Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Batti Lal Etc. on 31 January, 2013

                    IN THE COURT OF NAMRITA AGGARWAL
                      METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ­ 09,
                           SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.


State  Vs.      Batti Lal etc. 
FIR No.         197/2000
P. S.           Vasant Vihar 
U/s.            186/506/384/511/341/323/34 IPC



JUDGMENT:
1. Srl. No. of the case : 291
2. Date of institution                 :     29.08.2000

3. Date of commission of offence       :     26.06.2000

4. Name of the complainant             :     Sh. Jaishi Ram 
                                             Assistant   Engineer,   CPWD,
                                             Construction   Division   No.XII,
                                             IVth Floor, I.P. Bhawan, I.T.O,  
                                             New Delhi. 

5. Name of the accused                 :     1) Sh. Batti Lal 
                                             S/o Sh. Gokul Chand,  
                                             R/o   RZ­E   71,   Gali   No.17   A,  
                                             Sadh   Nagar­II,   Palam   Colony,
                                             New Delhi

                                             2) Sh. Pawan Kumar 
                                             S/o Sh. Raj Deo Sahu,  
                                             R/o C­279, Chiraj Delhi, 
                                             New Delhi.

FIR No.197/2000
P. S Vasant Vihar                                                     Page No. 1 of 6
 6. Nature of offence complained of             :          U/s186/506/384/511/341/ 
                                                          323/34 IPC

7. Plea of the accused person                  :         accused pleaded not guilty

8. Date reserved for order                     :       28.01.2013

9. Final Order                                 :       Acquitted 

10.Date  of such order                         :       31.01.2013


BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:


1. Accused Batti Lal and Pawan Kumar were charged u/s 186/506/384/ 511/341/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2000 at about 08:30 p.m. in the area of SC/ST Hostel, JNU Campus, New Delhi, both the accused person in furtherance of their common intention obstructed Umesh Kumar i.e. the Supervisor of CPWD in discharge of his public duty and wrongfully restrained him after threatening him of dire consequences. Both the accused persons also attempted to commit extortion against the complainant by threatening him that in case their demand for money is not fulfilled by the complainant he would have to face dire consequences. Allegations of simple hurt caused to the complainant by the accused persons have also been made. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. FIR No.197/2000 P. S Vasant Vihar Page No. 2 of 6

3. After finding prima facie case against both the accused, summons were issued against them by the court. Charge u/s 186/506/384/511/341/323/34 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and case was subsequently fixed for PE.

4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in its support. PW­1 i.e. complainant Sh. Jaishi Ram deposed that he made complaint Ex.PW­1/A on the basis of the fact told to him by site supervisor Umesh Kumar. This witness reiterated the fact as mentioned in the complaint and during cross examination, he stated that he had not seen the accused persons at the spot.

5. PW­2 Umesh Kumar i.e. the victim turned hostile during his examination and failed to support the case of the prosecution. On 26.06.2000 some students from JNU came to the site and asked PW­2 to stop the work since those students were agitating against payment of less wages than the minimum prescribed wages to the labours. This witness also failed to identify the accused persons during cross examination by Ld. APP for the State.

6. PW­3 Sh. Ashok Sharma who was deputed to look after the construction work at the site stated that supervisor Sohan Lal told to him that FIR No.197/2000 P. S Vasant Vihar Page No. 3 of 6 some students were causing obstruction in the construction work at the site. This witness also turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. APP for the State failed to identify the accused persons.

7. PW­4 Sh. S.P. Palani turned hostile and negated the case of the prosecution during his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State.

8. PW­5 HC Ashok took Umesh Kumar to SJ Hospital for his medical examination on the date of incident.

9. PW­6 W/ASI Sudesh Kaushik registered the FIR Ex.PW­6/A on the basis of the Rukka sent by Inspector Mohinder Pal.

10. PW­7 Sh. Hayat Singh identified the signatures of CMO of the hospital on MLC Ex.PW­7/A of injured Umesh Kumar.

11. PW­8 SI Rajesh Maurya stated that on 26.06.2000 he got registered the FIR in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by Sh. Jashi Ram. The injured was sent for medical examination. Site plan Ex.PW­8/A was prepared at the instance of complainant. On 28.06.2000 permission for entering into the university was taken from Rector of JNU Sh. Harbans Mukhia FIR No.197/2000 P. S Vasant Vihar Page No. 4 of 6 and on 29.06.2000 accused Batti Lal was arrested vide memo Ex.PW­8/C. On 30.06.2000 accused Pawan Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/D.

12. PW­9 Sh. Harbans Mukhia stated that he had granted permission to the police vide memo Ex.PW­8/B to enter the university. During cross examination, PW­9 stated that he had no personal knowledge about the incident. PE was closed.

13. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C of both the accused was recorded wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence against them and claimed innocence. The did not lead any defence evidence hence DE was closed.

14. In the present case, neither the complainant nor the injured supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant PW­1 clearly stated that he had not seen the incident taking place nor had he seen the accused persons present at the site. PW­1 is a mere hearsay witness and therefore, cannot be relied upon.

15. PW­2 who is the victim failed to identify the accused persons in the court and stated that on the date of incident no obstruction was caused by the alleged accused persons and it was the students of JNU who had asked to FIR No.197/2000 P. S Vasant Vihar Page No. 5 of 6 him to stop the work due to agitation. The other eye witness of this case i.e. PW­3 and PW­4 also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Both these witnesses also failed to identify the accused persons in the court. The rest of the witness are in formal in nature.

16. In the absence of any witness to support the case of the prosecution, accused Batti Lal and Pawan Kumar are acquitted for the offence u/s 186/506/384/511/341/323/34 IPC. Fresh personal bonds of both the accused are furnished and accepted for a period of six months u/s 437­A Cr.P.C, as amended.

17. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.

Announced in open court                               ( NAMRITA AGGARWAL )   
today i.e. 31.01.2013                            MM­09, Saket Courts, New Delhi 
                              




FIR No.197/2000
P. S Vasant Vihar                                                                 Page No. 6 of 6