Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Ajay Kumar & Ors., Fir No. 371/05, Ps ... on 21 November, 2013

State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 371/05, PS Model Town, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.


     IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­IV, 
                      (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. 


FIR NO. 371/05
PS. MODEL TOWN
U/S. 323/341/506/34 IPC.
STATE VS.  (1) AJAY KUMAR
                (2) SANJAY
                (3) SANJEEV
                                          JUDGMENT

A.       SL. NO. OF THE CASE                       :         371/05
B.       UNIQUE ID NO                              :         02404R0570532008
C.       DATE OF OFFENCE                           :         30.06.2005
D.       DATE OF INSTITUTION                       :         05.06.2008
E.       NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT                   :         Sh. Neeraj Raj 
                                                             S/o Sh. Sambhu Dhari
F.       NAME OF THE ACCUSED                       :         (1) Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Bali Ram
                                                             (2) Sanjay S/o Sh. Sat Narayan
                                                             (3) Sanjeev S/o Sh. Sat Narayan
G.  OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF                          :         U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
H.       PLEA OF ACCUSED                           :         Pleaded not guilty. 
I.       FINAL ORDER                               :         Acquitted
J.       DATE OF SUCH ORDER                        :         21.11.2013

Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge­sheet are that on 30.06.2005, at about 11:15 pm, at Block­6 and 9/5, Double Storey, Vijay Nagar, near chowk, Delhi, all the accused persons namely Ajay Kumar, Sanjay and Sanjeev in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Sh. Neeraj Raj and his friend Kumar Jayant and caused simple hurt to them. The accused persons also threatened them with injury to their lives. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant Sh. Neeraj Raj, the present FIR 371/05, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was Page No. 1/3 State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 371/05, PS Model Town, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.

registered at PS Model Town, Delhi. On conclusion of investigation, the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed in the court.

2. All the accused persons were summoned by the court for facing trial of the present offence. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to all the accused persons. Prima facie charge U/s. 323/341/506/34 IPC was made out against all the three accused persons. Accordingly, on 26.04.2012 the charge was framed against them. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.

3. In the instant case, there are four alleged eye­witnesses of the incident i.e. complainant /injured namely Sh. Neeraj Raj, other injured Sh. Kumar Jayant, Sh. Aditya Sharma and Sh. Prakash Mishra. However, they have remained untraceable and they have failed to enter the witness box for deposition. They were even summoned through DCP/NW, but despite that the said eye­witnesses remained untraceable. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who are admittedly not the eye­ witnesses to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused persons. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the said remaining witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.

4. In the case in hand, the prosecution has not examined any witness.

Since, there is no admissible incriminating evidence against either of the accused persons on record, therefore, the statements of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with. Subsequently, the case was listed for final arguments

5. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons namely Ajay Kumar, Sanjay and Sanjeev. I have carefully perused the case file.

6. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.

7. In order to sustain conviction U/s 323/341IPC the prosecution is required to Page No. 2/3 State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 371/05, PS Model Town, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.

prove the following ingredients :­

(i) The accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to the victim; and

(ii) The accused voluntarily obstructed the victim from proceeding in a certain direction in which he/she had right to proceed.

8. In the present case, there are four alleged eye­witnesses to the incident i.e. the complainant /injured namely Sh. Neeraj Raj, other injured Sh. Kumar Jayant, Sh. Aditya Sharma and Sh. Prakash Mishra. However, they have remained untraceable. The said witnesses are vital/material/crucial witnesses for proving the prosecution version as the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the foundation laid down by the statements given by them to the police. The non examination of the said witnesses have proved fatal to the prosecution case as in absence of their respective indispensable testimonies the prosecution case cannot be substantiated. Therefore, the prosecution version has remained unproved.

9. There is not even an iota of admissible incriminating evidence against either of the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution case suffers from material and fatal infirmities and therefore, all the three accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.

10. In the light of the above discussion, all the three accused persons namely Ajay Kumar, Sanjay and Sanjeev are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ each with one surety each in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for the next six months.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DHEERAJ MOR) Today i.e. 21/11/2013. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT NORTH) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page No. 3/3 State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 371/05, PS Model Town, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.

FIR NO. 371/05

PS. Model Town U/s. 323/341/506/34 IPC.

State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. 



21.11.2013


Present:       Ld. APP for the state.

Accused persons namely Ajay Kumar and Sanjeev are on bail with their Ld. counsel.

Accused Sanjay produced in JC, but on bail in this case.

No PW is present. Summons issued to the eye­witnesses i.e. complainant /injured namely Sh. Neeraj Raj, other injured Sh. Kumar Jayant, Sh. Aditya Sharma and Sh. Prakash Mishra are received back unserved with the report that they are not traceable at their respective given addresses.

In the instant case, there are four alleged eye­witnesses of the incident of criminal assault. However, they have remained untraceable and they have failed to enter the witness box for deposition. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the statements of the said witnesses. The prosecution has availed several sufficient opportunities for examining the said witnesses. The said witnesses were even summoned through DCP concerned. But it also yielded no fruitful results. Prosecution has already availed several sufficient opportunities for concluding entire PE. The present case is pending trial for nearly five years, thus, the right of the accused for expeditious trial cannot be defeated on unjust and unreasonable ground. Thus, no ground is made out for adjourning the present case for remaining PE. Moreover, t he remaining witnesses are admittedly not the eye­witness to the alleged incident and they are merely formal witnesses. Therefore, their examination shall not prove the culpability of the accused and thus, their examination shall be a futile exercise. Hence, PE stands closed.

There is no incriminating evidence against either of the accused persons to fix their liabilities U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC. Hence, their respective statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. are dispensed with.

Final arguments heard. Case file perused.

Page No. 4/3

State Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., FIR No. 371/05, PS Model Town, U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.

Vide separate judgment of even date announced in the open Court, all the three accused persons namely Ajay Kumar, Sanjay and Sanjeev stand acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ each with one surety each in the like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for next six months.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

(Dheeraj Mor) MM/North/Rohini/Delhi 21.11.2013 Page No. 5/3