Delhi District Court
CR Cases/2035021/2016 on 23 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG DASS, MM01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
1.Case No :530/01/2011
2.Unique I.D. No. :2035021/2016
3.Title of the case: :State v Pinnu Singh
FIR No. 99/2008, PS Mehrauli
4.Date of institution :24.07.2008
5.Date of reserving Judgment :17.07.2018
6.Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2018
J U D G M E N T :
(a)The date of commission 15.02.2008
(b)The name of complainant Sh.Ram Chander S/o Sh. Chotu
Ram (since deceased)
(c) The name & address accused Pinnu Singh, S/o Sh. Har
Charan, R/o Ghora Mohalla,
Aya Nagar, New Delhi
(d)The offence complained of 323/448/427/387/506/34 IPC
(e) The plea of the accused Not guilty
(f)The final order Acquitted
(g)The date of such order 23.10.2018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The accused Pinnu Singh was put to trial for the offence U/Sec 323/448/427/387/506/34 IPC on the allegations that on 15.02.2008 at about FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 1/11 11:30pm, at plot no. 210, H Block, near Bandh Road, Aya Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS FP Beri, he committed trespass by entering into the plot of the complainant Ram Chander after making preparations for causing hurt, gave beatings to the complainant Ram Chander (deceased) and his labourer Guddu, intentionally or knowing that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage or destruction of property resulting in diminishing its value or utility in respect of property amounting to more than Rs. 50/ by breaking the boundary wall by pushing it with his feet, threatened the complainant Ram Chander with dire consequences, in case he does not vacate the plot and in order to commit extortion, attempted to put the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence U/Sec 323/447/427/387 IPC was prepared against the accused.
2. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 24.07.2008 whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused person. Thereafter accused Pinnu Singh absented himself from appearance in the court and he was declared PO vide order dated 15.10.2012 and complainant was examined under Section 299 Cr. P.C. on 16.03.2013. Thereafter on 01.04.2013 accused was produced from J/c under Kalendra 41.1(C) Cr. P.C. thereafter case was further proceeded on trial.
3. After hearing the arguments, the accused was charged for the alleged commission of the offence U/Sec 323/448/427/387/506/34 IPC to which he pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 2/11 fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
5. PW1 Ram Chander (U/s 299 Cr. P.C.) who is the complainant has deposed that on 15.02.2008 at about 11/11:30 pm, he was standing near his plot situated at H Block, No. 210, Bandh Road, Aya Nagar, New Delhi. In the meantime, one person namely Pinnu Singh came near to him and started gazing at him and told him to vacate his land otherwise he will kill him. Accused Pinu Singh was having one danda in his hand. When he denied to obey his order, he started hitting him with the danda. He sustained injuries and became unconscious. He regained his consciousness in the hospital and proved his statement as Ex. PW1/A.
6. PW2 Sunil did not support the prosecution case and stated that accused did not enter into the plot in his presence and that accused Pinnu Singh used to threat the people who do not belong to their village. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP and accused.
7. PW3 Mahender Singh deposed that the incident took place in the year 2008 and he was working as property dealer. He had manged the sale of the property from Ranjeet Singh, brother of accused Pinnu Singh to the complainant. When complainant started construction on the said plot, FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 3/11 accused went there and threatened the complainant, but he was not present there at that time.
Witness was duly cross examined.
8. PW4 Sh. Maan Singh did not support the prosecution case. He deposed that in the year 2008 he had given Rs. 1,70,000/ to Sh. Ram Chander as earnest money for the plot i.e. S210, Bandh road. Thereafter, some dispute arose on the said plot and Sh. Ram Chander returned his earnest money. Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP however accused opted not to crossexamine the witness despite opportunity.
9. PW5 Sh. Surender Singh did not support the prosecution case and expressed his ignorance about the case.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP however accused opted not to crossexamine the witness despite opportunity.
10.PW6 SI Sohan Lal, Duty Officer has proved FIR no. 99/08 as Ex. PW6/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW6/B. Witness was duly cross examined.
11.PW7 ASI Babu Lal deposed that on 22.02.2008 he along with IO/ASI Durgesh Kumar went to H Block Aya Nagar and met complainant. Complainant joined the investigation and IO prepared site plan at his instance. IO recorded statement of the witnesses and search for accused but FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 4/11 accused could not be found.
Witness was duly cross examined.
12. PW8 Retd. ASI Durgesh Kumar deposed that on 16.02.2008, he received DD No. 62A regarding quarrel. Upon receipt of the same, he along with HC Babu Lal went to AIIMS Trauma Centre where he found complainant. Doctor declared the complainant fit for statement. He recorded statement of complainant as Ex. PW1/A. He prepared rukka from 21/02/2008 and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A. He prepared site plan as Ex. PW8/B. He searched for accused but could not find him. He collected MLC of the complainant from the hospital. He recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the challan without arrest of the accused.
Witness was duly cross examined.
13. PW9 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk proved MLC No. 12181/2008 and 12183/2008 dated 16.02.2008 of injured Ram Chander (deceased) and Godu prepared by Dr. Arvind Guru as Ex. PW9/A & Ex. PW9/B. He identified the signature of Dr. Arvind Guru as he has seen him signing the documents.
Witness was duly cross examined.
14.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 05.03.2018 and matter was fixed for Statement of Accused.
15.Separate Statement of Accused person u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 5/11 28.03.2018 and all incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated and he wants to lead defence evidence.
16. Accused has examined two witnesses in his defence.
17. DW1 Deepak Kumar, Record Clerk, Neelkant Hospital proved copy of OPD card dated 19.04.2008 as Ex. DW1/A, XRay report dated 19.04.2008 as Ex. DW1/B prepared by Dr. Anand Kumar and discharge summary dated 21.02.2008 of accused prepared by Dr. Jyoti as Ex. DW1/C. Witness was duly cross examined.
