Delhi District Court
Fir No.672/2000 State vs . Ram Niwas Etc. on 8 May, 2017
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SIDDHARTHA MALIK
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI
FIR No: 672/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s: 147/452/323IPC
r/w Section 149 IPC.
State
Vs.
1 Ram Niwas @ Pappu, (P.O.)
S/o Shri Jay Ram,
R/o Village Tanda Heri,
PS Bahadur Garh,
Haryana,
2 Rajpal
S/o Shri Satya Narain,
R/o 587, Gali no.3, Line Par Police Station,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
3 Som Dutt,
S/o Ravi Dutt,
R/o Khatik Mohalla near Post Office,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
4 Kapur Singh,
S/o Samunder Singh,
R/o Village Boopani, District Jhajjar,
Haryana. ........... Accused
FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc.
: 2 :
1 Sl. No. of the case. : 157/2/14
2 Unique I. D. of the case : R0997602008
3 The date of offence : 30.07.2000
4 The name of the complainant : State
5 The name of the accused person : Rajpal, Som Dutt,
Kapur Singh
6 The offence complained : U/s 147/452/323 IPC
r/w Secn149 ICP.
7 The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 The date on which the order was
reserved on : 05.05.2017
9 The final order : 08.05.2017
JUDGMENT
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Rajpal, Kapoor Singh & Som Dutt in person with Ld. Defence Counsel.
Accused Ram Niwas is P.O.
1. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on 30.07.2000 at about 11:32 AM at Dabri Extension East, Wood Market all the accused persons Rajpal, Som Dutt and Kapoor Singh along with accused Ram Niwas (P.O.) and 2530 other persons were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc. : 3 : object of the said assembly namely to criminally trespass the plot of complainant Smt. Jagwanti, committed an offence of rioting and all accused persons in furtherance of their common object committed house trespass by entering into the aforesaid plot belonging to the complainant having made preparations for causing hurt to her and voluntarily caused simple hurt to her and thereby, all accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 147/452/323 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC.
2. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were supplied to the accused persons.
3. Charge was framed against the accused persons for having committed offence punishable under section 147/452/323 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During proceedings, accused Ram Niwas was declared P.O vide order dated 29.08.2011.
4. Prosecution has examined five witnesses PW1 ExHC Om Parkash, PW2 Smt. Jagwanti, PW3 Ct. Surender, PW4 HC Om Prakash and PW5 Dr. Monika Suri.
FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc. : 4 :
5. Statements of accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them and accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances.
6. Argument: Ld. APP for the state submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the offences committed by the accused persons as per the evidence already on record. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged offence as the complainant has failed to identify the accused.
Discussion: 7 The case set up by the prosecution is that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and committed trespass in the house of the complainant and caused hurt to her.
8 The complainant Smt. Jagwanti has been examined as PW2 and during her examinationinchief, she has stated that on 20.07.2000, around 2025 persons attacked her house and caused hurt to her. However, PW2 has failed to identify the accused persons as part of th esaid mob.
FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc.
: 5 :
9 PW2 has been crossexamined by Ld. APP for State wherein
she has admitted that the incident took place on 30.07.2000 and not on 20.07.2000 as stated in her chief. However, she has categorically stated that she cannot identify any of the accused persons present in Court as part of the mob, despite specific pointing out towards the accused persons by the Ld. APP for State.
10 The other eye witness to the alleged offence, namely, Shri Mahesh was not examined by the prosecution as he remained unserved through DCP SouthWest.
11 The remaining witneses are police officials who are not th eeye witnesses to the alleged offence.
12 From the aforesaid it is clear that the only eye witness to the alleged offence is the complainant herself who has not identified any of the accused persons during her examinationinchief or during crossexamination by the Ld. APP for State, despite specific pointing out of the accused persons.
FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc.
: 6 :
13 As the complainant has failed to identify the accused persons,
they cannot be convicted of the offences as the offences remained unproved against each and any of the accused persons.
14. Final Verdict: In view the aforesaid discussion, accused Rajpal, Kapoor Singh and Som Dutt are given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offences u/s 147/452/323 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC.
Announced in the open court on (Siddhartha Malik)
08.05.2017 MM02, Dwarka Court
New Delhi/08.05.2017
FIR no.672/2000 State vs. Ram Niwas etc.