Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Krishan Kumar @ Kk on 12 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 99/10
Computer ID No. 02403R0296852010
State Vs. 1. Krishan Kumar @ KK
S/o Shri Mahender Singh
R/o 37, Zalim Mohalla,
Tuglakabad, New Delhi.
2. Nicky John S/o Shri Stefen John
R/o J1/173, DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
3. Mustalib @ Arshad
S/o Shri Maqbool Ahmed
R/o RZ903/C24, Tuglakabad Extn.,
New Delhi.
FIR No : 185/10
P.S. : Kalkaji
U/s. : 307/34 IPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.10.2010 (initial date of
institution:10.08.2010)
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12.12.2012
DATE OF DECISION : 12.12.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on receiving DD no. 35A dated State Vs. Krishan Kumar etc., SC No. 99/10, (Page No.-1 of 5) 16.04.2010, ASI Hansaraj alongwith Ct. Satbir reached the spot i.e, J/63 DDA flats Kalkaji and on inquiry found that injured was already taken to AIIMS trauma center, thereafter ASI Hansraj left Ct. Satbir at spot and reached hospital where found injured Rattan Lal fit for statement.
2. Injured Rattan Lal in his statement alleged that he works as a hair dresser and running his shop from J63 DDA flats, Kalkaji. Around 16 months back a quarrel took place in a neighbouring shop and 78 boys had come to beat one unknown person and he saw one of the boys and tried to apprehend him, however he managed to escape. He further alleged that thereafter one KK came to his shop and threatened him that if he tried to apprehend that boy then he will kill him. He further alleged that KK also used to come to his shop for shaving and indulged in giving threatenings. He further alleged that on 16.04.2010 at around 9.30pm KK came with his two friends in Santro car and after parking the same in front of his shop called him in loud voice that he should come out of his shop. Thereafter, he came inside the shop and slapped him 34 times and further stated that why he tried to apprehend that boy, thereafter taken out the ustra from his shop and hit him on his face as well as on neck and all the boys while assaulting threatened that today they will kill him, then went away from the spot in their car. He further alleged that he can identify the other assailants alongwith KK. Pursuant to recording his statement, FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, site plan was prepared and statement of witnesses were recorded. On 07.05.2010 accused Krishan Kumar @ KK, Mustalib State Vs. Krishan Kumar etc., SC No. 99/10, (Page No.-2 of 5) @ Akhtar and Nicky John surrendered in court, pursuant to which they were arrested, however, accused Mustalib @ Akhtar and Nicky John refused TIP and during police remand at the instance of accused persons the said Santro car was recovered and ustra was also recovered from dashboard of the car. Pursuant to completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
4. On committal charges u/s 307/34 IPC were framed against the accused person. Prosecution for substantiating charge examined 8 prosecution witnesses. Injured Rattan Lal is examined as PW3 and other public witnesses, Matadin and Vivek Mudgil were examined as PW4 & 5. PW3 Rattan Lal in his testimony though narrated the story of infliction of injury in the manner stated in FIR and also admitted that he know accused KK but deposed that present accused Krishan Kumar is not KK and also not identified accused Mustalib and Nicky John. On being declared hostile, he denied suggestion that all present accused came to his shop and out of them accused KK @ Krishan Kumar and accused Mustalib @ Akhtar inflicted injuries on him with said ustra, however admitted that he has compromised the matter with the present accused persons. PW4 Matadin also deposed that on that night on hearing the noise of his brother Rattan Lal "maar diya, maar diya", he immediately rushed to his shop however had not seen anybody inflicting injuries on his brother Rattan as assailants already left from the spot. On being declared hostile in cross examination he denied suggestion that he had seen the present accused persons coming at the spot in Santro car and inflicting State Vs. Krishan Kumar etc., SC No. 99/10, (Page No.-3 of 5) injuries on his brother and also denied suggestion that said injuries were caused to his brother due to previous enmities. PW5 Vivek Mudgil another public witness also not supported the prosecution case and only stated that he saw injured Rattan profusely bleeding but he do not know anybody who assaulted injured Rattan nor seen anybody assaulting him. On being declared hostile, he denied suggestion that he know accused Krishan Kumar prior to incident, and accused Krishan Kumar alongwith other accused assaulted injured Rattan with ustra on day of incident.
5. Other witnesses are formal in nature. PW1 ASI Hansraj deposed that he recorded statement of injured Rattan in the hospital. PW8 SI Gajender (IO) stated that after registration of FIR, he conducted the investigation and complainant handed over one towel to him having blood stains and arrested the accused persons on filing of application for surrender on 06.05.2010. Thereafter, a Santro car alongwith ustra were recovered at their instance. PW6 Dr. Sanjay Kumar examined on behalf of Dr. Raghuvender who gave opinion that injury caused to Rattan (PW3) is not possible with the recovered ustra.
6. Entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of injured Rattan Lal (PW3), and other eye witnesses Sh Matadin (PW4) and Vivek Mudgil (PW5). PW4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case on the factum that they have seen the accused persons being assailants and deposed in the court that they reached the spot after the incident. PW3 injured Rattan Lal though stated that he was injured of ustara by one KK State Vs. Krishan Kumar etc., SC No. 99/10, (Page No.-4 of 5) alongwith other assailants however, stated that present accused Krishan Kumar is not said KK and also not identified the other accused persons. Therefore, the direct testimony has not supported the prosecution case.
7. Prosecution also relied upon the incriminating circumstances of recovery of ustara at the instance of PW3 Rattan Lal from Santro car in which alleged assailants came however, said Santro car was also not shown to the eye witnesses as well as injured. As per prosecution case the accused persons had himself surrendered in court on 07.05.2010 i.e, after 20 days of incident, this circumstance of recovery of ustra after such a long time do not appear to be credible at all. Neither any public witness was joined at the time of recovery of said ustra. Further the subsequent opinion given by doctor shows that the injuries on the body of injured Rattan Lal is not possible due to said ustra. In these circumstances, the recovery of ustra at instance of accused is of no help to prosecution case.
8. In view of above discussion prosecution unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Krishan Kumar, Nicky John and Mustalib are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges against them. Their bail bonds are converted into bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C which will remain valid till the expiry of 6 months from today. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court
On 12th December 2012 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03: SE: NEW DELHI
State Vs. Krishan Kumar etc., SC No. 99/10, (Page No.-5 of 5)