Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Gopal & Anr. on 3 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL CHAUDHARY : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 172/1/P/08
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R1010022007
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Gopal & Anr.
FIR No. 131/07
PS : Paharganj
U/s : 323/325/341/ 506 /34 IPC
4. Date of Institution : 05.10.2007
5. Date of reserving judgment : 03.05.2011
6. Date of pronouncement : 03.05.2011
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 172/1/P/08
b) The date of commission
of offence : 04.03.2007
c) The name of complainant : Smt. Shanti, W/o Ram Dev,
R/o Juggi No. 149C, Gali No. 15B,
Jhuggi Motia Khan, Paharganj,
Delhi.
d) The name of accused :1. Gopal, S/o Late Sh. Ram Vilas R/o Huggi No. C7/137, Gali NO. 15B, FIR No. 131/07 State Vs. Gopal & Anr. Page 1of 4 Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi
2. Sunil @ Golu, S/o Late Sh. Ram Vilas R/o Huggi No. C7/137, Gali NO. 15B, Motia Khan, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi
e) The offence complained of : U/s : 323/325/341/ 506 /34 IPC
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order : Acquitted
h) The date of such order : 03.05.2011
i) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. In the present case, Gopal and Sunil were put on trial to face charge for the offence causing hurt and wrongfully restraining and extending threats to one Shanti and her son Rajender punishable under sections 323/325/341/ 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution have examined eight witnesses to substantiate the charge against the accused persons. Accused did not examine any defence witness. It is the defence of the accused that they have falsely been implicated in the present case by the complainant. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW1 and PW5 is contrary to each other which is sufficient to show their false FIR No. 131/07 State Vs. Gopal & Anr. Page 2of 4 implication. The accused has not cross examined prosecution witnesses thus testimony of prosecution witness is unchallenged.
3. In regard to incident, it is deposed by PW1 Shanti that on 04.03.07 at about 2 pm on the day of Holi festival she went to nearby general merchant shop for purchasing household articles and while she was coming back from the shop after purchasing the articles she saw that the accused persons had wrongfully restrained her son Rajender and were giving beatings to him and on her intervention Gopal caught hold her hair and pushed her on the road and while she was lying on the road, accused Gopal blow left leg upon her stomach and face. It is further submitted that upon being beaten up by the accused persons noise was being raised and accused threatened her that she would face dire consequences and when she regained her consciousness she found herself admitted in hospital.
4. It is deposed by her son PW5 Rajender that on 04.03.2007 he was going alongwith her mother Shanti and when they were in gali near tea shop accused persons caught hold him and started beatings by fists and punch blows and when his mother came to save him then accused persons started beating his mother by their shoes due to which she received 15 stitches in her stomach. The witness further deposed that he called his father who took FIR No. 131/07 State Vs. Gopal & Anr. Page 3of 4 his mother to hospital.
5. As per testimony of PW8 who is the IO of the case he went to the hospital on 04.03.2007 and collected the MLC No. 11033/07 Ex. PW8/A. As per this witness the doctor opined that patient is unfit for statement and finding no other information he kept the DD pending. On 05.03.2007 the IO PW8 Inspector Ram Mehar Singh reached at hospital where doctor opined on the MLC that patient is fit for statement and he recorded the statement of the complainant and present FIR was registered and was investigated.
Perusal of the MLC Ex. PW8/A reveals that the patient was examined by the doctor as conscious and oriented and there is no report of any doctor on MLC given on 04.03.2007 that the patient is unfit for statement. Thus, the version given by the IO for nonexamination of injured forthwith is contrary to the documents and raises doubts on the case. Delay in lodging FIR remains unexplained.
6. In the light of abovesaid testimonies, both accused Gopal and Sunil are acquitted from the charges framed against them.
Announced in the open court
on 03.05.2011 ( SUNIL CHAUDHARY)
ACMM1/ DELHI
FIR No. 131/07 State Vs. Gopal & Anr. Page 4of 4
FIR No. 131/07 State Vs. Gopal & Anr. Page 5of 4