Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep on 4 April, 2011
FIR No. 71/01
PS Narela
Page no.1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 71/01
U/s. 287/337 IPC
PS: Narela
State vs. Pradeep
Date of Institution of case:-04.07.01
Date of Judgment reserved:- 04.04.11
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 04.04.11
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of Case :273/2 Date of commission of offence :24.01.01 Name of complainant :Sh. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, S/o.
Sh. Harish Chand, R/o. H-1170, DSIDC, Narela, Delhi.
Name and address of accused :Pradeep, S/o. Sh. Radhea Krishna, S/o. 614, Veer Aparment, Sctor13, Rohini, Delhi Offence complained of :287/3374 IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Date of order :04.04.2010 Final order :Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The accused has been sent to face trial under Section 287/337 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as Contd.../-FIR No. 71/01
PS Narela Page no.2 IPC) on the allegations that on 24.01.01 at about 11.00 a.m., at Basement H-1170, DSIDC, Narela, he being owner and incharge of the said factory had not taken precautions and safety measures for the security of the worker and as a result of which, one of the worker namely Neeraj Kumar Srivastava had sustained simple injuries while working on machine in the factory and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 71/01 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences under Section 287/337 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice was given to him vide order dated 08.05.07, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined two witness. However, the prosecution has referred as many as six witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Constable Anil Kumar. He has deposed that on 24.02.01, on receiving DD no.8 he alongwith HC Contd.../-
FIR No. 71/01PS Narela Page no.3 Rajender Singh went to factory no. 1170, DSIDC, Bhore Garh, Narela where they met one Neeraj Kumar and on the instructions of IO, he took Neeraj Kumar to BJRM Hospital and got medically examined him. He has further deposed that after medical examination, he came back to the factory, handed over the MLC of injured Neeraj to IO. He has further deposed that IO recorded the statement of injured, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He has further deposed that on the instructions of the IO, he called photographer who took photographs of the spot and the machine. He has further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He has further deposed that IO prepared the site plan and recorded his statement. He was not cross examined by the accused.
5. PW 2 is Sh. Virender. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has specifically denied that he visited any factory to take photographs. Even he cannot identify the photographs placed on record in the present case. This witness has nothing deposed about the present case. This witness was even cross examined by Ld. APP for the state but nothing has been extracted from the mouth of this witness.
Contd.../-
FIR No. 71/01PS Narela Page no.4
6. It is matter of record that no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite being given last opportunities vide order dated 04.03.10 and 22.02.11 and accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.04.11.
7. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, memorandum of statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused in which he has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused, Ld. APP for the state, as well as perused the record.
9. In the present matter, the accused has been charged U/s. 287/337 IPC and to convict the accused persons, the testimony of complainant/injured is a material one.
10. In the present matter, it is matter of record that the complainant/injured Neeraj Kumar was remained unserved Contd.../-
FIR No. 71/01PS Narela Page no.5 despite the fact that various times, summons were issued to him and everytime he remained unserved and vide order dated 04.03.10, last opportunity was granted to prosecution to lead entire evidence through IO and again on 22.02.11, one more opportunity was granted to prosecution to conclude its entire evidence. But the complainant/injured Neeraj Kumar remained unserved. Other witnesses are formal in nature and evidence of other witnesses are of no avail for the prosecution and no amount of evidence can lead to the conviction of the accused persons. Since, the complainant/injured did not appear before the court to depose and other witnesses are formal in nature and admittedly, they have not witnessed the incidence, I am of the view that there is no evidence before the court by which it can be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Since, complainant/injured has not appeared before the court to depose, I am of the view that benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offences under Contd.../-
FIR No. 71/01PS Narela Page no.6 Section 287/337 IPC.
12. His bail bond is extended in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
13. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
DEEPAK WASON METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 04th April, 2011.
Contd.../-