Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Sirohi Etc. on 8 December, 2011
SC NO: 126/08
FIR No: 231/05
PS: Inderpuri
State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No. 126/08
FIR No. 231/05
Police Station Inderpuri
U/Section 452/308/34 IPC
Received on transfer on 08.12.2008
Reserved for orders on 08.12.2011
Judgment announced on 08.12.2011
State V/s 1) Manoj Sirohi
S/o Shri Dharmender @ Devender Sirohi
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Meerut, UP.
2) Gaurav Sirohi
S/o Shri Ram Kumar
R/o 110 Tulsi Colony, Kankar, Khera
Meerut, UP.
3) Gaurav Kumar Chauhan
S/o Shri Omvir Singh Chauhan
R/o Madhuban Colony, Badot, Baghpat, UP.
4) Monu Kumar
S/o Shri Yashpal Singh
R/o Village Dhadra, Meerut UP.
JUDGMENT
SC no. 126/08 1 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011
SC NO: 126/08
FIR No: 231/05
PS: Inderpuri
State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc.
1. The accused persons were forwarded to stand trial on the allegation that on 28.08.2005 they after having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and some other persons committed criminal trespass by entering into TV room of hostel of PUSA Hotel Management Institute. The accused Gaurav Chauhan was armed with a wicket at that time and after entering the said TV room, the accused persons had in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to four persons namely Tenzing, Surjeet Rana, Man Mohan Singh and Aiban. The case was registered initially on the statement of Aiban, one of the injured. As per prosecution story, accused Gaurav Chauhan and Gaurav Sirohi were apprehended at the spot by the public and were handed over to the police. The other two accused persons were subsequently arrested. After necessary investigation, all the four accused persons were charge sheeted.
2. Consequent to supplying of copies to the accused persons as mandated under law, case was committed to Sessions where after due deliberation, Charge under Sections 452/308/34 IPC was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To establish the said charges, prosecution SC no. 126/08 2 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011 SC NO: 126/08 FIR No: 231/05 PS: Inderpuri State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc. tendered 10 witnesses in all whereafter statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They did not lead any defence evidence. Hence final arguments were advanced.
4. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and also Ld. Defence Counsels representing the accused persons and given my anxious consideration to the controversy in hand.
5. PW1 is ASI Satbir Singh who had recorded the initial information about the incident as DD no. 14A Ex.PW1/A. PW2 is Ct. Keshpal who accompanied SI Hari Kishan to the spot for investigation of DD no. 14A. PW3 is Aiban, the complainant. PW4 is HC Anand Kumar, the Duty Officer who had recorded FIR Ex.PW3/A on statement of complainant Aiban. PW5 is Tenzing, one of the injured. PW6 is Man Mohan Singh. He was working as Security Guard at PUSA institute at the relevant time and is also a witness of fact. PW7 is Sushant Prakhar, another eye witness of the incident. PW8 is WASI Vidhya Devi. She had recorded the information received from C.T. hospital, PUSA Road about condition of injured Tenzing on 29.08.05 and proved the same as Ex.PW8/A. PW9 is Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini who had examined the exhibits and given his report Ex.PW9/B. Last SC no. 126/08 3 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011 SC NO: 126/08 FIR No: 231/05 PS: Inderpuri State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc. witness is PW10, the IO Insp. Hari Kishan.
6. The case being that of physical assault, the injured persons are the prime prosecution witnesses. Three of the victims stepped into witness box as PW3, PW5 and PW6. None of them however supported the prosecution case at all. They though did not dispute the actual occurrence but all three of them maintained that they were not able to see the faces of the assailants. They were subjected to detailed cross examination by Ld. Additional PP but they stuck to their stand and affirmed that they were assaulted by unknown persons. They categorically controverted the suggestion that the accused persons were involved in any manner in the said incident. Complainant Aiban denied that the FIR Ex.PW3/A was based on his statement as made to the police. Interestingly, the FIR does not bear signatures of the so called complainant Aiban. Hence, the affirmation of PW3 Aiban that he did not make any such statement before the police can not be rejected outrightly. The witnesses were shown the accused persons but they refused to identify them as the aggressors.
7. It is the version of prosecution that accused Gaurav Singh Chauhan and Gaurav Sirohi were apprehended at the spot by college staff and students and were handed over SC no. 126/08 4 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011 SC NO: 126/08 FIR No: 231/05 PS: Inderpuri State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc. to the police later on. This plea of prosecution is demolished by PW6 Manmohan Singh, the security guard of the institute who testified that though he had tried to apprehend the assailant boys but none could be caught.
8. Similarly PW7 Sushant Prakhar another student of the institute, who was also shown as an eye witness deposed on oath that he was shown Gaurav Kumar Chauhan and Gaurav Sirohi subsequently by police stating that police had apprehended those persons and he was asked to sign the papers qua arrest of those two boys without showing the contents of the documents. Both PW6 and PW7 negated the suggestion that accused Gaurav Kumar Chauhan and Gaurav Sirohi were apprehended in their presence or that PW6 and PW7 had handed them over to the police. All the public witnesses maintained that they were simply asked by the police to put their signatures on some papers and they were not aware of the significance or contents of those papers.
9. The prosecution could not bring anything on record to suggest that the injured persons as well as other public witnesses have been influenced or won over by the accused persons. The remaining official witnesses are all formal in nature and their testimony is inconsequential and irrelevant.
SC no. 126/08 5 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011
SC NO: 126/08
FIR No: 231/05
PS: Inderpuri
State Vs. Manoj Sirohi etc.
Neither the accused persons are identified by any of the public witnesses as the assailants in this case nor the presence or apprehension of any of the accused persons at the spot is admitted by any public witness. It being so the prosecution obviously failed to discharge the onus placed on it to secure the conviction of the accused persons in the present case. Consequently the accused persons are hereby acquitted. Accused Manoj Sirohi, Gaurav Sirohi and Monu are in JC. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Accused Gaurav Kumar is on bail. His Bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and his surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, of surety be returned and endorsement, if any, on the documents be cancelled.
10. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds in sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. undertaking to appear if called, before Appellate Court as mandated therein. Personal bond and surety bond are filed and accepted for a period of six months as provided under Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (MAMTA TAYAL)
court on 08.12.2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC no. 126/08 6 of 6 D.O.O. 08.12.2011