Delhi District Court
State vs Anit Roy & Ors. on 13 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State vs Anit Roy & Ors.
FIR No : 205/13
U/s : 324/34 IPC
PS : Vasant Vihar
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 160A/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0082602013
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 08.06.2013
d) Name of the complainant : Tarilung Kaurinta
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused :1) Anit Roy S/o Vishan Roy
R/o Village Koshai Mahanadi, PS Koshai,
District Darjeeling, West Bengal.
:2) Tenzing Sherpa S/o Waghle Sherpa
R/o Village Rolling, Block Vision Badi,
District Darjeeling, West Bengal.
:3) Robin Rana @ Aditya S/o late Sh. Ravi
Rana R/o Village Salu Manvir Dhura, Jor
Bagli, PS Jor Bagli, District Darjeeling,
West Bengal.
f) Offences complained of : 324/34 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : All the three accused persons acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 08.07.2013
j) Date of final arguments : 13.01.2015
k) Date of Judgment : 13.01.2015
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Section CC NO.160A/02 FIR No.205/13 Page no. 1 of 4 324/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against all the three accused persons namely Anit Roy, Tenzing Sherpa and Robin Rana @ Aditya on 08.07.2013. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2013, at about 02:30 AM, at Babu Lal Chowk, Village Munirka, New Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to complainant/ injured Tarilung Kaurinta by a sharp edged instrument which is an instrument for cutting/ stabbing and also caused simple hurt to Titus Mewmai with a brick and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 324/34 of IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offence under section 324/34 of IPC against all the accused persons. All the accused persons appeared before the court and documents were supplied to them in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 06.01.2014, charges were framed under section 324/34 of IPC against all the accused persons. Subsequent to framing of charge all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. The court decided to examine both the injured persons i.e. Sh. Tarilung Kaurinta and Titus Mewmai first and issued summons against them accordingly. Summons/ bailable warrants were issued against both the aforementioned witnesses repeatedly. However, all the processes received CC NO.160A/02 FIR No.205/13 Page no. 2 of 4 back unserved. Even the processes issued against the witnesses through DCP concerned received back unserved. Both the witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses accordingly.
4. In lieu of absence of testimonies of both the injured persons who were also the only eyewitnesses to the offence in question, it was not deemed expedient by the court to examine other witnesses whose testimonies were merely formal in nature. Prosecution evidence was thus closed by the court vide detailed order on 13.01.2015 while relying upon the judgment of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". Statement of all the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence against all accused persons. All the accused persons submitted that they do not wish to lead any defence evidence, as such the matter was straightaway fixed for final arguments.
5. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of Ld. APP for state and the accused persons. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, testimony of both the injured persons were vital. However, the said witnesses could not be examined by the prosecution despite repeated CC NO.160A/02 FIR No.205/13 Page no. 3 of 4 opportunities granted by the court. As such, the factum of hurt caused to them by the accused persons on the given date, time and place as alleged could not be proved. In these circumstances, it may be safely concluded that the case of prosecution is not proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, all the three accused persons i.e. Anit Roy S/o Vishan Roy, Tenzing Sherpa S/o Waghle Sherpa and Robin Rana @ Aditya S/o late Sh. Ravi Rana are acquitted of the offence under section 324/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 13.01.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC NO.160A/02 FIR No.205/13 Page no. 4 of 4