Delhi District Court
State vs . Rinshu on 7 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA MISHRA, ASJ-06, SOUTH-EAST,
SAKET,
NEW DELHI
Session Case No : 02/14
Date of Institution : 20.03.2012
Received by transfer
to this Court on : 15.01.2014
Judgment reserved : 07.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 07.07.2014
FIR No: 343/11
PS: Badarpur
U/Sec. 325/341/506 IPC
State Vs. RINSHU
JUDGEMENT
1) Vide this order, case arising out of FIR No. 343/11 PS Badarpur, under Section 325/341/506 IPC will be finally decided.
2) The case of prosecution is that accused on 10.11.2011 at around 12.30 am near Molarband Canal Canal, Badarpur accused wrongfully restrained the complainant Md. Firoz and caused grievous hurt on the right hand and right leg with danda and threatened to kill him when he refused to go with accused to take liquor. The charge sheet was filed under Section 325/341/506 IPC. The Charge was framed under Section 341/325/506 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 09.05.2013 to which accused pleaded not guilty 1 and claimed trial.
Prosecution to prove its case has examined total 7 witnesses. Statement of accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which accused claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he claimed that complainant caused injury to him alongwith one Jai Ram and FIR was lodged vide bearing No. 348/11 in PS Badarpur Under Section 308/34 IPC against said Mohd. Firoz etc. The accused preferred not to lead any DE.
3) Final arguments were advanced at length wherein it was claimed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused has been implicated in a false case and in fact in a cross case the complainant herein alongwith remaining two accused i.e. Mohd. Afroj and Jai Ram were convicted U/Sec. 308/34 IPC by Ld. ASJ vide order dt. 13.08.2013 and it was held that the accused herein was given beatings by the complainant and his associates.
4) On the other hand it was submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the prosecution and accused be convicted as charged.
5) I have carefully gone through the submissions made and record of the case. When we look at the law it provides as under:-
Section :- 325 Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years, and 2 shall also be liable to fine.
Section :- 341 Punishment for wrongful confinement- Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section:- 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
6) In view of the facts of the case the case file of the cross case being FIR No. 348/11 PS - Badarpur against the complainant Mohd. Firoj and the accused Mohd. Afroj and Jai Ram decided by the Ld. ASJ R.K. Shastri on
13.08.2014 was also called from the District South East Saket and as per the said order which is in the cross case Under Section 308 IPC complainants etc. herein were convicted for beatings and causing injuries to the accused herein U/Sec. 323/34 IPC vide order dt. 13.08.2014.
7) In view of the same it is highly improbable that a person i.e. accused who was being beaten by three persons including the complainant herein could have caused the injuries to the said complainant herein alone. Even otherwise version of the prosecution does not appear trustworthy that accused asked complainant to bring liquor and on his refusal he was beaten 3 badly with danda and thereafter also the complainant was able to return to his home and he told his mother about incident and then she took him to the hospital. It is highly improbable that complainant who is otherwise Auto Rickshaw Driver and adult person will come first to his home rather than going to hospital and make his mother take him to the hospital after the alleged beating. The case of the prosecution further does not get any support from PW-2 Jai Ram who turned hostile. He also claimed that police met him after 20 days of the incident. Further PW-2 also stands convicted alongwith PW-1 in the said cross FIR by Ld. ASJ on 13.08.2013 and hence his testimony can not be taken at face value being interested witness.
8) PW-3 is Dr. Helal Ahmed Khan and in his cross examination he admitted that injury caused to the complainant might be possible due to fall on the road or from vehicle.
9) In facts of the case, it is clear that version of the complainant herein is not trustworthy and same is not substantiated by the evidence of witness on record. Testimony of prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy, contradictory and full of loopholes, in so far as PW-2 Jai Ram told that the fight was started after consuming the liquor, whereas the complainant deposed that fight started because he refused to go for taking liquor. Further in cross FIR the complainant & PW-2 has already been convicted for assaulting and causing injury to the accused herein on 13.08.2013.
10) Consequently, in the light of above discussion prosecution has 4 not been able to prove its case as per law against accused and accused is entitled to be acquitted and hence accused Rinshu is hereby acquitted of the charge against him. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. by accused.
Announced in the Open Court (JITENDRA MISHRA)
on 07.07.2014 ASJ-06, South East District,
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi.
5