Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 345/15 State vs . Ashok Bhandari & Anr. on 5 January, 2019

FIR No. 345/15                    State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr.
PS : Hauz Qazi

    IN THE COURT OF MM­08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
        TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.

Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr.
FIR No. 345/15
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s 289/324/506/34 IPC
Date of Institution                   : 27.04.2016
Date of reserving of order            : 05.01.2019
Date of Judgment                      : Oral

JUDGMENT

CNR No. DLCT02­002470­2016

1. Serial No. of the case : 288469/2016

2. Name of the Complainant : Beena Devi

3. Date of incident 21.12.2015

4. Name of accused person :

1. Ashok Bhandari S/o Late R.K. Sharma, R/o H. No. 457, 1st Floor, Gali Sheesh Mahal Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi.

2. Akshat Sharma S/o Sh. Ashok Bhandari R/o H. No. 457, 1st Floor, Gali Sheesh Mahal Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi.

5. Offence for which chargesheet Page 1 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr.

PS : Hauz Qazi

              was filed               : S. 289///
                                        IPC.
     6.       Offence for which charge
              has been framed         : S. 289///
                                        IPC.
     7.       Plea of accused         : Not guilty
     8.       Final Order             : Acquitted
     9.       Date of Judgment        : 05.01.2019

BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:

1. Mr. Ashok Bhandari & Akshat Sharma, the accused herein, have been charge­sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 289/324/506(1)/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2015 at about 8 :30 p.m., accused Ashok Bhandari had entered in her house alongwith his pet dog. The dog had attacked the complainant. After sometime, accused Akashat Sharma also reached at the spot. Both the accused in furtherance of their common intention had caused hurt to the complainant by sharp object. They had also threatened the complainant and her daughter. On the basis of complaint, present FIR was registered. Accused Page 2 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi was arrested. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused persons were charge­sheeted for committing the offences punishable under Section 289/324/506/34, Indian Penal Code.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 289/324/506(1)/34 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Summons were issued to the complainant and her daughter Shaifali for their evidence. However, summons remained unserved. Thereafter, summons were issued through DCP concerned which remained unserved with the report that both the witnesses had left the given address. Therefore, they were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 02.08.2018. The prosecution has examined Ct. Sakar and ASI Sunil Kumar to prove its Page 3 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi case against the accused.

5. PW­1 Ct. Sakar is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 22.12.2015, he alongwith HC Sunil had reached at H. No. 457, Gali Sheesh Mahal, Sita Ram Bazar, Second Floor, Delhi. There they met with Beena Devi to whom the IO had handed over a copy of FIR. She was told that an FIR had been registered on her statement. The IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, they reached at the First Floor alongwith the complainant. At the instance of the complainant, the IO arrested accused Ashok Bhandari and Akashat Sharma vide memo Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B. Their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW1/D. They were released on bail by the IO. The IO recorded the statement of Beena Devi.

6. PW­2 ASI Sunil Kumar is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 21.12.2015, after receiving DD No.42A, he reached at the spot i.e., H. No. 457, second Floor, Gali Shish Mahal, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi. On reaching there he came to know that injured lady was taken to JPN hospital by PCR van. He reached at JPN Page 4 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi Hospital and received the MLC of Beena Devi. Complainant Beena Devi told that she would give her statement later on at her house. On next day, he went to the house of the complainant and recorded her statement, which is Ex. PW2/A. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW 2/B and produced the same for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, DO registered the FIR of the present case and he handed over him original rukka and copy of FIR for further investigation. He alongwith Ct. Sakar went to the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex.PW2/C. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He arrested both the accused persons namely Ashok Bhandari and Akshat Sharma on the instance of the complainant vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/A & Ex. PW 1/B. He conducted the personal search of the accused persons vide memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. He deposited the MLC of the complainant in the hospital for obtaining the result but result could not be obtained as complainant never turned up at hospital despite his best efforts.

7. PW 1 and 2 were cross­examined. Accused persons have admitted the registration of FIR No. 345/15, Page 5 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi which is Ex.A­1, certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.A­2 & MLC of Beena Devi is Ex. A­3 .

8. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Accused were examined U/s 313 Cr PC r/w Section 281 Cr. PC. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence. They would state that they were innocent and that they were was falsely implicated in the present case.

9. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.

10. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed that the accused may be convicted.

11. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant and her daughter never come before the Court to depose which create reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution. It is prayed the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and they may be acquitted.

12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi

13. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.

14. In the present case, the accused have been charged for committing offences punishable U/s 289 IPC, Section 324/34 IPC and Section 506 (I)/34 IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that both the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant with a sharp object and they had threatened the complainant and her daughter. It is also alleged that dog of accused Ashok Bhandari had attacked the complainant. The prosecution had cited the complainant and her daughter as eye witnesses. However, they have not appeared in the Court as witnesses to prove the contentions of the complaint and their statements recorded by the IO. Those statements have not been tested on the touchstone of cross­ examination. PW­1 and PW­2 are admitted not the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. They have conducted the proceedings on the basis of the alleged statement of the complainant. The said statement of the complainant, however, had remained not proved. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove Page 7 of 8 MM­08(C )/THC/Delhi/05.01.2019 FIR No. 345/15 State Vs. Ashok Bhandari & Anr. PS : Hauz Qazi beyond reasonable doubts any allegation against any of the accused.

15. In the light of the discussions herein­above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 289 IPC, Section 324/34 IPC and Section 506 (I)/34 IPC IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is therefore acquitted.

16. The accused have already furnished bond under Section 437A, with one surety along with photographs and copies of address proof.

Pronounced in the open Court (Dinesh Kumar) on this 5th day of January 2019 MM­08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.