Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish Chander Chopra Etc. on 22 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTH:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. HARISH CHANDER CHOPRA ETC.
PS: Prashant Vihar
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 65/2001
(b) Police Station : Prashant Vihar
(c) The date of commission of offence : 17.02.2001
(d) The name of complainant : SI Dinesh Chander,
PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi.
(e) The name of accused : 1. Harish Chander Chopra, S/o Sh. Gurditta Mal, R/o C15, Mansarovar Garden Delhi.
2. Ravinder Malhotra, S/o Bahadur Chand, R/o B31, Double Story, Motiya Khan, Paharganj, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 336/304A IPC
(f) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(g) Date of Institution : 29.07.2002
State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 1
of 6
(h) The date on which
judgment was reserved : 22.05.2013
(i) The final order : Acquitted
(j) The date of such order : 22.05.2013
(k) The Unique Identification Number : 02401R0351152002
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.01.2001 about 12 am/midnight at the park inside Neelgiri Apartments, Sector9, Rohini within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar, accused Harish Chander Chopra acted rashly and negligently by firing in the air from his licensed revolver endangering human life and personal safety of others and while acting so, he caused death of one Suresh Paswan not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed the offence u/s 336/304A IPC. Further on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused Ravinder Malhotra also acted rashly and negligently by firing in the air from the revolver of one Sarabjeet endangering human life and personal safety of others and have thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 336 IPC. The accused persons were arrested and chargesheeted for the offences.
2. The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
3. From the material on record, notice u/s 336 IPC was framed against State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 2 of 6 the accused Ravinder Malhotra and a separate notice u/s 336/304A IPC was framed against the accused Harish Chander Chopra to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and three witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
5. PW1 Nand Kishore deposed that the deceased Suresh Paswan was the son in law of his village and he received the phone call from his village stating that Suresh Paswan had died but he could not tell the date as to when he received the said phone call. He further deposed that thereafter villagers from the village of Suresh Paswan came and they came to know that dead body of Suresh Paswan has already been received by his sisters. He also deposed that he did not know anything about this case. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied that he was told by Sumitra and Kanta that deceased Suresh died due to fire shot fired by accused Harish. He also denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused or that he had been won over by the accused.
6. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels.
7. PW2 Inspector Ramesh Singh deposed that on 21.03.2001, the further investigation of this case was handed over to him and on 22.03.2001, he summoned the witness, namely, Ram Prakash and interrogated him and also recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 27.03.2011, he sent the sealed pullandas to FSL, Malviya Nagar and on 29.04.2001, he arrested accused Ravinder Malhotra vide arrest State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 3 of 6 memo Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that on 07.06.2001, he met with an accident and he handed over the case file to MHCR. He also identified the accused Ravinder in the court.
8. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, he deposed that she did not know as to how the witness Ram Prakash was summoned by him and he also admitted that he had not placed the copy of summons or notice on record issued to witness Ram Prakash.
He denied that Ram Prakash never gave any statement or that his statement was written to falsely implicate the accused. He also denied that he was deposing falsely or that the accused were falsely implicated.
9. PW3 Ram Prakash did not know anything about the present case and during his cross examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that the marriage of his sister's son took place on 17.01.2001 and he attended that marriage party. He denied that his friend Sarabjeet was also invited or that he attended the said marriage. He did not know as to whether Harish Chopra was also at the marriage function or not. He did not know as to whether accused persons were drunk. He denied that at about 12 am (midnight) Sarabjeet, Ravinder Malhotra and Harish Chopra fired from the revolvers in the said marriage function. He denied that he came to know that one rickshaw puller Suresh Paswan had died. He denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused Ravinder Malhotra who is his real brother. He also denied that the death of Suresh Paswan took place in the said marriage. State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 4 of 6
10. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels.
11. No other witness was examined by the prosecution as the remaining public witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW Chanderkanta, Sumitra, Bhola and Subodh Kumar could not be traced despite sending the summons repeatedly through DCP Outer. Therefore, PE was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and denied the allegations. Further they denied for leading the defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
12.I have heard Ld. Counsels for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
13. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of the criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial files prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness if any in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial through out the trial is on the prosecution and its never shifts to the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubts entitles the accused to acquittal.
14. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons fired in a rash and negligent manner in the marriage function State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 5 of 6 on 17.02.2001 or that the accused Harish Chander caused death of Suresh Paswan not amounting to culpable homicide. The prosecution has examined three witnesses, however, PW1 Nand Kishore as well as PW3 Ram Prakash did not support the case of the prosecution and they were cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. During the cross examination, PW3 denied that the death of rickhshaw puller Suresh Paswan took place in the marriage ceremony. Remaining relevant PWs could not be traced despite repeatedly sending the summons through DCP Outer.
15. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons acted rashly and negligently by firing in the air or that thereby caused the death of Suresh Paswan not amounting to culpable homicide.
16. Hence in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Harish Chander Chopra is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 336/304A IPC and accused Ravinder Malhotra is acquitted for the offence u/s 336 IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 22nd day of May, 2013.
(MANISH KHURANA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS : DELHI State Vs. Harish Chander Chopra etc. page 6 of 6