Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar & Anr. on 1 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PRIYA, MM04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Anil Kumar & Anr.
FIR NO: 359/11
P. S Sangam Vihar
U/s 324/34 IPC
Crc No. 2034192/16
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 3062/2 (25.08.2014)
Date of its institution : 25.08.2014
Name of the complainant : Sh. Dinesh Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o H. No. 41 A, F Block,
Vishwakarma Colony, Badarpur,
New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 04.07.2011
Name of the accused : 1)Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Mool Chand,
R/o H. No. L760/12, Sangam
Digitally Vihar, New Delhi
signed by 2) Pradeep Kumar
NEHA NEHA PRIYA
Date:
S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
R/o A341, Om Nagar Meetha pur,
PRIYA 2019.05.01
17:03:49
Badarpur, New Delhi and also at
+0530 Village Barauli PostBarauli,
PS Anup Shahar, Distt. Buland
Shahar (Proclaimed person)
Offence complained of : 324/34 IPC
State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 1/6
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 26.04.2019
Final Order : Accused Anil Kumar is acquitted
u/s 324/34 IPC
Date of orders : 30.04.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The present case is prosecuted by the State against the accused persons for having committed the offence punishable U/s 324/34 IPC.
2. During the course of trial, accused Pradeep Kumar was declared as absconder vide order dated 23.08.2016.
3. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2011 at 22.45 pm at MB Road bus stand near Sat Narayan Mandir, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, the accused Anil Kumar alongwith Pradeep (proclaimed person) in furtherance of their common intention, caused simple injuries with sharp edged object on the person of complainant Dinesh Pal Singh and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC.
4. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by PS Sangam Vihar and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Charge was framed against accused Anil Kumar u/s 324/34 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. PW1 Sh. Dinesh Pal Singh i.e. the complainant deposed that on 04.07.2011 at about 10.45 pm, he was coming from the Badarpur side on his car bearing no.DL8C 4652 and proceeding towards his home via MB Road. When he reached near State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 2/6 ITBP Camp, suddenly one Gramin Seva bearing no.DL21946 came in a very rash and negligent manner, hit his vehicle and started fleeing from the spot. He chased the said vehicle and overtook it at Batra hospital bus stand, MB Road and stopped it. The driver started arguing with him and told his associate that "iron rod le kar aa, rod le kar aa, isse batatain hain". The associate brought a rod and hit on his head by giving 23 blows and uttered words "ise jaan se maar detain hain tujhe kaun bachata hai, hum sangam vihar ke hain". In that process, his ring was broken. He tried to call at 100 number but the accused persons snatched his mobile phone and threw the battery of his mobile phone and threatened to kill him and thereafter, they fled away from the spot. He made a complaint to the police i.e. Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, on 28.08.2011 he went to PS regarding enquiry of his MLCs where he saw both the accused persons at the PS and he came to know the name of the accused persons as Anil Kumar and Pradeep. Thereafter, site plan was prepared at his instance i.e. Ex.PW1/B. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
6. PW2 Ct. Chattar Singh deposed that on 28.09.2011, he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case and he alongwith IO went to L760/12, Sangam Vihar from where accused Anil Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex.PW2/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo i.e. Ex.PW2/B. The disclosure statement of accused Anil Kumar was recorded i.e. Ex.PW2/C. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
7. PW3 HC Virpal deposed that on 01.10.2011 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day, he joined the investigation with SI Bhagwan Sahai. He further deposed that the accused Pradeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/B. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 3/6 opportunity.
8. PW4 SI Amit Kumar deposed that on 06.07.2012 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further investigated the matter and after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
9. Accused had admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act, DD No. 53 A dated 05.07.2011, DD No.56 A dated 04.12.2011, DD No. 61 B dated 13.06.2014 and MLC No.264984 dated 05.07.2011 of injured Dinesh Kumar u/s 294 Cr.P.C and as such the formal proof of these documents by calling their authors was dispensed with.
10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. The accused denied all the allegations against him and took a defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not choose to lead evidence in his defence.
11. Final arguments were addressed by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel.
12.The case of the prosecution is that both the accused persons had assaulted the complainant by hitting him with an iron rod on his head 23 times. One accused asked the other to bring an iron rod on bringing which, the other accused gave 23 blows with it on the head of the complainant. Neither in his initial complaint Ex.PW1/A nor while deposing as PW1 did the complainant specify the role of each of the accused in the alleged incident. In his examination in chief, PW1 stated that the driver of Gramin Sewa had started the arguments with him and it was his associate who had brought the rod and hit him on the head. However, during cross examination, he stated that he was not aware which of the accused State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 4/6 was driving the vehicle on that day, thereby clearly failing to establish the role of accused Anil Kumar in the alleged incident, either as instigator or aggressor. No other witness to the incident was examined or cited by the prosecution. In order to prove charges against accused Anil Kumar, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to establish his identity and clearly define his role in the entire alleged incident. However, it was not done .
13. Besides, the MLC report i.e. Ex.AD5 raises serious questions on the case of the prosecution since as per the MLC report, only one incised wound above the left eye of the complainant is shown to have occurred whereas as per the complaint as well as evidence of PW1, twothree blows with an iron rod on the head of the complainant were inflicted. The MLC report does not reveal any such injury and thus does not support the prosecution story. Further as per the chargesheet, no such incident of inflicting injuries upon the complainant by the accused persons with an iron rod was found to have taken place and the IO of the case was also not examined.
14. Thus, neither the factum of injuries occurring to the complainant nor the involvement of the accused Anil Kumar in the alleged incident could be proved. In these circumstances, the allegations that accused Anil Kumar had inflicted blows or physically assaulted the complainant, causing injuries upon his person cannot be sustained.
15. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused Anil Kumar and failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Anil Kumar had physically assaulted the complainant causing injuries upon his person. Accordingly, accused Anil Kumar is entitled to acquittal for offence u/s 324/34 IPC. He is set at liberty. Bail bond U/s 437 A of Cr.PC is to be furnished on behalf of accused.
State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 5/6
16. File be consigned to record room with the direction to revive the same as and when accused Pradeep Kumar is apprehended. Till such time, record shall be preserved.
Announced in the open court (Neha Priya)
on 30.04.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Neha Priya) MM04, South, New Delhi/30.04.2019 State v. Anil Kumar & Anr. Case No.2034192/16 6/6