Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Manoj Kumar Etc. on 18 February, 2020

           IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP YADAV
        ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
                  SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI


Session Case No. 2428/16

FIR No. 762/14
U/s 329/387/325/34 IPC
PS OIA

State

Versus

1) Manoj Kumar
S/o Dina Nath
R/o.In front of Jhuggi No. S­39,
Okhla Phse­II,
New Delhi.

2) Ravi @ Som Bahadur
S/o Sh. Dambar Bahadur
R/o. E­91, Sanjay Colony,
Okhla Phase­II, NewDelhi.

3) Narayan
S/o Sh. Dal Bahadur
R/o. E­89, Sanjay Colony,
Okhla Phase­II, New Delhi.
                                                ...... Accused persons.

         Date of Institution   :   07.09.2015
         Date of Arguments     :   28.01.2020
         Date of Judgment      :   18.02.2020



SC No. 2428/16                                              1/6
State Vs Manoj Kumar etc.
                                JUDGMENT

1. Prosecution version disclosed during the trial is that an information about the quarrel diarised as DD No.27PP was received in Police station Okhla Industrial Area and thereafter HC Rajbir Singh alongwith Ct. Sunil reached the spot near A­87, Okhla Phase­2 and found that injured had already been shifted to the hospital. At about 4.10 AM another DD No.28PP was received that injured has been admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center upon which HC Rajbir (PW3) reached AIIMS Trauma Center and collected the MLC of Sanjay Kumar Yadav. However, injured was not found in the hospital. PW7 HC Rajbir came back to the police post where he met Sanjay Kumar Yadav who recorded his statement as Ex.PW2/A. The version given by Sanjay Kumar Yadav in his statement may be briefly noted down as under:­

2. In the intervening night of 12/13.10.2015 complainant was doing the work of repairing the damaged telephone line of Tata company alongwith Shailesh and his younger brother Abhishek. At about 1:20 PM one Ravi alongwith one boy came to the complainant and started demanding money from him. When complainant expressed his inability to pay the money, the said Ravi and his associate left the spot threatening the complainant of dire consequences. At about 1:30 AM Ravi alongwith his associates who were armed with wooden stick and hockey again came to the complainant. Ravi hit the complainant on his back with a hockey and SC No. 2428/16 2/6 State Vs Manoj Kumar etc. exhorted his associates to hit the complainant. Another person namely Narayan assaulted the complainant on his hand with a wooden stick and complainant fell down on the road. Complainant was hit by Manoj with danda after he fell down on road. All accused persons fled away from the spot after beating the complainant. Shailesh, driver/co­worker of the complainant informed the police about the incident by dialing 100 number.

3. On the basis of the statement of Sanjay Kumar Yadav, FIR U/s. 387/329/34 IPC was registered. All the three accused persons were apprehended during investigation who confessed to the crime. The other associates of the accused could not be apprehended. The MLC of the complainant was obtained wherein the injury was opined as grievous. The weapon of offence could not be recovered. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet against all the accused persons was filed U/s. 329/387/34 IPC.

4. Committal proceedings followed and thereafter accused Manoj, Ravi and Narayan were charged U/s. 329/387/34 IPC in the alternative all the accused persons were charged U/s. 325/34 IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty which necessitated trial.

5. Prosecution examined nine witnesses, material witnesses being PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav, PW4 Abhishek Yadav and PW5 Shailesh Kumar.

State Vs Manoj Kumar etc.

6. I have heard arguments addressed by Shri R.K.Gurjar, Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for state and Sh. V.K.Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused persons at length.

7. PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav reiterated the version given in the complaint Ex.PW2/A. While in his complaint Ex.PW2/A, Sanjay Kumar Yadav (PW2) has stated that at about 1:20 PM Ravi accompanied by one boy had come to him, in examination in chief before the court PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav deposed that at about 1:20 PM one boy Ravi came there.

8. PW5 Shailesh inter­alia deposed that on 12.10.2014 he was working in Okhla Phase­2 and was repairing Tata telephone company wire line and his Thekedar (Contractor) was Sanjay Kumar Yadav; at about 1:30 PM in the night accused Ravi with another person came and met Sanjay Kumar Yadav and discussed something with Sanjay Kumar Yadav and left. Therefore, there are contradictions in the deposition of PW2 and PW5 as regards the number of persons who came to complainant in the first instance.

9. PW5 in cross examination deposed that he was hearing the conversation between Sanjay Kumar Yadav (PW2). If that be the case, then PW5 must have heard about the demands of money by the accused. However, PW5 has not deposed anything about the demand of money being made by any of the accused persons from PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav.

State Vs Manoj Kumar etc.

10. According to PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the money was demanded only by Ravi. On the other hand PW4 Abhishek Yadav is the brother of PW2 who deposed that they (all the accused persons) demanded Rs. 8000 / Rs.10,000/­ from Sanjay Kumar Yadav. This is another vital contradiction in the testimonies of two of the eye witnesses of the case.

11. While PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav and PW5 Shailesh Kumar have referred to two incidents, PW4 Abhishek Yadav referred to one incident only. PW4 Abhishek Yadav has nowhere deposed about the first visit of Ravi to complainant/PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav and demand of money.

12. Another interesting aspect of this case is that Abhishek Yadav who is the brother of PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav was present at the spot when the incident of beating happened. However, PW2 Sanjay Kumar Yadav did not try to save his brother from the accused persons. This is unnatural conduct of PW4 Abhishek Yadav and hence his testimony cannot be relied upon.

13. It is clear that prosecution case has been substantially weakened because of the above mentioned discrepancies and contradictions. As a result, serious doubt has arisen about the entire prosecution version. It is a settled law that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. It is, therefore, concluded that, prosecution has failed to prove its charge against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt.

State Vs Manoj Kumar etc. Accordingly, all the three accused persons are acquitted of the charge.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court.

(Sandeep Yadav) ASJ­02/South East District Saket Courts/New Delhi/18.02.2020 SC No. 2428/16 6/6 State Vs Manoj Kumar etc.