Delhi District Court
State vs Harish Kumar on 9 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0259982002
STATE VS HARISH KUMAR
FIR NO. 34/2002
P.S. : SARASWATI VIHAR
U/S : 334/352 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a)Serial No. of the case : 477/2/02
b)Date of commission of offence : 13.01.2002
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Kewal Kumar Kohli
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kohli
d)Name, parentage and address of : Harish Kumar
accused S/o Sh. Govind Ram,
R/o:H. No. B88,
Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
e)Offences complained of : U/s 324/352 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Final Order : Acquitted
h)Date of order : 09.04.2013
i)Date of conclusion of : 09.04.2013
final arguments
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Brief facts, as per case of the prosecution, are that on
Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 1/6
13.01.2002 at about 11:30 pm at H. No. B104, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Delhi accused committed house trespass after preparation of causing hurt and assault voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of the complainant with sharp edged weapon. Accused was arrested and after investigation, he was duly chargesheeted to the Court. 2 Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons and charge for the offences U/s 324/452 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 At the time of trial, prosecution examined following PW's: PW1 Sh. Kewal Kumar Kohli, PW2 Smt. Rita Kohli, PW3 Dr. R.S. Mishra, and PW4 Ct. Ajay Singh. 4 Vide order dated 10.10.2012, recording of the prosecution evidence was closed. Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 2/6 5 After conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, all the
incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded separately. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
7 As far as evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, PW1 Sh. Kewal Kumar Kohli is the complainant in this case. He has testified th that he does not remember the exact date but it was 13 January and it was day of Lohri, he was sleeping in his house; and that at about 11:30 pm somebody knocked the door consequently his wife opened the door and there were 34 persons including accused Harish Kumar who entered into his house and caused him hurt. He has further testified that he sustained injuries on his right hand fingers and that police came to his house and took him to Hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and that he does not remember when accused Harish was arrested. He has been duly cross examined on behalf of the accused.
Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 3/6 PW2 Smt. Rita Kohli has denied the story of the prosecution in toto. She was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but even during the course of cross examination, she did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent. PW3 Dr. R.S. Mishra has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amit Lathwal and Dr. A.A. Jaffry on the MLC Ex.PW3/A of complainant Kewal Kumar. PW4 Ct. Ajay Singh accompanied the IO during the course of investigation pursuant to receipt of DD No.29 and DD No.30 and that he got medically examined the complainant and got the case registered at Police Station. All the witnesses have been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
8 In this case, so far as the witnesses examined are concerned, PW1 Sh. Kewal Kumar Kohli and PW2 Smt. Rita Kohli are the material witnesses of the prosecution. As discussed above, the testimony of PW1 is not convincing to a reasonable extent. He has not been able to state the incident elaborately and specifically. Being complainant and allegedly the injured in this case, his testimony must reflect a comprehensive and sensible story which is not available in the present case. It is also to be noted that during the course of cross Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 4/6 examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he has deposed that he does not remember who caused him hurt.
9 As far as the testimony of PW2, Smt. Rita Kohli is concerned, as discussed supra, she has not supported the case of the prosecution in toto. As she failed to support the case of the prosecution, on the request of the Ld. APP, she was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. But even during the course of cross examination, she has not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent. She has denied that she had stated to the police that on 13.01.2002 at about 11:30 pm, accused Harish Kumar knocked the door of her residence and then she opened the door and he forcefully entered into her house and gave injuries to her husband with the help of knife on his right hand. She has denied having made any statement to the police. As per the case of the prosecution, PW2 is the starwitness as it was she who opened the door and the incident took place in her presence. But as observed hereinabove, she has negated the story of the prosecution in toto. So, the material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. So far as the testimonies of other witnesses i.e., PW3 and PW4 are concerned, the same is formal Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 5/6 in nature as their role came into picture after the incident. 10 As discussed hereinabove, apparently there is total lack of incriminating evidence against accused Harish Kumar. Hence, the said accused is acquitted. The accused is on bail in this case. The bail bonds qua accused shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in open Court Today on this 9th Day of April, 2013.
(SANJAY JINDAL)
CMM : NORTHWEST DISTRICT
ROHINI : DELHI
Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 6/6
Case No. 477/2/02 State Vs. Harish 7/6