Delhi District Court
State vs . Pappu & Anr. on 12 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MITTAL, MM03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Pappu & Anr.
FIR No. 321/01
PS: Delhi Cantt.
U/s 325/341/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 28/2B/14
2. Date of commission of offence : 23.07.2001
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Raghubeer,
S/o Sh. Ram Bishar.
4. Name of the accused persons
& their parentage : 1. Jairam, S/o Sh. Changa.
2. Pappu, S/o Sh. Chhanama absconder / PO vide order dated 19.09.2012.
5. Date when judgment was : Not reserved.
reserved.
6. Date when judgment was : 12.03.2015 pronounced.
7. Offence complained of : U/s 325/341/34 IPC or proved.
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded Not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Final Judgment : 1. Accused Jairam is acquitted.
2. Accused Pappu is absconder / PO.
FIR No: 321/01 PS Delhi Cantt. State Vs. Pappu & Anr. Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The allegations in brief against the accused Jairam are that on 23.07.2001 at 08:00 AM, opposite Jhuggi No. 781, Kirbi Place, New Delhi, he alongwith coaccused Pappu (absconder / PO), in furtherance of common intention had wrongfully restrained and beaten the complainant, due to which the complainant suffered grevious injuries on his legs. The present case was registered on the basis of the complaint / statement of the complainant / injured Sh. Raghubeer. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet / challan was filed in the Court against the accused persons namely Jairam and Pappu for the offences u/s 325/341/34 IPC.
2. Accused persons were summoned by the Court after taking cognizance of the offences. The provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C were complied with and the copies were supplied to the accused persons. On the basis of material on record, charge was framed against both the accused persons for the offences u/s 325/341/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and therefore, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
Here, it may be noted that after framing of the charge, the accused Pappu stopped appearing in the Court and therefore, later on, he was declared an absconder / PO vide order dated 19.09.2012.
3. In the prosecution evidence, the prosecution could examined only two witness i.e PW1 HC Yatender / Duty Officer and PW2 Sh. Hayat Singh, LDC, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
The prosecution despite sufficient opportunities could not examine FIR No: 321/01 PS Delhi Cantt. State Vs. Pappu & Anr.
the most material witnesses / eye witnesses i.e complainant / injured Raghubeer and his wife Smt. Phoola. It may be noted that summons to these witnesses were issued a number of times, however, the witnesses were reported to be not available at the given address. It may be also noted that these witnesses did not appear in the Court even though summoned through the concerned DCP. Apart from the complainant / injured and his wife Smt. Phoola, there is no other eye witness to the alleged incident. Considering the fact that the eye witnesses / material witnesses were reported to be untraceable and fact that the matter pertains to the year 2001, the prosecution evidence was closed vide my separate order dated 12.03.2015.
4. The prosecution has examined only two witness i.e PW 1 HC Yatender and PW2 Sh. Hayat Singh, LDC, Safdarjung Hospital. PW1 HC Yatender being duty officer has proved the registration of FIR and PW2 deposed on the behalf of Doctor A. Ratnaik and Dr. Vandana Kalra. As per the deposition of PW2, the complainant / injured were medically examined vide MLC bearing no. 115692 with the result as injury grevious.
As noted above, the prosecution could not examine any other witness and importantly the prosecution could not produced the eye witnesses in this case.
5. I have perused the record and considered the submissions. Considering the fact that there is no incriminating evidence / material on record which can be put to the accused Jairam in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, statement of the accused Jairam is dispensed with and accused Jairam is FIR No: 321/01 PS Delhi Cantt. State Vs. Pappu & Anr.
acquitted of the charge of section 341/325/34 IPC. The bail bond already furnished by the accused Jairam is retained for a period of six months as per section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room with noting that the accused Pappu is already absconder / PO. The file may be revived on the arrest of the accused Pappu.
Announced in the open Court (DHEERAJ MITTAL) on 12th day of March, 2015 MM03, PHC/NDD/New Delhi FIR No: 321/01 PS Delhi Cantt. State Vs. Pappu & Anr.