Delhi District Court
State vs Atul on 25 April, 2024
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No. 918/2022)
CNR No. DLNT010116902022
FIR No. 675/2022
Police Station Bhalswa Dairy
Charge sheet filed Under Section 308/34 IPC
Charges framed Under Section 308/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Atul
S/o Sh. Naresh
R/o A2/805, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. Ankit Parcha
S/o Sh. Gyanchand
R/o A5/200, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3. Robin Parcha @ Sajjan
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander
R/o A2/642, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
.... Accused
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 1 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
Date of institution of case 11.10.2022
before the Ld. MM
Date of committal of case to 07.12.2022
Sessions Court
Date of arguments 19.04.2024 &
25.04.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 25.04.2024
Decision Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. All the three accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan are facing trial in the present case, on allegations that they all, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted and caused injuries to complainant Ankit Goswamti, with a piece of brick, on his head (occipital and temporal region), with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that if by their such act, they had caused death of the complainant, then they all would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. On the complaint of one Ankit Goswami s/o Surender Kumar, the instant case FIR bearing No. 675/2022, was registered by the police of Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, under Section 308/34 IPC, which after requisite investigation, culminated into the charge sheet, which the IO ASI Jai Bhagwan of Police Station Bhalswa Dairy filed FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 2 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
against the accused Atul, in the Court of Ld. MM, NorthDistrict, Rohini, Courts, Delhi, pending arrest of remaining accused. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 CrPC, since the offence u/s 308 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions, under provisions of Section 209 CrPC for trial.
Subsequently, on 10.01.2023, the supplementary chargesheet was filed against the accused Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, which was also committed to the Court of Sessions on 12.01.2023, after compliance of provisions of Sestion 207 CrPC, pending arrest of fourth associate of accused persons, namely Vinay.
3. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record / chargesheet are that on 11.08.2022 at about 8.30 PM, the complainant Ankit Goswami, was returning back to his house after making some payment to one Sunil, and had reached at JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, the accused Atul, Sajjan, Ankit and their fourth associate Vinay, met him and restrained his way. Thereafter, they all started quarreling and beating the complainant with fist and kicks blow. In the meantime, the accused Atul picked up a brick lying there, and hit the same on the head of the complainant, who somehow managed to escape and called the police at 100 number. The PCR van reached there and took the complainant / injured to FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 3 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
BJRM Hospital, where he was medically examined.
4. The information regarding the incident, was recorded vide GD No. 0113A, and the investigation of the case was assigned to HC Sanjeet, who along with Ct. Saurabh, reached at the spot and on coming to know that the injured has already been shifted to BJRM Hospital, they also reached there and collected the MLC of the injured, on which the nature of injuries, was opined to be 'simple'. Subsequently, the injured visited the police station and got recorded his statement, on the basis of which, HC Sanjeet prepared the rukka, and got the instant case FIR registered, which was assigned to ASI Jai Bhagwan for further investigation. ASI Jai Bhagwan inspected the spot, searched for the accused persons and seized the blood stained Tshirt of the complainant vide appropriate seizure memo. On 12.08.2022, at the instance of complainant Ankit, IO ASI Jai Bhagwan apprehended and arrested the accused Atul, vide appropriate arrest memo and personal search memos. Despite best efforts, the remaining accused Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, Ankit Parcha and Vinay could not be arrested. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet qua accused Atul was filed by the IO, in the court of Ld. MM.
5. Subsequently, on 12.11.2022, accused Ankit Parcha and FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 4 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
Robin Parcha @ Sajjan were arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 888/2022, PS Bhalswa Dairy, and on interrogation, they disclosed their involvement in the present case as well, pursuant whereto they were formally arrested in the present case. However, despite best efforts and issuance of NBWs against him, the fourth associate of accused persons, namely Vinay, could not arrested. After arrest of accused Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, the supplementary chargesheet was filed qua them, before the court of Ld. MM.
6. On appearance in the court of Ld. MM, all the three accused persons were supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and other documents, whereafter the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, as the accused persons have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s 308/34 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After hearing the Ld. counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, vide order dated 28.02.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed the charges against all the three accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha, for the offence punishable u/s 308/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all, out of which PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 are FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 5 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
formal witnesses, PW 5, PW 6, PW 8 and PW 9 are the witnesses of investigation, while PW 1 Ankit Goswami is the material witness, being the injured / complainant.
