Delhi District Court
State vs . on 1 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC 46/2022
CNR No. DLST 010012602022
FIR No. 522 /2021
PS:Sangam Vihar
U/s. 307 IPC
State
Vs.
Hari Om
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,
R/o Village Raipur Khas, Tehsil Kayamganj, Distt.
Farukhabad, UP.
Date of Institution : 16.02.2022
Final arguments heard on : 01.09.2022
Judgment pronounced on : 01.09.2022
Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1.1 Case of prosecution is that on 14.10.21 DD register vide DD No.62A one call from PCR Head Quarter was marked to ASI Sushil Kumar who alongwith Ct Sita Ram reached at spot i.e. Neem Chowk, near J Block school, Sangam Vihar where they came to know that injured had been shifted to hospital.
FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 1 of 10 1.2 Thereafter, ASI Sushil Kumar and Ct. Sita Ram went to
AIIMS Trauma Center where injured was found admitted vide MLC. ASI Sushil Kumar obtained his MLC and asked for the statement of the injured Monish but the Doctor on duty had declared him unfit for the statement and therefore, his statement could not be recorded. No eye witness was found. Then they came back to PS. 1.3 Thereafter, on 15.10.21 IO again went to hospital but it was found that injured was already discharged. Statement of injured Monish was recorded stating therein that on 14.10.2021 at around 2-30 PM when he was standing near Lal Ji building material shop Hari Om and Bhola were quarreling with each other on some money issue by shouting on each other. When he asked them not to shout Bhola asked him to stay away and go to house. He came back to his house and again went there in the evening at around 4.30PM. Accused Hari Om met him again and confronted him as to why he intervened in his matter and on this issue they had altercation. Accused hit a brick on his head. Accused took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed in the stomach. He tried to save himself but knife also hit his hand and thereafter accused kept beating him till he lost his consciousness.
1.4 During investigation, ASI Sushil Kumar prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and tried to locate any CCTV near the place of incidence but no CCTV was found.
FIR no. 522/21State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 2 of 10 1.5 During investigation, on 25.10.2021 accused Hari Om
was arrested from his native village Raipur Khas, Farukhabad, UP and his disclosure statement was recorded. Weapon of offence could not be recovered. After completing the investigation, IO filed the charge sheet against accused.
2. Charges in this matter u/s 307 IPC were framed on 30.3.22 against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1 In order to prove its case, prosecution has cited 10 witnesses including 03 public witnesses, 01 Doctor and remaining police witnesses. Prosecution has examined 07 witnesses including 03 public witnesses. During course of trial, MLC of injured was admitted by accused hence concerned Doctor name was deleted from list. Except IO and one arrest witness all witnesses examined.
3.2 PW 1 Mohd. Monish deposed that around 5-6 months back he was sitting in front of the shop of building material Neem Chowk, J Block Ist, Sangam Vihar and at around 2 PM he had some altercation with Hari Om and thereafter they went to their respective house. He further deposed that after about 2/3 hours he again came back and sit down in front of shop and while he was sitting someone hit a brick on his back head from back side and he lost consciousness. He further deposed that one of his friend took him to hospital and this fact he came to know after regaining his consciousness in the hospital. He further deposed that at the time of FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 3 of 10 incident he was sitting on the boundary wall of the construction material shop. He further deposed that he do not know who had hit the brick on his head. He further deposed that police met him in hospital and on that day he did not give statement due to pain but on the next day when police official came to his house he gave a complaint to them. He proved the same as EX.PW1/A. 3.3 PW1 during his examination-in-chief had come out with a contrary version as stated by him in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C upon which he was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP and was cross-examined by Ld.APP.
3.4 PW1 admitted that date of incident was 14.10.2021 and he knows person by name Bhola. He denied that on 14.10.2021 at around 2-30 PM when he was standing near Lal Ji building material shop Hari Om and Bhola were quarreling with each other on some money issue by shouting on each other. He further denied that when he asked them not to shout Bhola asked him to stay away and go to house. He further denied that after that he came back to his house and again went there in the evening at around 4.30PM. He further denied that accused Hari Om met him again and confronted him as to why he intervened in his matter and on this issue they had altercation. He further denied that thereafter accused hit a brick on his head and he lost his consciousness. He further denied that accused took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed in the stomach. He further denied that when he tried to save himself FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 4 of 10 the knife also hit his hand and thereafter he kept beating him till he lost his consciousness. He further denied that he is deliberately and purposefully not identifying accused Hari Om as offender who had hit the brick on his head and caused stabbed injury in his stomach and on hand as he has been won over by the accused.
3.5 PW 2 Sh. Arshad deposed that around six months back he was present near Neem Chowk at around 4-5 PM and at that time his friend Monish was brought by one person and after seeing him he asked him to take injured Monish in hospital and he left the spot. He further deposed that at first they went to Batra then S J Hospital and finally went to AIIMS Hospital due to Corona Pandemic arrangements were going on in other hospitals. He further deposed that injured Monish was in unconscious stage in the TSR and he was admitted in the hospital in the same situation. He further deposed that after regaining his consciousness, his friend Monish did not disclose to him about the offender who had caused him injuries. He further deposed that he do not know anything else about the case.
