Delhi District Court
State vs Tarun Kalra on 8 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-
WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. NITESH GOEL .
State v Tarun Kalra
FIR No.863/2014
Police Station: Vikas Puri
Under Section: 279/337 IPC
CNR NO. DLSW02- 042091 2019
Date of institution : 14.01.2015
Date of reserving : 15.01.2024
Date of pronouncement : 08.02.2024
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 14822/2019
b) Date of commission of offence 02.11.2014
c) Name of the complainant Wazid Ali s/o Mohd Rafiq.
d) Name, parentage and address Tarun Kalra s/o Sh. Gopal
of the accused Kishan r/o House no. 1/9268
Rohtash Nagar Shahdara
Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 279/337 IPC.
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 08.02.2024.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 1
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Brief factual matrix is that on 02.11.14 in between 5.00 pm to 5.30 pm in front of DAV Public School, near Krishi Apartments, Vikas Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, accused was found driving a Santro Car bearing registration No. DL3CAB- 9522 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and public safety of others. Further on the aforementioned date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in aforesaid man- ner, accused struck against the complainant Wajid Ali as a result of which complainant sustained simple injuries. Therefore it is alleged that accused had committed offences u/S 279/337 IPC.
2. Chargesheet was filed and copy of the same was sup- plied to the accused as per mandate of u/S 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C was served upon the accused for the offence under Section 279/337 IPC vide order dated 04.09.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PW1 Sh. Wazid Ali deposed that he was residing at above said address with his family. He was doing embroidery busi- ness at his residence. On 02.11.2014 at about 5.00/5.30 pm, he was going towards Nilothi village and when he reached at Krishna Ap- partment, back side of Naala, one Santro car, black in colour, bear- ing no. DL 3C AB 9522 came in zig zag manner and hit against him State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 2 from the side. He fell down on the road. Someone called to PCR. PCR reached at the spot and took him to DDU Hospital. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in very rash & negligent man- ner. He could not see the driver but he had noted down the number of vehicle. IO recorded his complaint in this regard. Same was Ex.PW1/A. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. Witness cor- rectly identified the photographs as Ex.P-1 to P-4.
During cross examination he has stated that he had studied up to 9th class. He was doing embroidery business at his residence. He bring the work from ladies tailoring shops, some times from Vikas Puri and Tilak Nagar. He also used to bring work of exports from small work shops he was all alone working at his residence. He had only one embroidery machine. He used to work from 10.00 am to 5.00/6.00 pm. Nilothi Villa may be around 1/1 ½ km from residence. He know how to drive bicycle as well as motor cycle. He was not having cycle or motor cycle at the time of accident. E-rickshaws are available from which residence which goes up to Vikas Nagar. They also go to Police Line through Vikas Puri. If they have to go to Vikas Puri from his place of residence, they take the road along side the Naala and the other road is through the Basti. Nilothi Village would fall on both the routes. There was traffic on the road before Police Lines. Two /three vehicles were coming from his back side and two / three vehicles were coming from his front side. These vehicles were maruti make. Some motor cycles were also coming & going. He can- not read or write English. He had seen the car for the first time when it was 15-20 paces away from him. The car reached him after one State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 3 and half minute. After being hit by the car. He had fallen down. The number of the car was given to him by a passerby. He had handed over that number to the police. On the day, when he came to depose before the honourable Court, no one had shown him the paper on which the registration number of the said car was written and handed over to him by passerby. He had not produced the said paper before the Court on his own. He had seen the registration number of the said car by himself. Again said he had not noted down the registra- tion number of the said car by himself. Some passerby had called at number 100 from his mobile phone. He had not asked the name and address of passerby who had noted down the registration number of the car. He had never met him thereafter. The registration number of the said car was DL3CAB-9522. He had reached the hospital at about 6.15 P.M. He had a talk with the doctor when he reached the hospital. He had told the doctors about the accident but he had not told him about the registration number of the offending vehicle. He had not shown to the doctor, the paper on which the registration number of the offending vehicle was written. After about half an hour, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. On the day of incident, he had not visited any place with the police official. Vol. he had handed over the paper on which the registration number of the offending vehicle was written to the police official at the time of recording of his statement at about 7.15-7.30 P.M. He remained in the hospital till 10.30 P.M. and thereafter, returned to his house. He had met the police officials again after some days. He do not remem- ber the date on which police officials met him again. He was not State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 4 called