FORMAL WITNESSES
8. PW 1 ASI Sitaram Bhagat deposed that in the intervening night of 11/12.08.2022, while he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Bhalswa Dairy, at about 1.18 AM, on being produced a rukka before him, by HC Sandeep Dahiya, he got the instant case FIR Ex. PW 1/A, registered through computer operator. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW 1/B and certificate u/s 165 Evidence Act issued by him as Ex. PW 1/C.
9. PW 2 ASI Subhash deposed that on 12.08.2022, while he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Bhalswa Dairy, ASI Jai Bhagwan deposited the case property of the present case, in sealed condition, with him and he made an entry in this regard at S.No. 3373 in register no. 19, copy of which has been proved by him as Ex. PW 2/A. He further deposed that on 06.10.2022, two sealed pullandas along with one sample seal, were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi, through HC Narender vide RC No. 259/21/22 Ex. PW 2/B, and he made his endorsement in this regard at point X on Ex. PW 2/A. He further deposed that after FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 6 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
depositing the case property with FSL, HC Narender handed over the receipt Ex. PW 2/C to him. He further testified that till the time the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with.
10. PW 4 HC Narendra Kumar deposed that on 06.10.2022, while he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy, on the instructions of the IO, he collected the exhibits of the present case from MHC(M), for depositing the same to FSL Rohini, vide Road Certificate No. 259/21/22. He further deposed that after depositing the exhibits with FSL, he handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M) ASI Subhash. He further testified that till the time the case property/exhibits remained in his possession, the same were not tempered with in any manner.
11. PW 7 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 06.10.2022, two sealed parcels, pertaining to the present case FIR bearing No. 675/2022 PS Bhalswa Dairy, were received in the Office of FSL and were marked to him for examination. He further deposed that the Parcel no. 1 was found containing Ex. 1 i.e. one cut / torn tshirt having brown stains, whereas the Parcel no. 2 was found containing blood sample marked as Ex. 2. He further testified that on FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 7 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
examination, blood was detected on Exs. 1 & 2. Exs. 1 and 2 were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from Ex. 1 and 2 and DNA profile was generated. DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 1 was found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 2. He proved his detailed report dated 27.09.2023, including allelic data, as Ex. PW7/A (2 pages) (collectively). He further deposed that the remnants of exhibits have been sealed with the seal of IKM FSL DELHI.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
12. PW 5 Ct. Saurabh Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 11/12.08.2022, while he was on emergency duty, on receipt of DD No. 113A, he along with HC Sanjeet reached at the spot, and on coming to know that the injured has already been shifted to BJRM Hospital, they reached the hospital, from where HC Sanjeet collected the MLC of injured Ankit. Since the injured was not found present in the hospital, they came back to the police station, where the complainant / injured Ankit Goswami met them. He further deposed that the complainant handed over one handwritten complaint to HC Sanjeet, who prepared the rukka and got the instant case FIR registered.
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 8 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
13. PW5 further testified that the further investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Jai Bhagwan, whereafter, he along with ASI Jai Bhagwan and the complainant reached the spot, where the IO prepared the site plan, at the instance of the complainant. IO tried to trace out the weapon of offence as well as the accused but in vain. He further deposed that the complainant handed over one blood stained torn tshirt, which he was wearing at the time of incident, to the IO, who sealed the same and took it into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, at the instance of the complainant, they apprehended one boy, whose name was revealed as Atul, and the complainant told them that the said Atul had caused injuries to him on his head. He further deposed that the accused Atul (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B and personal search memo Ex. PW5/C. He further deposed that the accused Atul got recovered one piece of brick, which was used by him in causing injuries to the complainant. The said piece of brick was sealed with the seal of JB and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D.
14. PW 5 further testified that on 13.11.2022, he again joined the investigation of the present case with SI Mohit Batan, and they arrested the accused Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha vide arrest memos Exs. PW5/E and PW5/F respectively, and also recorded their FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 9 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
disclosure statements Exs. PW5/G and PW5/H respectively. On being produced by the MHC(M), he correctly identified the cut/torn tshirt, being the same torn tshirt which was handed over by the complainant to the IO, and the same was taken on record as Ex. P1. Similarly, he correctly identified the brick, produced by MHC(M), to be the same brick, which was recovered at the instance of accused Atul, and the same was taken on record as Ex. P2.
15. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused Atul and accused Robin Parcha, PW 5 denied the suggestion that the place from where the brick was got recovered, was a busy road and there used to be traffic jam regularly, though he admitted it to be correct that the passers by used to pass from that place frequently.
