Delhi District Court
State vs . on 25 January, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHWEST)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Sanjay & Another.
FIR No. 616/2000
PS Najafgarh
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 02405R1021642003.
2. Date of institution : 06.01.2003.
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ravinder Singh.
4. Date of commission of offence : 11.12.2000.
5. Name of accused : 1. Sanjay
S/o Nihal Singh
2. Nihal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
Both R/o H. No. 687,
Village Dichaun Kalan,
Najafgarh, New Delhi43.
Page No. 1 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
2
6. Offence complained of : Sections 279/337/323/34 IPC.
7. Plea of guilt : Accused persons pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of reserving the judgment : 11.01.2016.
9. Final order : Acquittal.
10. Date of such judgment : 25.01.2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The important facts of the case are as follows. In this case, FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Ravinder Singh (PW3), who mentioned that on 11.12.2000, at about 9.30 pm, he was coming from office to Najafgarh on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SE4255, which was being driven by his friend Ravinder. At about 10.00 pm, when they were turning in Shiv Mandir Gali, Roshanpura, Najafgarh, their motorcycle collided with tempo bearing registration no. DL1LB4879, which was turned in the said gali at fast speed and in negligent manner. Thereafter, the matter was settled and his friend took the motorcycle towards his house and Page No. 2 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
3 he started walking towards his house. In the meanwhile, the driver of the said tempo, his family members and the local residents started making noise and started beating him. In the incident, his gold chain, mobile phone, Rs. 10,000/ cash and pistol fell down. Thereafter, he made a call to police and his friend accompanied him to hospital. After his discharge from the hospital, he came at the spot and the said tempo was found parked in the same street. Then, he identified accused persons Sanjay, Nihal Singh and Krishan (since deceased) at a nearby house. During investigation, all the three accused persons were arrested and aforesaid motorcycle and tempo were seized. Medical documents of the complainant/injured were collected. After culmination of investigation, the accused persons were summoned to face trial. During trial, accused Krishan had expired and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 21.05.2015. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings and after making compliance of provisions of Section 207 CrPC, vide order dated 23.02.2010, the then Ld. MM, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, framed charges under Section 279/337/323/34 IPC Page No. 3 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
4 against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution has produced seven witnesses.
3.1 PW1, Kuldeep Singh, mentioned that he is the owner of tempo bearing registration no. DL1LB4879 and on 13.12.2000, he produced the aforesaid tempo before the IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW1/A. 3.2 PW2, Veerpal, mentioned that in the year 2000, he was working at Petrol Pump, Dhaula Kuan, and on 11.12.2000 at about 11.00 pm, after finishing his duty, he was coming to his house and when he reached in Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, he found lying one mobile phone and the same was picked by him. Thereafter, he informed his wife and neighbours about the mobile phone. Further, he searched the owner of the said mobile phone, but no one found. Thereafter, he went to police station and handed over the said mobile phone to police, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/A. 3.3 PW3, Ravinder Singh, deposed on the lines of his complaint/statement Ex. PW3/A, on the basis of which FIR was Page No. 4 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
5 registered. Further, he mentioned that his gold chain was seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW3/B and the aforesaid motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/C. Further, he mentioned that both the accused persons were personally searched vide memos Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E. 3.4 PW4, Narender Arya, mentioned that on 16.01.2001, digging work was going on at Shiv Mandir Road, Najafgarh, and one of his workers found one pistol during digging of the drain. Thereafter, he called the police there and he handed over the said pistol to the police vide memo Mark X. 3.5 PW5, SI Prakash Chand, proved the FIR Ex. PW5/A and his endorsement made on the rukka Ex. PW5/B. 3.6 PW6, SI Jagbir Singh, mentioned that on 16.01.2001, on receiving information regarding the pistol, which was lying in the drain near Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, New Roshanpura, New Delhi, he reached there, where one Narender Arya handed over him said pistol and told him that during digging the drain, his worker found the pistol. Thereafter, he seized the said pistol vide memo Mark X. 3.7 PW7, SI Anil Kumar, mentioned that on 12.12.2000, after receiving the information vide DD No. 4A, he alongwith Const. Raj Page No. 5 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
6 Kumar went to DDU Hospital, where one Ravinder S/o Pratap Singh was found coming out from the hospital after being discharged vide MLC No. 9771. Thereafter, all of them went to the spot, where HC Mahavir alongwith other staff members were found present. Further, injured Ravinder identified the accused persons, who were present near the spot. Thereafter, he recorded statement Ex. PW3/A of the complainant/injured, on the basis of which FIR was got registered. Further, one gold chain of the complainant/injured lost during the incident was found and the same was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Further, the aforesaid motorcycle was also seized vide memo Ex. PW3/C. Further, the accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex. PW7/C to Ex. PW7/E and thereafter, they were personally searched vide Ex. PW3/D, Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW7/F. Further, one person Veerpal produced one mobile phone belonging to the complainant and the same was also seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A. Further, the offending tempo was seized on 13.12.2000 vide memo Ex. PW1/A and the pistol of the complainant was seized on 16.01.2001 u/s 102 CrPC.
4. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of both the accused persons was recorded. When the accused persons were briefed on all Page No. 6 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
7 the incriminating evidence and documents, they denied the allegations and submitted that on the date of incident, they were not present at the spot as they were gone to attend "kuan pujan"
ceremony.
5. The accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and examined one witness in their defence. DW1, Jagbir Singh, mentioned that on 08.11.2000, he was blessed with a baby boy and "kuan pujan" ceremony was held on 11.12.2000 and on that date, both the accused persons were present at his house from 12.00 noon to 12.00 midnight.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
6. I have heard Sh. Shiv Kumar, substitute ld. APP for State and Sh. D.R. Badalia, ld. counsel for accused persons and have perused the record.
7. It was summed up by the ld. APP for State that the complainant Ravinder Singh (PW3) has supported the prosecution case that the accused persons caused simple hurt to him voluntarily Page No. 7 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
8 and prior to that they had driven the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LB4879 in rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. On the other hand, ld. defence counsel argued that the prosecution case is full of infirmities and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons.
8. It was argued by the ld. defence counsel that there is no evidence on record that the accused persons were involved in rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing registration no. DL1LB4879. It is observed that complainant Ravinder Singh (PW3) is the only eye witness in this case. It is noteworthy that he has not said about rash and negligent driving of the said tempo. In his testimony, he has only said that the said tempo came from the gali and hit their motorcycle, as a result of which they fell down. It is also seen that the complainant has not deposed as to who was driving the said offending vehicle and how many persons were present in it at the time of accident. In view of the deposition of the complainant, it cannot be said that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Moreover, though it is evident that PW1 was the registered owner of the said tempo but prosecution has not Page No. 8 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
9 explained the connection of accused persons with that vehicle. Further, there is no allegation that the complainant suffered any injury in the said accident. Thus, there is nothing on record to support the charges u/s 279/337 IPC.
9. In respect of charge u/s 323 IPC, the complainant has mentioned that after the said accident, the matter was settled and thereafter, when he was going towards his house on foot, the accused persons gave beating to him. Further, he had deposed that he called police at phone no. 100 and thereafter, police came and took him to police station and then to DDU Hospital. On this aspect, it is seen that in his statement Ex. PW3/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered, it is mentioned that from the spot, he went to DDU Hospital alongwith his friend Ravinder. Further, in the MLC of the complainant, the name of one Const. Kanwar Singh is mentioned, but the prosecution has not explained as to how the said police official is connected with this case.
10. Further, it is observed that the complainant has mentioned that he was discharged from the hospital next morning, Page No. 9 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
10 however, in the MLC, it is mentioned that the patient has absconded from the hospital. Further, IO (PW7) has mentioned that he met the complainant outside the hospital, whereas the complainant had deposed that after the incident, first he was taken to police station and then to the hospital.
11. Further, it is observed that in his statement Ex. PW3/A, the complainant has mentioned that after his discharge from the hospital, he came back at the spot and from there they reached at the house of the accused persons and then he identified them. On this aspect, PW7 has mentioned that when they returned to the spot alongwith the complainant, accused persons Sanjay, Krishan and Nihal Singh were present there. Moreover, as per arrest memos of accused persons Ex. PW7/C, Ex. PW7/D and Ex. PW7/E, the place of arrest is "RZ114, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh". Thus, there is serious contradiction and doubt about the place of arrest of the accused persons.
12. Further, it is found that the prosecution has not formally proved the MLC of the injured to substantiate its case. Page No. 10 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.
11
13. Moreover, prosecution failed to give explanation as to why another person namely Ravinder, who was friend of the complainant, was not cited as prosecution witness though he was present at the spot at the time of alleged accident and had taken the injured to the hospital. In view of this Court, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, it would not be safe to punish the accused persons on the basis of sole testimony of the complainant.
CONCLUSION:
14. For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons Sanjay and Nihal Singh. Accordingly, both the aforesaid accused persons are pronounced not guilty.
Announced in the open Court (VIVEK KUMAR GULIA) on 25th day of January 2015. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SW) (total 11 pages) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Page No. 11 of 11. State Vs. Sanjay & Another; FIR No. 616/2000; PS Najafgarh.