Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is that FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 on 25.09.2012, ASI Omender Singh alongwith Ct. Satbir went to the place of information i.e. Budpur, Delhi on receipt of DD no. 39A where it was revealed on enquiry that injured had already been removed to SRHC Hospital on which they reached there where injured Amir Khan S/o Sh. Javed was found admitted. ASI Omender collected MLC of said injured who was declared unfit for statement.

Although, the prosecution also cited two more public witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya in the list of witnesses FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 but prosecution failed to produce them during trial despite grant of several opportunities. Summons were issued to said two public witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya through IO as well as through concerned DCP but same were received back unserved with the reports that both the said witnesses were not traceable at their given addresses and their present whereabouts were not known. On specific query made from IO by the Court, he submitted that he had already made his best possible efforts to trace out the said two public witnesses, but they were not traceable and their present whereabouts could not be ascertained. His statement had also been recorded separately in this regard. In view of the said statement made by IO and keeping in view the fact that no other fresh address of said witnesses namely Shiv Kumar Verma and Suraj Kumar Maurya were made available to the Court by the prosecution, the opportunity to produce said two witnesses was closed.

In a case tilted "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors." 1996 JCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled out:

FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 "In a 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 a future date."

PW­3 Amir Khan is the injured who was allegedly assaulted by FIR No. 335/12 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Alipur D.O.D.: 20.12.2014 the accused herein. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution on any material point including on the aspect of identity of the present accused to be the offender involved in the commission of offence. Rather PW3 deposed that when he was passing through a gali, he had an altercation with some unknown assailant. Since he was under the influence of liquor, he used abusive language against the said unknown assailant on which said assailant caused beatings to him and he also picked up one brick piece and struck the said brick piece over his face and head, as a result of which he received injury over his face and head and lost his consciousness.