16. PW 6 HC Sanjeet Dahiya deposed that on 11.08.2022, while he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy, on receipt of DD No. 113A Ex. PW6/A, he along with Ct. Saurabh reached the spot, and on coming to know that the injured has already been shifted to hospital, they also reached the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Ankit, on which, nature of injuries was opined to be 'simple'. PW 6 further deposed that the complainant/injured Ankit Goswami came to the police station, and gave his complaint already Ex.
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 10 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
PW3/A, on the basis of which he (PW6) prepared the rukka Ex. PW6/B and got the present case FIR registered. He further testified that after registration of the case, further investigation of the case, was assigned to ASI Jai Bhagwan.
17. PW 8 SI Mohit Batan deposed that in the present case, the main charge sheet qua accused Atul was filed by ASI Jai Bhagwan, u/s 308/34 IPC. He further deposed that on 12.11.2022, he arrested accused Ankit Parcha and accused Robin Parcha in another case bearing FIR No. 888/2022 PS Bhalswa Dairy, and in their disclosure statements, they admitted their guilt in the present case and accordingly on 13.11.2022, accused Ankit Parcha and accused Robin Parcha were arrested by him in the present case, vide arrest memos already Exs. PW5/E and PW5/F respectively. He further deposed that the fourth accused Vinay could not be apprehended despite sincere efforts. He prepared and filed the supplementary chargesheet against the accused Ankit Parcha and accused Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, (correctly identified by the witness), pending the arrest of co accused Vinay.
18. PW9 ASI Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 11.08.2022, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him, pursuant to which, he along with Ct. Saurabh and the complainant reached the FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 11 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
spot, and prepared the site plan already Ex. PW3/B at the instance of the complainant. He further deposed that the complainant produced his torn blood stained white colour tshirt before him, and he sealed the same with the seal of JB and took it into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A. At the instance of the complainant, he arrested the accused Atul, (correctly identified) vide arrest memo already Ex. PW5/B and personal search memo already Ex. PW5/C. The accused Atul made his disclosure statement Ex. PW9/A and got recovered pieces of brick from the side of a wall situated on DDA land, which were sealed by him with the seal of JB and were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/D.
19. PW 9 further deposed that on 21.09.2022, the complainant was taken to BJRM Hospital, where his blood sample was collected, vide MLC Ex. PY. He seized the sealed blood sample of the injured, sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital along with sample seal, vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/B. He also testified that on 06.10.2022, the aforesaid blood sample and tshirt handed over to him by the complainant, were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi, through HC Narender vide RC No. 259/21/22, who, on return, handed over the receipt to MHC(M). The pieces of brick recovered at the instance of the accused Atul, were not sent to FSL, as they were not blood stained.
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 12 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
The PCR form dated 11.08.2022 related to the present case, has been proved by him as Ex. PW9/C. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and obtained NBWs against the accused Ankit Parcha, Robin Parcha and Vinay. Later on, he prepared the chargesheet against the accused Atul, pending arrest of accused Ankit Parcha, Robin Parcha and Vinay, and filed the same in the Court for trial. He correctly identified the blood stained torn tshirt of the complainant already Ex. P1 and the piece of brick already Ex. P2.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
20. On 10.05.2023 the complainant injured Ankit Goswami entered the witness box as PW 3 and deposed that on 11.08.2022 at about 88:30 pm, when he was returning to his home, on his motorcycle, after making some payment in the office of one Sunil, on the way, just 1415 paces away from the office of Sunil, all the accused persons namely Atul, Ankit Parcha, Robin Parcha @ Sajjan and Vinay stopped him. At this stage, further examination in chief of the witness was deferred by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, as the status of accused Vinay was not clear.
21. On 21.11.2023, the complainant again entered the witness box as PW 3 and deposed that that nothing had happened with him FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 13 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
and that he did not want to say anything else. He further deposed that though he had been beaten by four persons due to which he sustained injuries and the present case FIR was registered, but all three accused persons, who were present in the Court, were not amongst those four persons, who had given him beatings. None of the three accused persons, had done anything wrong with him, at any point of time. On being shown the complaint Ex. PW3/A, though he identified his signature on the same at point A, but volunteered that he did not know about the contents of the same, and that the same was never read over to him. On being shown the cut / torn tshirt, he correctly identified the same, to be the same tshirt which he had handed over to the IO. Similarly, he correctly identified the piece of brick, produced by the MHC(M), being the same brick, by which he was assaulted by the four persons.