through a notice. Vol. He was called by the police through telephone. He had not signed any document on the day he met again. He was hit by the car from the left rear door side on his left side and he had fallen down on the road. He had not received any bony injury. He had received cut marks on his forehead and on his left elbow. He had shown the cut injury on his forehead and on left elbow to the doctor. The doctor had not stitched the wounds but had dressed the same. His clothes were also torn. He had not handed over the torn clothes to the police officials between A block and B block was around 100 meter. The distance he seldomly visited A Block. He do not know any person in the name of Anish Ahmed and Habib Ahmed. He denied that he is relative of Anish Ahmed S/o Sh. Habib Ahmed, R/o A-395-396, JJ Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He had not visited Tis Hazari courts except on the dates when the hearing of the said case was fixed. He know one Sh. Anil Gupta who has studied with him. He visited Anil Gupta who owns a shop at Arya Samaj Road. He do not know the number of the shop of said Sh. Anil Gupta. It might be that Mr. Anil Gupta sits at Tis Hazari Court. He denied that he had lodged the present case falsely at the behest of Sh. Anil Gupta. His house is situated in JJ colony near Kali Basti. When they come from his house towards Vikas Puri, Kali Basti falls in between. He admitted that a Naala (drain) flows adjacent to Kali Basti. A road is running parallel to the Naala and goes towards the main road along with the main Najafgarh drain. Similarly, another road is running parallel to the Naala on the other side. He admitted that the road starting from Kali Basti and going towards the main State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 5 road adjacent to the main Naala is the route for going to Nilothi. He admitted that DAV School does not fall on the road starting from Kaali Basti and going towards the main road along with the main Naala. He denied that no accident was caused by the car bearing registration no. DL3CAB-9522. He denied that he had not received any injury due to any hit by the said car. He denied that a false case was got registered against the accused at the behest of Mr. Anil Gupta.
4. PW2 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 02.11.2014, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as Constable. On that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith HC Madan. DD No. 34A regarding accident was marked to HC Madan Singh for investigation. Thereafter he alongwith HC Madan Singh went to the spot, i.e. in front of DAV Public School, near Krishi Apartments, Vikas Puri, Delhi and came to know that the injured had gone to unknown hospital. Thereafter, HC Madan received another DD No. 42A regarding admission of injured namely Wajid Ali at DDU Hospital. Thereafter, they both went to DDU Hospital where the injured was undergoing treatment. Thereafter, HC Madan recorded statement of the injured and prepared one tehreer and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He left the hospital and went to PS Vikas Puri for registration of FIR. After getting FIR registered, he went to the spot where he met HC Madan and injured Wajid Ali. He handed over copy of FRR and original tehreer to HC Madan. HC Madan prepared site plan at his instance. Thereafter IO recorded his statement and he left State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 6 the spot.
During cross-examination he stated that he and HC Madan were present in the police station when DD No. 34A was marked to HC Madan Singh. They had left the police station at about 5:55 P.M. on the bike of HC Madan Singh. The building of D.AV School and the boundary of Krishi Apartment is quite big. The exact location was not disclosed in the DD No. 34A. When they reached the spot, they did not find anything regarding the accident. The vehicle was also not there. Some public persons were present there but none of them expressed that they had seen the accident. Somebody from the public had informed them that injured has been removed to the hospital. The public persons did not inform them as to who had taken the injured to the hospital. Duty Officer had informed HC Madan about DD No. 42A by telephonic call. At the time when call 42A was received, he and HC Madan were present in the police station. Thereafter, they went to DDU Hospital and reached there at about 8:15 P.M. The statement of the injured was recorded. He do not remember that HC Madan had taken the copy of MLC. He cannot say if the injured had disclosed to the Doctor the make of the vehicle, colour of the vehicle or the registration number which had caused the accident. The statement of the injured was recorded immediately after they had reached the hospital at about 8:15 P.M. The tehreer was handed over to him at about 8:50 P.M. He had reached the police station at about 9:15 P.M. The Duty Officer had started writing the FIR at 9:15 P.M. He had left the police station at about 9:30 P.M. for the spot. He had already come to know about the State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 7 place of occurrence at the time when they first reached near the spot and so he reached there with the tehreer and copy of FIR at about 9:40 P.M. The boundary walls of D.A.V. School and Krishi Apartments are attached. The place of accident was in front of D.A.V. School. He only know that the accident had occurred in front of D.A.V. School but he cannot give the directions. They did not find anything at the spot to suggest that the accident had taken place at the spot as disclosed by the complainant. He had not signed any document as a witness. He denied that he had not joined the investigation of this case. He denied that he had not taken any tehreer to the police station or visited the spot as stated by him.
