Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 323 325 506 in State vs Pawan Kumar Jain on 14 May, 2025Matching Fragments
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present case arises out of an FIR lodged by the complainant Rakesh Kumar, alleging that on 21.06.2019 at about 8:30 PM in front of House No. 2494/193, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi he was wrongfully restrained and assaulted by all the accused persons namely Pawan Kumar Jain, Rahul Jain, Saurav Jain @ Bablu and Gaurav Jain at the place of incident. According to the complainant, he was subjected to beatings with fists and kicks, resulting in grievous injuries. When his son, Mohit Kumar, came to his rescue, he too was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons, who also extended threats to kill complainant. The prosecution invoked offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the abovesaid accused persons were summoned and after that, they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused persons namely Pawan Kumar Jain, Rahul Jain, Saurav Jain @ Bablu and Gaurav Jain on 20.07.2022 for the commission of offences under Section 323/325/341/506/34 IPC against the accused persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
18) Coming to the video footage marked as Ex.P-1, the prosecution's case suffers from several incurable defects. PW2, who handed over the CD to the police, admitted in cross-examination that he does not know who recorded the video or who sent it to him. He did not provide the mobile phone through which he received the footage, nor did he disclose the identity of the neighbour from whom he purportedly received it. No attempt was made by the IO to trace the original source or to examine the person who actually recorded the incident. More importantly, the CD does not bear any date or time stamp. The footage was played in court and observed by the Ld. Predecessor and all FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:32 +0530 stakeholders, and the absence of date and time was recorded in the cross-examination conducted on 28.08.2023. Furthermore, no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was furnished by the prosecution, which is a mandatory precondition for admissibility of electronic evidence. The CD, therefore, remains an unverified and inadmissible piece of evidence.
22) Accordingly, the accused persons namely (1) Pawan Kumar Jain S/o R.L. Jain, (2) Rahul Jain S/o Naresh Kumar Jain, (3) Saurav Jain @ Bablu S/o Pawan Kumar Jain, and (4) Gaurav Jain S/o Pawan Kumar Jain are acquitted for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in the present case.
23) Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon them.