22. Since the witness had resiled from his previous statement, the request of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to cross examine the said witness was allowed. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW 3 denied the suggestion that on 11.08.2022 at about 8:30, the accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha along with their another associate Vinay (not arrested) had assaulted and caused him injuries on his head, by hitting with a piece of brick. He further denied the suggestion that the contents of the FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 14 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
complaint Ex. PW3/A were read over to him and / or that he knew as to what is written in the said complaint. He further denied the suggestion that his supplementary statements dated 12.08.2022 and 21.09.2022 were also recorded by the police. He deposed that he knew the names of the accused persons, (present in the Court on that date) as well as Vinay, as they live in the same vicinity, where he resides. He further deposed that in his testimony recorded on 10.05.2023, he had inadvertently mentioned the names of accused persons i.e. Atul, Ankit and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, as he was in a state of panic and anxiousness, at that time. He volunteered that all accused persons had no role in the beatings given to him. He denied the suggestion that all the three accused persons i.e. Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, along with their associate Vinay (since absconding), had wrongly restrained him, started quarreling with him and gave him beatings with kick and fist blows and / or that accused Atul, in the meantime, picked up a brick from the gali and hit the same on his head, due to which, he suffered injuries. He admitted it to be correct that he made a call to the police at 100 number after the incident and PCR vehicle had shifted him to BJRM Hospital, where he was medically treated and thereafter, he came to the police station. However, he denied the suggestion that the complaint Ex. PW3/A was recorded on his narration or that he had named the aforesaid accused persons in his said complaint. He FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 15 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
admitted it to be correct that the police had prepared the site plan Ex. PW3/B at his instance. He denied the suggestion that accused Atul was apprehended by the police at his instance. Though he identified his signature on the arrest memo Ex. PW5/B, but deposed that he did not know about the contents of the same. He denied the suggestion that his supplementary statement dated 21.09.2022 Mark PW3/2, was recorded by the police or that the same was read over to him. He admitted it to be correct that on 21.09.2022, he went to BJRM Hospital, along with the IO, where the doctor concerned had collected his blood sample and handed over the same to the IO in sealed condition. He denied the suggestion that on 12.08.2022, in his presence, accused Atul got recovered the piece of brick from besides the wall of a DDA land, by which he was hit, by him. He admitted it to be correct that he had handed over his blood stained tshirt to the police, which was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A.
23. PW 3 further admitted it to be correct that one FIR bearing No. 999/2022 u/s 324/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Bhalswa Dairy, wherein he is the accused, and accused Atul is the witness, and the said case FIR is pending trial before the concerned court of Ld. MM. He denied the suggestion that he has entered into a compromise with the accused Atul, who is a witness in the said case FIR No. 999/2022, due to which he was deposing falsely.
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 16 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
24. During the course of trial, all the three accused persons, vide their joint statement dated 15.01.2024, admitted the following documents :
a) MLC No. 208839 dated 11.08.2022 pertaining to complainant Ankit as Ex. PX.
b) MLC No. 212063 dated 21.09.2022 pertaining to complainant Ankit, vide which his blood sample was collected, as Ex. PY.
Subsequent thereto, vide their joint statement recorded on 16.02.2024, all the three accused persons also admitted the PCR form dated 11.08.2022 (20.45.56 hrs), which is already Ex. PW 9/C. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
25. After close of PE, the statements of all the three accused persons Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha u/s 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they pleaded their innocence and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, by the IO. All the three accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
26. Final arguments were extended by Ms. Neeta Gupta, Ld. FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 17 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. D.K. Pandey, Ld. LAC for all the three accused persons. I have considered to the rival contentions put forth by both the parties, have gone through the relevant case law and have scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
27. As admitted by the Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, the case of the prosecution was primarily hinging on the testimony of the injured Ankit Goswami, examined as PW 3. The said star witness of the prosecution, in his testimony recorded on 10.05.2023, has though deposed that on 11.08.2022 at about 88.30 PM, when he was returning to his home, on his motorcycle, all the accused persons Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan along wtith their fourth associate Vinay, stopped him, but on the said date, his further examination in chief was deferred by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, since the status of accused Vinay was not clear.
28. However, on the next date i.e. 21.11.2023, when the complainant Ankit Goswami again entered the witness box, he deposed that on the fateful day, though he was beaten up by four persons, but none of the three accused persons, were amongst those FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 18 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
four persons. He categorically deposed that the accused persons had not done anything wrong with him, at any point of time.
29. As regards his statement Ex. PW 3/A recorded by the police, on the basis of which the instant case FIR was registered, though he admitted his signature thereupon at point A, but he deposed that he did not know the contents thereof and that the same was not read over to him. He further deposed that he has never named the accused persons.
