pieces of documentary evidence:
(i) Statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A
(ii) Site plan Ex PW1/C
(iii) Disclosure Statement Ex. PW2/A
(iv) Formal arrest memo Ex. PW2/B
(v) Supplementary statement Ex. PW2/C
(vi) Arrest memo Ex. PW4/A.
(vii) Search memo Ex. PW4/B (viiii) MLC report of accused Ex. PW4/C
(ix) Kalandra Ex. PW4/D.
(x)Site plan Ex. PW5/B FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.3-8 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:06:52 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 Submissions made by the Prosecution and Defence Counsel
7. The Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved the its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and pleaded for the conviction of the accused.
Per contra, it is contended by Ld. defence counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and thus a reasonable shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version.
Legal Benchmarks
8. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is to be borne in mind, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story and any such doubts in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.4-8
Digitally signed by Gaurav
Gaurav Goyal Goyal
Date: 2024.01.11 17:07:08
+05'30'
MM-06/Central/11.01.2024
9. In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P"
reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution.."
10.The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
11.The law on appreciation of evidence in the event of FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.5-8 Digitally signed by Gaurav Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:07:17 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 witness turning hostile was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with a leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands throughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.....".
Conclusion after appreciation of Evidence and reasons thereof
12. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, PW1 /Ms. Geeta who is the complainant in the present case had turned hostile on the point of identification. The FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.6-8 Digitally signed by Gaurav Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:07:34 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 relevant extract of the examination-in-chief are reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....PW-1 Ms. Geeta "I do not know anything about the present case and today I do not remember anything what happened to me on the day of the incident".
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement made to the police.
Heard. Allowed.
XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
At this stage, witness is pointed towards the accused present in the Court today and asked to identify him. Witness failed to identify the accused in the court today and stated that he is not the person who had injured her on that day. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused today in the Court, as I have been won over by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not disclosing the true and correct facts before the court today and concealing the true facts before the court for that reason. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXXXXX by Sh. Rahul Tandon, Ld LAC for accused.
It is correct that accused not present at the spot and had not hit me. It is correct that accused had done nothing.
13.In the instant case, as mentioned above, the complainant Ms. Geeta is completely hostile to the prosecution case. In FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.7-8 Digitally signed by Gaurav Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:07:44 +05'30' MM-06/Central/11.01.2024 her testimony she has categorically deposed that she does not know about the present matter. In view of of the hostile testimony of the complainant, whole prosecution case crumbles and nothing survives thereafter. Once complainant/eye witness themselves has absolved accused of all charges, there remains nothing in the prosecution case.
14.In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has failed miserably to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accused deserves to be acquitted for the charges U/s 326/34 IPC levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 11.01.2024 The judgement consists of 8 signed pages.
Gaurav Goyal Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Date: 2024.01.11 17:07:53 +05'30' (GAURAV GOYAL) MM-06(CENTRAL)/THC/DELHI 11.01.2024 FIR NO. 444/2014 State Vs. Ganpat Page no.8-8 MM-06/Central/11.01.2024