Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/284/2004 on 4 October, 2012
FIR No. 284/2004 1 Police Station Alipur
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT), ROHINI
COURTS , DELHI
FIR No. 284/2004
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0205172006
Police Station Alipur
Under Section 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
State v. Narender @ Bablu & Anr.
JUDGEMENT
(a) Serial number of the case :644/2
(b)Date of the commission of the offence :29.07.2004.
(c)Name of the complainant :Mukesh Kumar S/o late Shri Baljit Singh, R/o H. No. A/6, Pocket 1, Plot No. 1, DDA Flat, Narela, Delhi.
(d)Name of the accused & address :(1). Narender @ Bablu S/o Prem Singh, R/o Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi.
(2). Ashwani Kumar @ Bittu, S/o Narain Singh, R/o Vill. & P.O. Tikri Khurd, Delhi.
(e)Charge against the accused :323/341/506/34 IPC.
Contd.....
FIR No. 284/2004 2 Police Station Alipur
(f)Plea of the accused :Both accused persons pleaded not guilty.
(g)Final order :Both accused persons
acquitted.
(h)Date of such order :04.10.2012
Date of Institution :24.07.2006
Date on which arguments heard and
Judgment reserved. :04.10.2012
Date of Judgment :04.10.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Chargesheet in the present case was filed on behalf of the state on 24.7.2006 and after taking cognizance of the offence the accused persons were summoned and thereafter copies of challan and documents were supplied to them.
2. On 1.5.2008 the charge was framed against both accused persons u/s 341/323/506/34 IPC after hearing Ld. APP for state and the accused.
3. I have already heard final arguments and perused the record.
Contd.....
FIR No. 284/2004 3 Police Station Alipur
4. The allegations against both accused persons are that on 29.7.2004 at 8:30 PM in front of Main Gate NDPL Office, Tikri Khurd, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Mukesh Kumar S/o late Sh. Baljeet Singh and voluntarily caused simple injuries on the person of complainant and extended threats to kill him and thus the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 341/323/506/34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and after understanding the same, both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined PW1 Shri Mukesh Kumar, PW2 Shri Jagbir Singh, PW3 Shri Bhupender, PW4 SI Dharam Pal, PW5 Dr. Javed, PW6 HC Raj Kumar and PW7 SI Dhan Singh. No other prosecution witness has been examined in this case.
6. After closing of PE, the statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Both accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. The complainant i.e. PW1 stated that he is working in NDPL and on 29.7.2004 he had gone to Tikri Khurd, NDPL Office at about 8:30 Contd.....
FIR No. 284/2004 4 Police Station Alipur PM to bring some goods and in the meanwhile accused Narender @ Bablu and Ashwani Kumar who were previously known to him, came out and obstructed his way and started beating him with iron rod and the accused persons were accompanied by 2 or 3 persons and they also threatened him to kill if he lodged a complaint against them with the police. In cross examination PW1 stated that PCR was called by his brother Bhupinder Singh who is security guard. He also stated that on the day of incident his duty hours were from 4:00 PM to 12:00 night and he i.e. witness is the telephone operator and at that time no complaint was with him and if there was no complaint he can move anywhere independently. PW1 stated that he do not know how many public persons gathered at the spot while he was beaten up. He volunteered that three or four of his officials were present and also stated that there was no enmity between him and accused persons prior to the incident. He admitted that on the day of incident there was no quarrel between them but accused persons started beating him.
8. PW2 stated in his chief examination that he is working in NDPL as line man and he do not know anything about the present case. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for state wherein he stated Contd.....
FIR No. 284/2004 5 Police Station Alipur that it is wrong to suggest that the accused persons had beaten up Mukesh.
9. PW3 stated that he is working as security guard and during the year 2002 to 2005 he was posted at NDPL Office, Tikri and he had not witnessed anything while his posting at Tikri. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for state and he also denied the suggestion that he had seen both the accused persons beating Mukesh with 'dandas'. Remaining are the official witnesses. PW2 and PW3 were the alleged eye witnesses of the incident. They have not supported the case of the prosecution.
10.In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them. Both the accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
11.In view of above facts and circumstances and testimonies of the witnesses on record it is clear that the material witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. They were the alleged eye witnesses. The testimonies of remaining officials Contd.....
FIR No. 284/2004 6 Police Station Alipur witnesses has not been discussed in detail as it would have served no useful purpose as the material witnesses have themselves not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the case of the prosecution fails and, accordingly, both accused persons namely Narender @ Bablu S/o Prem Singh and Ashwani Kumar @ Bittu S/o Narain Singh are hereby acquitted of the charge framed in the present case u/s 341/323/506/34 IPC. Endorsement, if any, on the documents of the sureties be cancelled. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities. Passed and announced in the open court today i.e. 04.10.2012 (MANISH GUPTA) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (OUTER DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Contd.....