Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Etc. on 26 April, 2010
1
State Vs. Sanjeev Etc.
FIR No. 593/05
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE - IV: ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Date of Committal ------- 29.01.2007
Date of Institution
Before this court ------- 06.01.2009
Date on which reserved
for Judgment ------- 26.04.2010
Date of Judgment ------ 26.04.2010
Final Order ------- ACQUITTAL
Sessions Case No. : 08/09
FIR No. : 593/05
PS : Uttam Nagar
Under Sections : 308/341/506/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Sanjeev @ Sonu
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H. No. 79,
Village Kakrola,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sunny
S/o Sh. Balwan
R/o H. No. 79,
Village Kakrola,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet U/s 173 Cr. PC has been filed against both the accused persons namely Sanjeev and Sunny for the offence Contd.....
2State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 punishable U/Ss 308/341/506/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stating the case of prosecution is that both the accused persons namely Sanjeev and Sunny in furtherance of their common intention alongwith other associates namely Raju and Samrat (not arrested) on 15.07.05 at about 8.00 pm at Old Palam Road, Near Park, Kakrola Village, Delhi had wrongfully restrained Satender and prevented him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits who also criminally intimidated Satender and caused injuries on his person with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, Satender would have died, the accused persons would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The matter was reported to the police officials by the complainant Jai Om (Uncle of Satender) whereupon the present FIR was registered and investigation commenced during which both the accused persons namely Sanjeev and Sunny were arrested and other necessary proceedings were conducted and after completion of Contd.....
3State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 investigation, the charge sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC was filed before the court of Ld. MM concerned who after compliance of necessary legal provisions u/s 207 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.03.07, charge was served on both the accused persons Sanjeev and Sunny U/Ss 308/341/506/34 IPC to which both the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in support of its case has examined five witnesses in all namely Jai Om (complainant) as PW1, Vinod as PW2, Shri Krishan as PW3, HC Ramesh Chand (Duty Officer) as PW4 and Satender (injured) a PW5.
4. In the present case the most material witnesses upon whose testimonies the entire case of prosecution revolve are Jai Om (PW1), Vinod (PW2), Shri Krishan (PW3) and Satender (PW5) being complainant/injured and eye witnesses, hence their testimonies need to be discussed on priority.
Contd.....
4State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 Jai Om (PW1- Uncle of Satender) has testified that on 15.07.05 at abut 8.00 pm, he alongwith his nephew Vinod (PW2) was going to Village Kakrola and on the way he heard some cries and saw that some persons were beating his nephew Satender (PW5) whereupon they intervened, however the assailants managed to escape.
He further testified that none of these assailants are present in the court and the persons who caused injuries on the person of Satender had led away from the spot. He also deposed that thereafter he alongwith Vinod shifted Satender (PW5) to the hospital where police officials had also arrived who recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he categorically deposed that none of the accused person present in the court had ever caused any injuries upon the person of Satender (PW5).
Vinod (PW2) testified on the lines of Jai Om (PW1) and had been very specific in deposing that none of the accused persons ever caused any injuries on the person of Satender (PW5) and Contd.....
5State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 though he was declared hostile by Ld. APP for State, yet nothing is shown if the accused persons are the assailants.
Shri Krishan (PW3- father of Satender) deposed that on 15.07.05 his son (PW5) was given was given beatings by some boys but he does not know who they were. During cross examination by Ld. APP, it is nowhere placed on record if the accused persons had committed the alleged offences upon the person of Satender (PW5).
Satender (PW5) who is the injured has deposed that on 15.07.05 at about 7.45 pm, four unknown persons who were in drunken condition came and gave beatings to him in a park near Purana Palam Road but he had not identified any of the accused accused persons to be assailants of if they had ever caused injuries upon his persons. He also deposed that it was dark and the culprits were unknown to him.
During cross examination by Ld. APP, he categorically denied if any of the accused persons had wrongfully restrained him or intimidating him or ever caused any Contd.....
6State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 injuries upon his person and clearly stated that none of them ever gave any beatings to him. He also not identified any of the accused persons to be the assailants.
It would be pertinent to mention that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the most material witnesses, however none of them have deposed anything incriminating against any of the accused persons and have not identified them to be the culprits.
6. HC Ramesh Chand (PW4 - Duty Officer) testified that he had recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka as sent by HC Mohd. Islam through Ct. Nathu on 15.07.05 at about 11.35 pm and proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW4/A and he recorded DD No. 30 regarding registration of FIR and made endorsement Ex. PW4/B on the rukka.
7. In the present case, considering totality of facts and circumstances and considering that PWs 1, 2, 3, and 5 who are the most material witnesses have not deposed anything Contd.....
7State Vs. Sanjeev Etc. FIR No. 593/05 incriminating against any of the accused persons and PW4 is a formal witness being duty officer. In these circumstances, considering that the most material witnesses have not deposed anything incriminating against any of the accused persons to connect them with commission of alleged offences and have not identified them to be the assailants, hence both the accused namely Sanjeev and Sunny are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their sureties if any be discharged. Original documents be returned as per rules and endorsement on documents, if any be cancelled as per rules. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA) on this 26th day of April, 2010 Additional Sessions Judge - IV Outer District - IV Rohini District Courts Delhi Contd.....