3.6 PW2 during his examination-in-chief had come out with a contrary version as stated by him in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C upon which he was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP and was cross-examined by Ld.APP.
3.7 PW2 admitted that date of incident was 14.10.2021 and
FIR no. 522/21
State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 5 of 10
Monish was known to him for the last 5-6 years. He denied that someone told him that his friend Monish had quarreled with someone and is lying in injured condition with injury on head and abdomen and is bleeding. He denied that he immediately went there and took him to AIIMS Trauma Center. He denied that after regaining consciousness, Monish had told him that Hari Om had quarreled with him and have hit a brick on his head and knife injury in his abdomen.
3.8 PW 3 ASI Sher Singh deposed that oOn 15.10.2021 he was posted as HC at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day he was on duty as duty officer from 8 AM to 4.00 PM. He further deposed that at around 1.35PM one rukka was placed before him by ASI Sushil Kumar for registration of FIR and on the basis of said rukka he registered FIR. He proved copy of FIR as EX.PW3/A. He further deposed that he made endorsement on rukka and proved the same as EX. PW3/B 3.9 PW4 Bhola deposed that he was working in the shop of Electronic and do not know any person by the name of Hari Om. He further deposed that he also do not know any person, namely, Monish. He further deposed that he do not know about the complaint.
3.10 PW4 during his examination-in-chief had come out with a contrary version as stated by him in his statement u/s 161 FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 6 of 10 Cr.P.C upon which he was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP and was cross-examined by Ld.APP.
3.11 He admitted that he used to carry mobile phone No. 9818984497 and was using mobile phone since past five years. He denied that he had money dispute with Hari Om and in his presence Hari Om quarreled with Monish. He denied that accused Hari Om was residing in his neighbor and he knew him very well.
3.12 PW 5 ASI Mohan Singh deposed that on 14.10.202 he was posted as HC at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day he was on duty as duty officer from 4 PM to 12 Mid Night. He further deposed that at around 4. 59 PM one call was received from PCR Head Quarter and same was reduced in writing by him in the DD register vide DD No.62A. He proved copy of the same as EX.PW5/ A. He further deposed that call was handed over to ASI Sushil Kumar.
3.13 PW6 Ct. Sita Ram deposed that on 14.10.2021 he was posted as Constable at PS Sangam Vihar and upon receiving DD No.62A he along with IO ASI Sushil Kumar went to the spot at Neem Chowk, near J Block school, Sangam Vihar, where they came to know that injured was shifted to hospital. He further deposed that thereafter he along with IO went to AIIMS Trauma Center where injured was found admitted vide MLC. He further deposed that IO obtained his MLC and asked for the statement of the injured Monish but the Doctor on duty had declared him unfit for the statement and FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 7 of 10 therefore, his statement could not be recorded. He further deposed that no eye witness was found.
3.14 PW- 7 HC Praveen deposed that on 25.10.2021 he was posted as HC at PS Sangam Vihar and on the directions of the SHO the investigation of this case was marked to him. He further deposed that during investigation secret information about the presence of wanted accused Hari Om @ Narender @ Rahul was received that he was present at his native place at Farukhabad U.P. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Ankur went to Farukhabad and at Raipur Khas, near crossing, PS Kotwali Kayamgunj, District Farukhabad, U.P and accused Hari Om was identified by the Local secret informer who was sent by the local police officials with them. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He proved the same as EX.PW 7/ A & Ex.PW7/ B. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of the accused and proved the same as EX.PW7/ C.
4. Since complainant & all other material witnesses in this matter have been examined and material witnesses including injured/complainant have turned hostile on material point, I found that no fruitful purpose would be served by examination of IO and one arrest witness because if they are examined and their statement taken unrebutted even though accused cannot be connected with offence involved in present case. Hence, prosecution evidence was FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 8 of 10 closed vide order dated 1.9.22.
5. In view of the fact that complainant and all other material witnesses have turned hostile, hence, no incriminating evidence has come on record against accused to be put to him u/s. 313 Cr.PC. Accordingly, recording of statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with.
6. Ld.Counsel for accused submits that accused have been falsely implicated and complainant has not supported the case of prosecution. It is further stated that there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the offence.
7. Ld.APP for State submits that the complainant and all other material witnesses have been won over by the accused by either threat, inducement, promise and therefore they have not deposed against accused persons. The remaining evidence and proceedings during investigation are required to be considered for just and reasonable disposal of the case.
8. I have carefully perused the entire material available on record and heard the arguments from both the sides.
9. In the present case, complainant and all other material witnesses have turned hostile on material point. As such, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the offence involved FIR no. 522/21 State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 9 of 10 in present case.
10. In view of aforesaid circumstances, I feel no hesitation to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
Bail Bond of accused cancelled. His sureties discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
Announced in open Court KUMAR Date: 2022.09.08
10:37:18 +0530
on 1.9.22 (Anil Kumar)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South)
Saket Courts/New Delhi.
FIR no. 522/21
State Vs. Hari Om Page no. 10 of 10