5. PW3 Retd. ASI / Tech. Devender Kumar has proved the mechanical inspection report vide Ex.PW3/A. The vehicle was found fit for road test and no damage was found.
6. PW 4 Retired SI Shanti Swaroop has proved the endorsement on complaint at point X already Ex. PW 1/A vide DD no. 43A. On the basis of rukka, he registered present FIR. The copy of FIR vide Ex. PW 4/A (OSR). He also prepared certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 4/B. On 02.11.2014 he had also reduced into writing DD no. 34 A vide Ex. PW 4/C. ( OSR). He handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Sunil for handing over the same to HC Madan for further investigation of the case.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 8
7. PW 5 ASI Madan Singh deposed that on 02.11.2014 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as HC. On that day he received DD no. 34 A. He along with Ct. Sunil reached at the place of occurrence i.e. DAV Public School near Krishi Apartment. They came to know that the injured was taken to DDU Hospital. In the meantime he came to know through DD no. 42A that injured was admitted to DDU Hospital. He recorded the statement of injured Wahid Ali already Ex. PW 1/A. He prepared rukka on the basis of statement of Wahid Ali and handed over to Ct. Sunil for registration of FIR . He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He came back at the hospital and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. He along with Ct. Sunil went to place of occurrence. He prepared the site plan at the instance of injured vide Ex. PW 5/A. He made search of vehicle who caused the accident by the vehicle number given in the complaint. During investigation he gave notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle namely Tarun Kalra vide Ex. PW 5/B. Owner of offending vehicle is present in the court as an accused and correctly identified by the witness. During investigation accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 5/C. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 5/D. The offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW 5/E. DL of accused was seized vide memo Ex. PW 5/F. DL is already on record vide Ex. PW 5/P1. He had also seized the insurance of the vehicle vide Ex. PW 5/G. During investigation he collect the MLC. Witness, correctly identified photographs already Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. After recording the statement of witness and after completion of investigation he filed the charge State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 9 sheet before the court.
During cross-examination he admitted that he had obtained the permission that the injured is fit for statement or not through an application and the same was filed along with charge sheet. He do not remember whether he got obtained from the doctor about the discharged of the patient Wajid Ali. He had not recorded the statement of incharge of PCR Van. He admitted that the Ex. PW5/B does not bear the reply of registered owner Tarun Kalra. He had not obtained the signature of injured on the site plan vide Ex. PW 5/A. He had mentioned in case Diary that the site plan was prepared at the instance of injured. When he reached at the place of incident soon after receiving the DD Entry he found no public person who were present at the time of incident. He admitted that there was no sign of mark of accident or skid mark at the place of occurrence. He admitted that he had not shown the skid mark at the place of accident. He admitted that as per the report of mechanical inspection Ex. PW 3/A no fresh damage was reported. He do not remember whether he had examined him or not. He denied that he had not tried to find the true facts of the case. He denied that he had mechanically investigated the case and same has been filed before the court and all the documents were prepared while sitting at PS. He denied that he had never met with injured. He do not know whether the injured was on foot or on motorcycle or on bicycle. He cannot say what kind of purpose the injured was on that place. He denied that the accident was caused by the vehicle of accused. He denied that the complainant did not received any injuries in any road side accident.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 10
8. PW 6 Dr. Vineet Kumar has deposed that on 02.11.2014 he was posted at DDU Hospital as casualty medical officer. On that day Dr. Khushwant Singh Sr. Casualty medically examined patient Wazid Ali. He prepared MLC no. 10788 vide Ex. PW 6/A bears the signatures of Dr Khushwant Singh at point A under the supervision of Dr. Pallavi and him.