18.DW2 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Centre proved attested copy of MLC No. 12182/2008 dated 16.02.2008, discharge slip and treatment record of accused Pinnu Singh as Ex. DW2/A (colly) prepared by Dr. Arif Mohd. Siraj.
Witness was duly cross examined.
19. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record of the case.
20.Accused is facing charges u/s 323/448/427/387/506/34 IPC. Since, the accused is one and there are no several persons arrayed as accused in the instant case, Section 34 of IPC is not pressed into service.
FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 6/11
21.PW1 Ram Chander (complainant) has been examined under Section 299 Cr. P.C. Since the complainant has expired during the pendency of trial on 17.11.2014, the accused had no opportunity to cross examine the witness. Further more vide order dated 24.12.2014 complainant Ram Chander was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the witness as such cannot be considered.
22.PW2 Sunil, this witness resiled from his previous statement. Whereafter, he was crossexamined by Ld. APP. During crossexamination this witness deposed that accused Pinnu Singh has caused injuries to Ram Chander (complainant) (deceased), however, refuted the suggestion that accused Pinnu Singh illegally entered into the plot of Ram Chander (deceased) at 15.02.2008 at 11:30 pm. In view of contradiction in statement, the testimony of this witness on this limited aspect can not be relied. During further examination in chief this witness stated that there was quarrel of Pinnu Singh and Ram Chander (deceased) and that they both hit each other and sustained injuries.
23.PW3 Mahender Singh, in his cross examination deposed that the subject land was the joint property and it was never partitioned among the share holders. He refuted the suggestion that accused Pinnu Singh had also share in the subject plot. As is apparent, the witness has not deposed much about the date of incident in his examination. The witness has also stated that he was not present at that time.
FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 7/11
24.PW4 Maan Singh and PW5 Surender Singh have also resiled from their previous statements and were crossexamined by Ld. APP. The witnesses refuted the suggestions that they tried to construct the wall and the accused Pinnu Singh @ Pinnu demolished the same and threatened them to kill. There is also no deposition with regard to the date of incident as such testimony of these witnesses can not be relied.
Despite opportunity accused opted not to crossexamine the witnesses.
25. PW6 Sohan Lal in his crossexamination conceded to have not filed certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
26. PW7 ASI Babu Lal in his crossexamination stated that there were 34 persons who were the neighbours however, expressed ignorance about their place of residence. The testimony of this witness on this aspect as such can not be relied.
27.PW8 ASI Durgesh Kumar is the investigating office of the case. During crossexamination this witness was confronted with DD No. 62 A dated 16.02.2008 to the aspect that accused Pinnu Singh was also admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 12183/08. Apparently the IO of the case was negligent in his duty to investigate the case in a fair and impartial manner as he failed to collect the MLC of the accused from the hospital. The witness also conceded about the same.
28. PW9 Rajender Singh in his crossexamination stated that there is no FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 8/11 record in the hospital for his working with Doctor in the emergency department. However, this witness proved the documents i.e. MLC Nos. 12181/2008 and 12183/2008 both dated 16.02.2008 of patient Ram Chander (deceased) and Godu as prepared by the Doctor Arvind Guru. There appears no reason to disbelieve the public documents.
29. Accused has examined two witnesses in his defence.
30. DW1 Deepak Kumar, Record Keeper from Neelkanth Hospital has proved copy of OPD card dated 19.04.2008 as Ex. DW1/A, Xray report dated 19.04.2008 as DW1/B and discharge summary dated 21.02.2008 of accused as Ex. DW1/C. Nothing contradictory came in the testimony of this witness.
31.DW2 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi has proved attested photocopy of MLC no. 12182/2008 dated 16.02.2008 alongwith attested copy of treatment record as well as discharge slip dated 16.02.2008 as Ex. DW2/A (collectively). Nothing contradictory came in the testimony of this witness.
32. MLC of complainant Ram Chander (deceased) Ex. PW7/A available on record, shows nature of injury as 'simple'. However, this document is not sufficient to fasten culpability on the accused for the absence of other corroborative evidence so as to raise pointing finger against the accused.
33.Perusal of OPD Card from Nilkanth hospital Ex. DW1/A & discharge FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 9/11 summary Ex. DW1/C reflects that the accused had multiple big bruises over backboth thigh, both legs, stitches over scalp and was given POP left leg, accused had stitches over scalp at AIIMS & further treatment was advised to the accused. Ex. DW2/A is the MLC of accused Pinnu Singh which go on to show that the accused was admitted in AIIMS on dated 16.02.2008 for the injuries suffered by him. All these documents are sufficient enough to conclude that accused himself suffered injuries on the date of incident and this fact was required to be investigated thoroughly. However, same has not been done for which the investigating officer is to be blamed.
34.Cumulative effect of evidence brought on record cast a shadow of doubt on the case projected by the prosecution against the accused extending benefit of doubt to him.
35.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. ( Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662). In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 10/11 observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts.
36.Prosecution should be able to prove the complete chain of events which lead to the commission of the offence and prosecution case should stand on its own legs. Further, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that culpability of accused has to be proved beyond doubt and in case there is any doubt then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
37.In the light of above discussion and appreciation of evidence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused, hence, the accused is acquitted from the charges U/S 323/448/427/387/506 IPC framed against him. Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG DASS DASS Date:
2018.10.23 16:04:27 +0530 Announced in open Court (ANURAG DASS) today on 23.10.2018 MM01/South/Saket Court New Delhi FIR no.99/08 State v Pinnu Singh 11/11