Delhi District Court
3.Title Of The Case :State vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. on 20 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPIN KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI (N/W)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
1.Case No. :1656/2
2.Unique I.D. No. :02401R0179342002
3.Title of the case :State Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors.
FIR No. 1329/01, PS Sultan Puri
4.Date of institution :30.03.02
5.Date of reserving Judgment :20.05.15
6.Date of pronouncement :20.05.15
J U D G M E N T :
(a)The date of commission 14.11.01
(b)The name of complainant Sh. T.P. Kundu
R/o P4/228, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
(c)The name of accused (1) Ayodhya Prasad S/o Sh. Trilok Prasad
(2) Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Ayodhya Prasad
Both R/o P4/221, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
(d)The offence complained of 323/452/34 IPC
(e)The plea of the accused Not guilty
(f)The final order Acquitted
(g)The date of such order 20.05.15
Brief facts for the decision of the case:
1. On 15.11.2001, complainant Kundu gave complaint in the P.S. Sultan FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 1 Of 9 Puri. In his complaint, the complainant T.P. Kundu stated that Sunil S/o Sh. Ayodhya Prasad stays in front of his house and Sunil used to come to his house in his absence. As he was having young daughter he used to stop Sunil from visiting his house because of which Sunil and his father Ayodhya Prasad had grudge with him. Day before that day both entered into his house and scolded him. Ayodhya Prasad bite his thumb of left hand and Sunil hit him on the face. On his shouting they ran away.
The said complaint was handed over to IO/ASI Raghubir Singh who sent complainant with Ct. Chetan to SGM Hospital where complainant was medically treated vide MLC No. 83402 and nature of injury was opined to be simple. IO on the basis of statement of complainant and the MLC prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. IO went to the spot and prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused person.
After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence U/Sec 323/452/34 IPC was prepared against the accused persons. FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 2 Of 9
2. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 30.03.2002, whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused. The provision of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied with on 14.11.02.
3. After hearing the arguments, charge u/s 323/452/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on the allegations that on 14.11.01 at about 07:30 PM at H. No. P4.228, Sultan Puri, Delhi, they in furtherance of their common intention and committed house trespass by entering into house of complainant having made preparation for causing hurt or wrongful detention of the complainant and caused hurt to complainant to which the accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 4 witnesses to FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 3 Of 9 substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons.
5. PW1 Complainant T.P. Kundu exhibited his statement as Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which case was registered. He specifically deposed that on eve of Diwali at about 07:30 PM when he was present in his house with his family members then both the accused persons entered into his house. His both daughters objected to their entry on which accused Ayodhya Prasad pushed both of them. His son Rajiv Kundu was forcefully taken out from the house in the Gali. His son become unconscious and when he tried to save him accused Ayodhya Prasad bit his right hand thumb and accused Sunil slapped him and both ran away from there.
In his cross examination, he stated that his son was taken out from the house and was confronted with Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that no person gathered at the spot and tried to save them.
6. PW2 was the DO who exhibited FIR as Ex PW2/A (OSR) and rukka FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 4 Of 9 as Ex. PW2/B.
7. PW3 Ct. Chetan Swaroop was the police officer who accompanied the IO of the case. He exhibited the site plan as Ex. PW3/A, arrest memo as Ex. PW3/B and personal search memo as Ex. PW3/C of accused Ayodhya Prasad and arrest memo as Ex. PW3/D and personal search memo as Ex. PW3/E of accused Sunil Kumar. He correctly identified both the accused in the court and he deposed about the proceedings conducted by the IO in his presence.
8. PW4 Dr. Munish exhibited the MLC of T.P. Kundu as Ex. PW4/A and deposed that MLC was prepared by Dr. Sanjay Kumar and he can identify the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Sanjay.
9. During the trial of the case IO/ASI Raghubir Singh expired.
10.Thereafter, on 28.03.2013 Prosecution evidence was closed as all FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 5 Of 9 witnesses were examined. Thereafter, matter was fixed for Statement of Accused.
11. The Separate Statement of Accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 22.05.2013 and all incriminating evidence were put to them. Accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated and they do not wants to lead defence evidence.
12.I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the record of the case.
In order to prove the offense U/S 323/452/34 IPC against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention entered into the house of complainant after making preparation to cause hurt and caused simple injury to the complainant .
FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 6 Of 9 Now let us examine the prosecution evidence brought on record against the accused persons.
13. PW2, PW3 and PW4 are the formal witnesses as PW2 exhibited the FIR, PW3 was the Police officers who accompanied the IO in the investigation and PW4 only exhibited the MLC of complainant/ injured T.P. Kundu. None of them saw the alleged fight.
14. PW1/Complainant T.P. Kundu was the star witness of the prosecution, on whose statement prosecution was relying.
But there are material contradictions in the deposition of PW1/ complainant, firstly in his statement Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which present FIR was registered he has not stated anything regarding the pushing of his daughters infact no whisper is made in the complaint about presence of his daughters but in his deposition before the court he deposed that accused Ayodhya Prasad pushed his FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 7 Of 9 daughters. Similarly, in his statement Ex. PW1/A he has not stated anything about presence of his son Rajiv Kundu but in his deposition before the court he deposed that both accused dragged Rajiv out of his house and Rajive become unconscious, he was confronted with his previous statement Ex. PW1/A wherein no such thing was stated by him to the police. Secondly, in Ex. PW1/A he has stated that accused bite his thumb of left hand whereas in court he deposed that accused Ayodhya Prasad bite him on the right thumb. PW1 is also contradicted by MLC Ex. PW4/A as on MLC there is no mention that injury on left thumb was received by tooth bite and further there was no active bleeding. These part of testimony of PW1 appears to be an improvement by the complainant.
If both daughters of complainant and his son Rajiv were present at the time of incident then they should have been cited as prosecution witness but there name are not mentioned in the list of prosecution witness this shows that complainant has only made a sweeping statement, however, mere assertions without any proof is FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 8 Of 9 not sufficient to prove the culpability of the accused. Moreover, much reliance could not be placed upon the deposition of PW1 because of contradictions and absence of any corroborative evidence.
15. In the light of the above said discussion and appreciation of evidence court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, hence, the accused persons are acquitted from the charges framed against them.
Announced in the open court (VIPIN KHARB) on 20.05.2015 MMI/NW/DELHI FIR No. 1329/01 St Vs Ayodhya Prasad & Ors. Page 9 Of 9