Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalip Kumar on 27 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. : 64/2 dated 15.4.2011
Unique Identification No. 02403R0209872011
State Vs. Dalip Kumar
FIR No. 480/09
P. S. Rama Krishna Puram
U/s U/s 279/304A IPC
27.7.2012
JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 64/2 & 15.4.2011
2.Date of commission of offence 22.9.2009
3.Name of the complainant SI R.S.Naruka
4.Name of the accused Dalip Kumar Malhotra S/O Late Sh. Sudarshan Malhotra R/O H.No. X 1993 Gali No. 5 Pal Dairy Wali Gali New Chand Mohalla Gandhi Nagar East Delhi.
5.Nature of offence complained of U/s279/304A IPC
6.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty FIR No 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 1 of 5
7. Date reserved for order 27.7.2012
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 27.7.2012 Date of Institution : 15.4.2011 Date of order reserved : 27.7.2012 Date of pronouncement : 27.7.2012 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Accused was acquitted in this case, as the relevant eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
2. Accused Piyush Gaur had been charged with section 279/304A IPC for driving his vehicle bearing No. DL1CH 0769 in a rash and negligent manner and causing death of Rajender on 22.9.2009 at about 4.20 PM at Opp. Hyatt Hotel Ring Road R K Puram, New Delhi.
3. Police registered the FIR in this case on the basis of complaint made by the complainant. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against accused under the offences with which accused has been charged.
4. After finding prima facie case against the accused, summons were issued against the accused by the court. Subsequently, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was framed to which accused pleaded not FIR No 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 2 of 5 guilty and claim trial and case was subsequently fixed for PE.
5. To prove its case prosecution examined one witness Mr. Bhupesh who was the main eye witness and he did not identify the accused as the culprit in the present case. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state but he stuck to his version.
This witness was declared hostile. and was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state, but during the said cross examination also, the said witness, did not depose any incriminating fact against the accused. Rest of the witnesses, were formal in nature. Therefore, prosecution evidence was closed, as the material witness had resiled from their earlier version and their version on record, was of no help for the prosecution. Even if, rest of the prosecution evidence, goes unrebutted, then also it would not have lead to the conviction of the accused. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, there was no need for recording statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
6. The outcome of the above discussion is that there is no incriminating evidence against accused, as per the requirement of section 279/304A IPC.
7. Keeping in mind the discussion made above, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case U/s 279/304AIPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the FIR No 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 3 of 5 offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC. IPC. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Original documents be given to its rightful owner against proper receipt. Copy of this order be given to accused. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
8. Announced in open court ( PRASHANT SHARMA ) today i.e. 27.7.2012 M.M.06, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 4 of 5State Vs. Dalip Kumar FIR No. 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram U/s U/s 279/304A IPC 27.7.2012 Present : Ld. APP for State. Accused is present with counsel.
As the material witness is declared hostile and the rest of the witnesses are just the procedural witness therefore, no purpose will be served by calling them, therefore, PE stands closed. In the absence of any incriminating evidence, there is no need for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC and the said requirement is therefore, dispensed with.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my judgment of even date accused is acquitted U/s 279/304A IPC. Previous bail bond will remain on record till expiry of six months from now as per section 437A Cr. P.C. This is done as accused did not furnish fresh bail bond. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
( PRASHANT SHARMA ) M.M.6, Saket Courts, New Delhi 27.7.2012 FIR No 480/09 P. S. Rama Krishna Puram Page No. 5 of 5