Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sachin on 24 May, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL LD. ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No. 371/09
FIR No. 920/06
P.S. Saraswati Vihar
U/s 304/34 IPC
ID No. 02404R0342992006
State Vs. 1. Sachin
S/o Ram Chander
R/o G-225, Sakurpur,
J.J. Colony, Delhi.
2. Ajay
S/o Subhash
R/o G-643, J.J. Colony,
Sakurpur, Delhi.
3. Sagar
S/o Surat Singh
R/o F-425, J.J. Colony,
Sakurpur, Delhi.
4. Subhash
S/o Surender Singh
R/o G-643, J.J. Colony,
Sakurpur, Delhi.
Date of Institution in the Sessions Court: 24.4.07.
Date of transfer to this Court: 31.8.09.
Date of Judgment: 24.5.10.
SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10
2
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 23.8.06, a DD No. 29B was received by SI Ram Kumar, who alongwith constable Satender reached at BJRM Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Manoj S/o Murari, who had been admitted into the hospital with the alleged history of physical assault, who was declared unfit for statement by the concerned doctor attending him. From BJRM Hospital, the injured was referred to Trauma Centre for further management. No eye witness could be found in the hospital. Thereafter, SI Ram Kumar reached the spot where the mother of the injured Smt. Ram Pyari was present, who got recorded to him the following statement.
"That at around 11a.m, when she was present at her house, at that time four Saansi boys were beating his son Manoj infront of her house namely Ajay, Sachin, Sagar and Subhash. All resident of Shakur Pur, Delhi, whom she knew previously, as they were her neighbours, and all of them had SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 3 caught hold of his son and were beating him with fists and slaps, and while Ajay was having a cricket bat in his hand and Sachin was having a danda in his hand and Subhash was having a hockey in his hand and they were beating her son Manoj and were saying that either he should return their mobile or he should pay the money for the same, and they kept on beating his son Manoj and his son was crying for help, but nobody came forward to help him.
After beating him mercilessly till the time he became unconscious, on coming to know that the police had been informed those four persons ran away from the spot".
2. On the said complain an FIR bearing No. 920/06 U/s 308/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Saraswati Vihar, on the rukka written by SI Ram Kumar.
3. Thereafter, he got prepared the siteplan of the spot, and he also made enquiries from the persons around the spot, and he also made search for the accused persons and two accused persons SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 4 Ajay and Sachin were apprehended and they made disclosure statements. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, accused Ajay got recovered one baseball bat from his kitchen, which was also seized and another accused Sachin got recovered one danda from the double bed of his house which was also seized.
4. The injured Manoj was found unfit for statement till 27.8.06 when he expired in the trauma Centre. Consequently, the FIR in question was converted into Section 302/34 IPC. The postmortem on the deadbody was got conducted from BJRM Hospital.
5. On 28.9.06 accused Sagar was also arrested in the present Case. However, another accused Subhash was absconding against whom NBWs were obtained and it was stated in the charge-sheet that supplementary charge-sheet would be filed against him as and when, he would be arrested.
6. After completion of investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 302/34 IPC was filed in the trial court.
7. Upon committal of the case, to the court of Sessions, a charge SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 5 U/s 304/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons Sachin, Ajay and Sagar, vide order dt. 19.7.07 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In the meanwhile, a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Subhash was also filed, which was also committed to the court of Sessions and vide order dt. 18.2.08 a charge U/s 304/34 IPC was also framed against the accused Subhash, to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case has examined 6 witnesses.
PW1 is SI Bhram Prakash, the duty officer, who had proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 is Smt. Ram Pyari, the complainant and the mother of the deceased, who has turned hostile.
PW3 is Babu Lal, the brother of the deceased, who was the witness to the identification of the deadbody, who has also turned hostile.
SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 6 PW4 is Dr. Upender Kishore, the Autopsy Surgeon, who had proved his postmortem report Ex.PW4/A and subsequent report qua the weapon of offence.
PW5 is Birju, an eye witness, who has also turned hostile. PW6 is Dharmender Yadav, another eye witness, who has also turned hostile.
10. As per the statement of SI R.K. Yadav, the initial IO, another eye witness of the deadbody identification namely Amar Singh was not traceable vide his statement recorded on 11.5.10 and as per the statement of the IO Inspector Pardeep Kumar, recorded on 24.5.10 wherein he stated that both Babu Lal and Amar Singh were the witnesses of deadbody identification and they were not the eye witnesses to the incident.
11. It was submitted by the the Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Rajbir Malik that in the present case all the material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant Ram Pyari and another witness PW5 Birju had turned hostile and none of them had SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 7 supported the prosecution story despite, lengthy cross-examination and PW3 Babu Lal had also turned hostile, in any case he was the witness of identification of deadbody. and as per the statement of SI R.K. Yadav the initial IO of this case, PW Amar Singh was not traceable, in any case he was also the witness of deadbody identification, therefore he submitted that even iff all the remaining prosecution witnesses were allowed to be examined, even then it was not going to prove the case of the prosecution, as all the remaining prosecution witnesses were formal in nature. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing with the trial in these circumstances. Therefore, it was submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that the prosecution evidence be closed.
12. On the other hand ld. Addl. PP for the State had opposed the same.
13. After perusing the record, it was found that in the present case, the star witness of the prosecution PW2 Smt. Ram Pyari had turned totally hostile, as she had not supported the prosecution SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 8 story regarding the accused persons having committed the murder of her son Manoj. Similarly, another star witness of the prosecution PW5 Birju had also turned hostile, as he had not supported the prosecution story in this regard.
14. PW3 Sh. Babu Lal had also turned hostile, in any case he was the witness of identification of deadbody. As per the statement of the IO Inspector Pardeep Kumar and further as per the statement of initial IO SI R.K. Yadav, recorded on 11.5.10, PW Amar Singh was not traceable. PW6 Dharmender Yadav had also not supported the case of the prosecution, in any case he was the witness of hearsay, which fact he had admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present at the time of incident. In these circumstances all the remaining prosecution witnesses were formal in nature, including H.C. Ashok Kumar and Constable Raj Kumar, who had initially went to the spot on receipt of DD No. 29B on 23.8.06. Their statements that they had heard Smt. Ram Pyari PW2 the mother of the deceased uttering that the accused persons were responsible for SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 9 the death of her son Manoj also fell under the realms of hear say evidence, the same, if taken as it is, even iff both of them would have been allowed to have been examined, even then it was not going to improve the case of the prosecution a little bit, as the star witness of the prosecution PW2 Ram Pyari had already turned hostile and even if PW H.C. Ashok Kumar and PW Raj Kumar would have been allowed to have been examined, their testimony would have been hear say.
15. In these circumstances, even if all the remaining prosecution witnesses would have been allowed to have been examined who were either police officials or other formal witnesses , even then it would have been impossible to secure the conviction of the accused persons on the testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, continuing with the trial would have been a completely futile exercise and wastage of time and no purpose would have been achieved by doing so.
16. Consequently, the prosecution evidence was closed. The SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10 10 statement of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with, as no incriminating evidence had come on the record to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence(s) U/s 304/34 IPC for which the accused persons had been charged. Consequently, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charge(s) U/s 304/34 IPC. Their bail-bonds are cancelled. Surety(s) stand discharged. Endorsement(s), if any, made on the original documents of the accused persons and surety(s) stand cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on dt. 24.5.2010 (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
ASJ/Rohini/Delhi.
SC No. 371/09 FIR No. 920/06 Pages 1-10