30. During his testimony, he categorically deposed that he knew all the three accused, who are facing trial in the present case, as well as Vinay, who as per the prosecution case, is yet absconding, as they all are residing in the same vicinity, where he is residing, but categorically deposed that none of the said four boys (three accused and their fourth alleged associate Vinay) had done anything wrong with him and that they had not given him beatings. Despite a grilling crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, his testimony to this effect, could not be shaken and nothing incriminating against the accused persons could be brought forth.
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 19 of 24
SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
31. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he categorically denied that accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha (present in the court on the date of recording of his testimony) and their fourth associate Vinay, had assaulted him. Rather, he volunteered that all the accused persons had no role in beating him. During his crossexamination, though he supported the prosecution case to the effect that on his complainant, the instant case FIR was registered, but he specifically deposed that he did not name the accused persons in his complaint. As regards recording of his initial testimony on 10.05.2023, wherein he has deposed that on the fateful day, all the accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, and their fourth associate Vinay had stopped him, in his cross examination at the hands of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW 2 / complainant specifically deposed that at that time, he was in a state of panic and anxiousness, as he had appeared in the court for the first time.
32. In his crossexamination, though PW 2 has admitted that in another case bearing FIR No. 999/2022, u/s 324/506/34 IPC, PS Bhalswa Dairy, he is one of the accused, and that the accused Atul is the witness in the said case, which is pending trial in the concerned court, but he denied the suggestion that he has entered into a compromise with the accused in the said case, and in order to save FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 20 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
the accused, he was deposing falsely. He further denied the suggestion that because of intervention of the family members, he was not identifying the accused persons, being the perpetrators of the crime.
33. In case Abdul Sayed V. State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259, to explain the reliability of injured witnesses, it was held that "Where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant (s) in order to falsely implicate someone".
34. Guided by the said observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that it is the testimony of the injured / eye witness, which is most vital, to arrive at a logical conclusion qua the accused in respect of the offences, he has been charged with. In the case in hand, the injured has given a clean chit to all the three accused persons, categorically deposing that they had not done anything wrong with him.
35. In his crossexamination, he correctly identified his blood FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 21 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
stained tshirt, which he had handed over to the IO as well as the brick, with which he was hit on his head, allegedly by the accused Atul, but he gave a clean chit to the accused specifically deposing that it was not the accused Atul, who had hit him on his head. The blood sample of the accused as well as the blood stained tshirt, which the complainant was wearing at the relevant time, were sent to FSL for expert opinion and as per PW 7, the DNA profile generated from Ex. P1 i.e. torn tshirt having brown stains, was found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source Ex. P2 i.e. blood sample of complainant. PW 7 has proved on record his detailed report dated 27.09.2023 in this regard including allelic date, as Ex. PW 7/A, but the same is of no help of the prosecution, in the wake of the categorical testimony of the complainant that the accused persons had no role to play in giving beatings to him. It is to be kept in mind that the FSL result is not a conclusive piece of evidence in itself but is only a corroborative piece of evidence, playing a helping hand for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, if the testimony of the other material witnesses is firm, cogent and trustworthy. Further more, the brick, allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Atul, was never sent to FSL, since no blood was found on the same.
36. Since the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the injured, on FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 22 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
whose testimony the case of the prosecution was based, gave a clean chit to all the three accused persons to the effect that it was not the accused Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan, who along with their other fourth associate, who had given him beatings, there is nothing that survives in the prosecution case, which falls flat on its face, failing to bring home the guilt of accused persons.
37. The accused persos have been charged for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC. Since the only eye witness of the incident i.e. the injured himself has not supported the prosecution case or identified the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime, it would be a futile exercise to discuss whether the offence u/s 308/34 IPC is attracted or not.
38. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of all the three accused persons even remotely. Accordingly, all the three accused persons Atul, Ankit Parcha and Robin Parcha @ Sajjan are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 308/34 IPC.
38. Bail bonds of all the three accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Documents of the sureties, if any retained on record, be released to them, on appropriate applications FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 23 of 24 SC No. 918/2022 State Vs. Atul & Anr.
being moved by them. Case property is forfeited to the Sate, to be disposed of, as per rules.
All the three accused are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10000/ each, with one surety in the like amount each, under provisions of Section 437A CrPC.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by SEEMA
SEEMA MAINI
Announced in the open court MAINI Date:
2024.04.25
14:49:43 +0530
today i.e. 25th April, 2024
(SEEMA MAINI)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 675/2022 : PS Bhalswa Dairy page 24 of 24