Delhi District Court
State vs . Sikandar Etc. on 10 February, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG: ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-2 (EAST): KKD: DELHI
SC No. 612/06
FIR No. 119/05
PS. Mayur Vihar
U/s. 307/326/34 IPC
State vs. Sikandar etc.
State
Versus
1. Sikandar
S/o. Sh. Ram Kishan
R/o. 21/16, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
2. Raju
S/o. Chet Ram
R/o. H.Noi. 41, Gali No.9,
Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution: 07.07.06
Date of Arguments: 10.02.09
Date of Judgment: 10.02.09
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution version is that on 27.03.05 at about 10.25 pm injured Bharat @ Robin happened to be present with his cousin brother Mukesh opposite H.No.34/486, near Sulabh Sauchalaya, where they were taking a night stroll. Two boys namely Raju and Sikandar came there and started arguing without any basis and quarrel ensued, wherein Raju caught hold of Bharat whereas Sikandar inflicted knife injuries on his person. In the FIR No. 119/05 page 1 of 4 2 meanwhile people from neighbourhood gathered. Father of Bharat also came to the spot and removed him to the hospital. On these allegations ball of criminal law was set in motion and after due investigation, challan was filed U/s. 307/326/34 IPC against both the accused persons.
2. On committal, after hearing from both the sides, charge U/s.
307/34 IPC was framed against both the accused person on 05.11.07, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution has examined the material witnesses namely injured Bharat Karotia @ Robin as PW-1, Laxman Singh, father of Bharat as PW-2 and eye witness Suresh Kumar as PW-3. However, they have not supported the prosecution version on the identity of the accused persons.
4. PW-1 Bharat Karotia stated that on the fateful day when he was present with his cousin Mukesh near Sai Baba Temple, near his house, 5-6 boys came there and inflicted knife injuries on his person and that he was removed to hospital by his father and he remained unconscious for 3 days. He also claimed the he did not know the name of those boys, who caused him injury nor he can identify them as he could not see their faces there being no light in the area. He however, admitted that Ex.PW1/A bore his signatures at point A but he added voluntarily that his signature was obtained by the police in presence of his father on blank papers. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl PP, wherein he was confronted with incriminating statement Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered but he maintained his stand and exonerated accused persons FIR No. 119/05 page 2 of 4 3 while denying that he had colluded with them.
5. PW-2 is Laxman Singh, father of the injured i.e PW-1, who has supported the incident but stated that he neither had seen the accused person inflicting injuries on his son nor did he see the occurrence. He denied any recovery in his presence. He has also been cross-examined by Ld. Addl PP but in vain. Albeit, he admitted his signatures on various memos prepared by the IO but he gave the explanation on his own that police had obtained his signatures on some documents without disclosing him the contents thereof and that accused persons were not arrested on his identification nor they made any disclosure statement or got recovered the knife. He was also confronted with 161 Cr.P.C statement but to no avail.
6. PW-3 Suresh Kumar also corroborated PW-1and was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl PP, wherein he was confronted with 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police but he denied having so stated. He also denied any collusion with the accused persons.
7. With regard to PW Surinder Kumar, IO gave a statement that due to phonetic similarity, he mentioned in the list of witness the name of Sunder Lal real brother of PW-3 Suresh Kumar as Surinder Kumar. Sunder Lal @ Surinder Kumar has since expired as per death certificate produced by his brother. As regards another witness Mukesh, IO proved his report Ex.P1, which is to the effect that Mukesh is not traceable despite best efforts made by him. Under these circumstances, when material witnesses i.e injured Bharat Karotia and eye witness Suresh Kumar have turned hostile to the prosecution version, it was considered futile to keep FIR No. 119/05 page 3 of 4 4 the case alive for examination of remaining prosecution witnesses as fate of the case would have remained the same as it is today even if, prosecution in future would have been able to bring home the testimony of the remaining witnesses on record unrebutted. As such, prosecution evidence was closed. There being no incriminating evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, connecting the accused persons with the crime their statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
8. I have heard arguments and gone through the case file. In view of the hostility of the injured, eye witness Suresh Kumar and witness of res gestea Laxman Singh, prosecution case fails since to connect the accused persons with the crime, it is required by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt by proving the identity of the accused persons as the culprits. In this case the material witnesses have supported the incident but have not identified the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime, as such they are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (REENA SINGH NAG)
Dt: 10/02/09 Addl. Sessions Judge,
KKD, Delhi
FIR No. 119/05
page 4 of 4