Delhi District Court
State vs Vikash Singh @ Battery on 10 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF
Dr. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 :
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
S.C. No.: 1580/2018
State Versus Vikash Singh @ Battery
S/o Sh. Kishore Singh
R/o H. No. 11/480, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 613/2017
Under Section : 392/394/397/34 IPC
Police Station : Kalyanpuri
Chargesheet Filed On : 21.07.2018
Chargesheet Allocated On : 17.08.2018
Judgment Reserved On : 10.12.2018 (F.N.)
Judgment Announced On : 10.12.2018 (A.N.)
Corum: Sh. A.K. Mishra, ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. S.P. Singh, ld. counsel for accused
JUDGMENT
1. Police machinery set in motion on receipt of DD No. 57-A dated 10.12.2017 regarding stabbing to one boy who is being rushed to SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 1 of 8 hospital. On it, SI Krishan Lal along with Const. Anuj reached the spot where no eye witness met them. Thereafter police party reached LBS Hospital where Anis, complainant, met and got recorded his statement inter alia alleging therein that on that date at about 9 p.m. while he was present near Central Market, where Vikash, Sanju and Avtar were found standing there; all of them surrounded him and directed him (Anis) to handover whatever he had. Vikas stabbed him on his left thigh and took out Rs. 200/-from pocket of his shirt. Complainant raised hue and cry on which all assailants left from the spot and one Ashish came there who had rushed him to hospital. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR No. 613/2017 Under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC PS Kalyanpuri was registered.
2. It is further case of the prosecution that two of the assailants were found CCL, they were apprehended and were sent to JJB to face trial. Accused Vikas was also arrested and proceedings were conducted against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, chargesheet was filed against the accused to face trial under Sec. 392/394/397/34 IPC.
SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 2 of 8
3. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 CrPC by the court of Ld. MM, chargesheet were committed to the Court of Sessions as Sec. 397 IPC is exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 29.08.2018 passed by this court, charge was framed under Sections 392/394/397/34 IPC against the present accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The Prosecution in support of its case has examined six witnesses, out of them Anees (PW-02) -complainant/injured is the star and key witness of the case while PW Rajesh Kumar (PW-01) and Ashish (PW-3) are witnesses to the effect that injured told them about the incident.
PW-4 Const. Mata Prasad is a witness to the arrest of accused on his being surrendered himself and proved memos Ex.PW4/A to D prepared to that aspect.
PW-5 Const. Anuj joined the investigations of his case on 10.12.2017 and got the case registered on ruqqa being handed over to him. He is also a witness to the memo Ex.PW5/A prepared in the present matter.
SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 3 of 8 PW-6 SI Krishan Lal is the Investigating Officer of the case and proved memos prepared in this case including 6/A and Bwith other memos regarding arrest of accused.
During prosecution evidence, accused in his statement recorded under Sec. 294 CrPC admitted FIR; DD No. 57-A and MLC and report of Dr. Virender - all as Ex.C1 to C4.
Detailed testimonies of the witnesses concerned shall be discussed at the relevant stage of judgment.
6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied the incriminating circumstances put against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He did not opt to lead Defence Evidence.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused through medical record and accused persons failed to give any explanation how injured sustained injuries and thus, prayed for conviction, against the accused, as per charges framed against the accused.
SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 4 of 8
8. Ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused as all the material witnesses including star and key witness i.e. complainant/injured failed to identify the accused as being responsible for the crime in question and when confronted with his statement recorded under Se. 161 CrPC, denied the contents of the said statement/complaint. Ld. defence counsel further contended that under all these circumstances the accused is liable to be acquitted for the charges framed against him.
9. Rival submissions considered and record perused with law on the issues in question.
10. Admittedly in the present mater, star and key witness of the case is Anis (PW-2) - complainant/injured while Rajesh Kumar (PW-1) and Sh. Ashsih (PW-3) - are witnesses to the effect that injured told them about the incident.
11. Perusal of the record is clear to the effect that PW-2 Anis deposed to the effect that -
"xxxI do not remember the date but in the winter season of 2017, I went to main market for purchasing some household articles and I was standing at the shop nearby the DDA Park where 6-7 SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 5 of 8 persons came and one of them stabbed on my back side of my left thigh and then snatched my 200/- and run away from there. Xxxxx took me to the LBS Hospital. In the hospital I was medically examined. Xxx I cannot identify the accused present in the court today. I do not want to say anything else. XXX XXX By Sh. A.K. Mishra, ld. Addl. PP for the State It is correct that incident had taken place on 10.12.2017.xxx It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police in my complaint Ex.,PW2/A that accused Vikash gave a knife blow on my left side thigh and said Vikash snatched 200/- from my shirt xxx It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying accused Vikash as being won over by him. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to this aspect.
XXX By Sh. S.P. Singh, ld. counsel for accused It is correct that today I am deposing falsely correctly without any threat or pressure from anyone.
12. Hence, it is clear that complainant/injured, the star and key witness of the case failed to identify the accused as being responsible for the crime in question and he in clear words denied that it was accused who caused injuries to him or committed any offence as SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 6 of 8 alleged. Remaining public witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar (PW-1) and Ashish (PW-3) are witnesses to whom injured allegedly disclosed the incident but both of them also did not support the prosecution to that effect. All of them failed to identify the accused responsible for the crime committed in the present matter.
13. All these witnesses were declared hostile and were cross- examined by ld. Addl. PP. During cross-examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP all these witnesses stuck to the stand taken by them during their examination-in-chief exonerating the present accused from the present crime.
14. Remaining witnesses are police officials who either associated with the investigations of this case or to arrest of the accused. Nothing has come on record to point out that it was the present accused who caused injuries to the complainant/injured or participated in the commission of crime, in any way, as alleged in the charges, on the date, time and place of incident despite cross- examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for the State after being declared hostile to the material witnesses.
SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 7 of 8
15. Hence, in view of the above, court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the present accused beyond all reasonable doubts for any of the offences for which present accused has been charged with. As such, accused namely Vikash Singh @ Battery S/o Sh. Kishore Singh is acquitted of the charges for the offences for which he has been charged.
16. Case property be confiscated to State after expiry of period of revision/appeal if any.
17. File be consigned to RR.
Digitally signed by SATINDER
SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM
Announced in the open Court KUMAR GAUTAM Date: 2018.12.10 16:15:40
on 10th day of December, 2018 +0530
(Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East) :
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
SC No. 1580/2018 State Vs. Vikash Singh @ Battery Page No.: 8 of 8