During cross-examination he stated that his duty hours were from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The injuries mentioned can happened due to the fall on a hard floor/road. He admitted that there was great possibility that bony injury can be caused if a person is hit by a vehicle. He admitted that MLC was not prepared in his presence.
9. PW 7 Dr Maninder Kaur Chhabra deposed that he was working as Sr. Specialist Surgery in the DDU Hospital since 1999 Abhishek who was working in the said hospital, has left his job. Whereabout of the Dr. Abhishek Gupta are not known to the office of the said officer. He identified his signature and handwriting as he had worked with him and he had seen him signing and writing. The MLC no. 10788 dated 02.11.2014 already Ex. PW 6/A .
10. PW8 HC Devender deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. register no. 19. As per entry 2132 dated State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 11 25.11.2014 by IO HC Madan Singh had deposited the case property i.e. santro car seized by him through seizure memo in the Malkhana and Santro Car was released on 28.11.2014 by the order of the court to its rightful owner. Copy of entry is Ex. PW8/A (OSR).
11. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused u/S 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he stated false implication and innocence and has stated that he had been falsely implicated in this matter and he further stated that there is a dispute between him and one Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta in respect of property at Civil Lines Delhi and Durga Puri. At the behest of Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta in all four cases were got regis- tered. Two cases were of accident and other two cases were under Section 354/354A/506/323 IPC and another case u/s 328/376D IPC. Final report /cancellation were filed in these two last cases. He was acquitted in the other accident case by the court of Sh. Siddhant Si- hag ld. MM-02, Dwarka Delhi.
12. Accused opted to lead defence evidence. In his defence he had examined himself as DW 1. He has stated that Late Sh. Pur- shottam Lal Kalra was his grandfather. Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta used to work as Munshi with his grand father. After the death of Sh. Purshot- tam Lal Kalra, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta started filing false cases against him and his family. He filed civil cases as well as criminal cases. When there was no settlement, he started filing false criminal cases against him and his brother. He had filed four false cases through State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 12 other persons. Two case are related to offense against the women and two are accident cases including the present one. In both the cases of offense against women, the cancellation report had been filed. The same is vide Ex. DW 1/1 and Ex. DW 1/2. In one of the accident case, he was acquitted by ld. MM 02 Sh. Siddanth Sihag, MM Dwarka South West. The certified copy of order is Ex. DW 1/3. Further several civil litigation had been filed by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. In one of the civil litigation filed in suit no. 314/11, he was not made party initially. Later on when he got to know about it, he be- come a party by filing an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said suit was withdrawn by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. The same was marked as DW 1/X1. One complaint was also filed by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta against him in CC no. 12473/11. The same was also dis- missed by ld. MM Sh. Ankur Jain vide order dated 13.02.2012. The same was marked as DW 1/X2. Several cases have been filed against Anil Kumar Gupta. No accident was caused by him in the present case and the vehicle number was provided by Sh. Anil Ku- mar Gupta. He is innocent.
13. Witness was cross examined by ld. APP. During his cross examination he stated that he was the owner of the santro car bearing no DL 3CAB 9522. His car used to be parked at Durga Puri Coaching Center and he used to keep his car in the parking of the said coaching center. He can say with confirmation that Anil Kumar Gupta was behind the false complaint because he had lodged so many false case against him within a span of eight months. He do State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 13 not know Wazid Ali. He had never seen Wazid Ali along with Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. He was at the coaching center on 02.11.2014 at about 5 to 5:30 pm. No CCTV camera exists at his coaching center in the year 2014. He was running the coaching center for preparation of SSC Exams. The students were present on 02.11.2014 in his coaching center at around 5 to 5:30 pm. It was conspiracy of Wazid Ali along with caller. For the first time he got to know about the false accident report through a police official who called him at PS Vikas Puri.
14. He denied that no false case had filed by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta through Wazid Ali. He denied that the Santro car was not parked at the coaching center on 02.11.2014 at 5 to 5:30 pm. He denied that that the santro car no. DL 3CAB 9522 was present in front of the DAV Public school near Krishi Apartment on the said day and time. He admitted that the documents which are exhibited today had nothing to do with the prosecution of the present case. He denied that he had caused the accident of Wazid Ali and caused him injuries.
15. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
16. I have heard the submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel, for accused and perused the record carefully.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 14
17. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused be convicted as per law.
18. I have heard ld. Defence Counsel. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused. Accused runs a coaching center and at the time of al- leged incident the car and accused were at the Durga Puri coaching center. The said complaint had been filed at the instigation of Sh Anil Kumar Gupta with whom the accused had the long term family feud and it was further submitted by the accused that Anil Kumar Gupta had filed various false criminal cases against him and a civil case is also pending between the parties. In two of the criminal cases the cancellation report had been filed and in one of the accident case the accused has been acquitted by ld. MM -2 South West Delhi.
19. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by lead- ing reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 15 reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
20. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.
22. I have gone through the documents on record, evidence and submissions forwarded by counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State.
23. I have heard the submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and ld. Counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
OBSERVATION
24. In the present matter it has been stated by PW 1 that after the accident one passerby has noted down the registration State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 16 number of the car on a paper and has handed over the same to him and it has been further alleged by PW 1 that he had further handed over the said paper to police official. However no such paper had ever come on record. Further the police official in their testimony had never deposed that any such paper had been given by PW 1 to them in the hospital. Further it has been alleged by PW 1 that there was one passerby who had called the police official from his mobile phone however such passerby had never been made the witness by the police official.
25. PW 1 had failed to even show any acknowledgment receipt for handing over of the slip containing the registration of the vehicle to the IO.
26. In the cross-examination of PW 1 he had stated that his clothes were torn however, he further admitted that he had not handed over the torn cloth to the police official.
27. The prosecution has failed to cite PCR Incharge namely Kirpal Ram as a witness who has brought the injured to the hospital.
28. It has been deposed by PW 1 that on the day of incident he had signed the Tehrir and after some days he had met the police official however he had not signed any documents on the days on which he had met the police official. Further as per arrest memo Ex. PW 5/C the accused had been arrested after 23 days of the State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 17 incident. It is pertinent to mention here that in the arrest memo Ex. PW5/C, the complainant was the witness. The signature of complainant in the arrest memo seems to be suspicious as it is contradictory to the statement made by the complainant that he had not signed anywhere after he met the police official after the day of incident.
29. Further, no CDR of the accused and the complainant has been placed on record to show that the accused and the complainant was present at the spot at the relevant time on the day of incident.
30. In the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW 3/A no fresh damages has been found on the car by which the accident has alleged to have happened.
31. Further both the police official i.e PW 2 and PW 5 have stated in their cross examination that when they had reached at the spot vide DD no.34A, they did not find any marks of accident on the road at the spot.
32. Further, the passerby who had recorded the registration number of vehicle which belongs to accused had never been brought into the court as a witness. Further, PW 1 had stated in his testimony that he had not seen the driver at the time of accident.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 18
33. In the cross examination of PW 1, he had stated that he knew Anil Kumar Gupta who works at Tis Hazari Courts. Further, the accused in his defence evidence had stated that Anil Kumar Gupta is the person who had filed the false complaint through Wajid Ali.
34. Although no proof has been filed by the accused for substantiating his allegation that Anil Kumar Gupta is behind the false complaints but considering the fact that no relevant piece of evidence has been placed on record to prove the presence of the complainant at the spot. Further, considering the testimony of police officials who had stated that they did not find any marks on the road which suggest that the accident had taken place. Further considering the testimony of PW 2 who had stated that he inquired from the public person present at the spot but none of the public person had stated that they had seen the accident. Further considering the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW 3/A wherein no fresh damage was recorded. The possibility that the complainant had filed a false case at the instance of Anil Kumar Gupta cannot be ruled out.
35. From the above facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond the reasonable doubts that accused had committed the offense. In view of the same accused stands acquitted for the offence u/s 279/337 IPC
36. Documents, if any be returned to the rightful person.
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 19 Endorsement, if any be cancelled. Bail bonds stand canceled. Superdignama if any, be cancelled.
37. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 08.02.2024 (Nitesh Goel) Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West) 08.02.2024.
Digitally
signed by
Nitesh Nitesh Goel
Date:
Goel 2024.02.08
16:31:23
+0530
State v Tarun Kalra FIR No.863/2014 PS : Vikas Puri U/s : 279/337 IPC 20