Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu & Anr. on 28 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
UID No. 55855
FIR No. 293/2015
U/S 308/34 IPC
P S Moti Nagar
State Vs. Sonu & anr.
JUDGMENT
1.Sl. No. of the case : 55855/2016
2.Date of Committal to Sessions : 22.03.2016
3.Name of the complainant : Raj Kumar Giri
4.Date of commission of offence : 04.04.2015
5. Name and Parentage of accused : 1. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Mithai Lal,
R/o B58, Rama
Road, Moti Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Monu,
S/o Sh. Mithai Lal,
R/o B58, Rama Road,
Moti Nagar,
Nagar, Delhi.
6.Offence complained of : 308/34 IPC
7.Offence charged : 308/34 IPC
8.Plea of guilt : Pleaded Not Guilty
9.Final order : Acquitted
10.Date on which order reserved : 28.04.2017
11.Date on which order announced : 28.04.2017
FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 1 of 6
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. The present FIR bearing no. 293/2015 was registered in the
Police Station Moti Nagar on 04.04.2015 under Section 308/34 IPC on the statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Giri. The complainant / injured has alleged that both the accused persons namely Sonu and Monu in furtherance of their common intention has caused injury on his head with stone and he had received injuries. It is also alleged that accused Monu was having rod in his hand and accused Sonu hit the complainant with stone lying on the spot and thereafter, both the accused person ran away on raising alarm by the injured.
2. The police conducted the investigation, arrested the accused persons and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC was filed.
3. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial and on 08.07.2016, the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC was framed upon both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution to prove its case has cited 15 witnesses. PW Sh. Raj Kumar Giri is the injured / complainant and PWSh. Sanjay Jaiswal is eye witness. Sh. Vishal Giri, son of the FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 2 of 6 complainant was also made witness in the present case.
5. The prosecution has examined PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri, complainant of the present case. The relevant portion of examinationinchief of PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri recorded on 25.02.2017 is reproduced as under : " I do not remember the date, month and year of the incident. On the day of incident at late night, I was going towards market. On the way, some unknown persons came there and hit me on my back with some object due to which, I sustained injury on my head and I became unconscious. "
6. The PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri was declared hostile by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. The crossexamination of PW1 was conducted at length by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced as under : " I do not remember if the incident took place on 04.04.2005. It is wrong to suggest that on the day of incident at about 12.30/01.00 pm, I was sitting in front of B58, Rama Road and in the meanwhile, the accused Mannu Lal and Sonu who are present in court today, came there. It is also wrong to suggest FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 3 of 6 that Monu was having an iron rod and Sonu lifted a stone from the road and hit the same on my head. It is also wrong to suggest that accused Monu grabbed me when I was hit with stone. "
7. The relevant part of examinationinchief of PW2, Sh. Sanjay Jaiswal is reproduced as under : " I do not remember the date, month and year of the incident. On the day of incident, I was passing through the market which is situated near my house. At that time, I heard the screaming noise of my neighbour Raj Kumar Giri who was lying by the side of road in injured condition. Seeing the condition of Raj Kumar Giri, I made the call to PCR at 100 number. The PCR officials reached at the spot and my neighbour Raj Kumar was taken to Aacharya Bhikshu Hospital. I do not know as to how Raj Kumar sustained injuries."
8. PW2 was also crossexamined by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as he has also resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. However, during lengthy cross examination, nothing incriminating could be elicited to support the story of the prosecution.
9. The PWSh. Vishal Giri was dropped from the list of witnesses by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 4 of 6 ground that he was not the eye witness of the incident.
10. PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri is the complaint and injured in the present case. PW1 is the star witness of the prosecution to prove the present case. PW2, Sh. Sanjay Jaiswal is the eye witness of the present case. Neither PW1, complainant / injured nor the eye witness PW2 has supported the story of the prosecution. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons. PW1 & PW2 have rather given a clean chit to the accused persons and specifically deposed that the accused persons have not committed the alleged offence. The other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses by the prosecution are formal in nature who could not prove or assign any criminal role to the accused persons. None of the other witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses could connect the accused persons with the commission of the alleged offence. In view of the hostile testimony of PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri and PW2, Sh. Sanjay Jaiswal, the prosecution evidence was closed and remaining witnesses were not examined. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged offence.
11. The complainant / injured, PW1, Sh. Raj Kumar Giri has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution for FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 5 of 6 commission of alleged offence. PW2, Sh. Sanjay Jaiswal, eye witness has also turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution. No inference for commission of offence could be drawn against the accused persons on the basis of material available on record to prove them guilty for commission of charges framed under Section 308/34 of the IPC.
12. In the present facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 308/34 of IPC, for which, the charge was framed on 08.07.2016. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Sonu and Monu are acquitted of the charge framed for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
13. Bail bond / personal bond of the accused persons are extended for six month in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
14.File be consigned to the Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 28th April, 2017.
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI 28.04.2017 FIR no. 293/2015 State Vs Sonu & anr. 6 of 6