Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Bal Kishan Etc. on 18 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: DELHI
F.I.R. No: 381/03
U/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
P.S. Nangloi
In Re: STATE VERSUS BAL KISHAN ETC.
Date of Institution of Case : 16.11.2004
Judgment Reserved for : 18.11.2010
Date of Judgment : 18.11.2010
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 1335/1/08
(b) The date of commission of offence : 07.05.2003
(c) The name of complainant : Sh. Satpal Singh S/o Sh.
Prahlad Singh, r/o 2/622, Phase II, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : 1) Bal Kishan s/o Sh.
Radhey Kishan, r/o A-24, Ambika Enclave, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
2) Sushil S/o Sh. Bal Kishan, r/o A-24, Ambika Enclave, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
FIR No. 381/03 5/
3) Pardeep @ Bablu S/o Sh.
Bal Kisha, r/o A-24, Ambika
Enclave, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, Delhi.
Present Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : All three ACQUITTED
(h) The date of such order : 18.11.2010.
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2003 at about 10.30 pm at in front of RZC-121, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Nangloi, accused Bal Kishan alongwith accused Sushil and Pardeep in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Satpal S/o Sh. Prahlad Singh and simple injuries upon Satpal's uncle namely Vikram Singh after wrongfully restraining both of them and thereby the accused committed offence u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide order dated 30.06.2007, charge u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 381/03 5/
3. Record perused. Matter pertains to year 2003 i.e. around 07 years old and is still pending at the stage of PE.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that complainant/injured Satpal are Vikram Singh are not traceable. Today, separate statement of the IO in this regard has been recorded.
5. Prosecution proposed to examine 7 witnesses in all and remaining witnesses proposed to be examined are formal/official witnesses who came into the picture only after the alleged incident had occurred and information in this regard was received by them.
6. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident dated 07.05.2003 and the same has been conceded by the Ld. APP.
7. Therefore, the deposition of the complainant/injured Sh. Satpal and Vikram was sine qua non for establishing the charges against the accused as he could have proved the factum of alleged infliction of injuries upon them by the accused. They were the star/material witness of the prosecution case and in their absence the prosecution shall not be able to prove the alleged charges against the accused. Neither the identity of the accused nor the alleged incident can be proved.
FIR No. 381/03 5/
8. Prosecution case may be true but criminal jurisprudence says that prosecution case must be true. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true".
9. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
10. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail FIR No. 381/03 5/ Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. (AIR 1962 SC 605 relied). Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
11. Prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. Accordingly, accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
12. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao)
Court on 18.11.2010 MM (W)/Delhi
FIR No. 381/03 5/
18.11.2010 FIR No. 381/03
PS Nangloi
Pr: Ld. APP for state.
All three accused are present on bail.
No PW is present apart from IO SI Sher Singh who has reported that the complainant/injured Sh. Satpal and Vikram Singh are not traceable. Separate statement of the IO who has been examined as CW 1 in this regard has been recorded. I have also perused the report on the summons which have also been forwarded by the SHO concerned as well as gone through my orders dated 28.07.2010 and 20.10.2010 and report on the summons of even date.
There is no other eye witness. Prosecution was granted ample opportunities to bring the complainant/injured on record however, it failed to do so. Trial cannot be allowed to go on till eternity as same shall be in violation of the fundamental rights of speedy trial of accused persons.
Accordingly, PE stands closed. SA is dispensed with as the same shall be an empty formality as no worthy incriminating material has been brought forward against the accused persons.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court, accused persons have been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and FIR No. 381/03 5/ procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gaurav Rao) MM (w)/Delhi.
18.11.2010
FIR No. 381/03 5/