Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) It was alleged that supplementary challan was filed qua accused Dharam Pal Tanwar, Sanjay Tanwar, Kishan Lal Tanwar, Ram Chand Khanagwal, Kishore Dabla and Zile Singh by mentioning their name in column No. 11. It was alleged that during the investigation, accused Dharam Pal Tanwar and his sons namely Sanjay Tanwar and Kishan Lal Tanwar took the plea that on June 23, 2008 at the time of incident, they were present at Bagicchi Raghunath, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and they have been impleaded due to previous enmity. Similarly, accused Ram Chander Khanagwal took the plea that he was present at his house at Basti Zulaha, ID Gah Road. Accused Zile Singh took the plea that he was in the meeting of Akhil Bhartiya Samaj whereas accused Kishore Dabla took the plea that he was in Lucknow in connection with his business. All the accused took the plea that injured had falsely implicated them due to previous enmity and he had even lodged false FIRs against them previously. It was further stated that accused Surender took a plea that at the time of incident, he was present at New Delhi Railway station. It was stated that during investigation, the plea taken by the accused persons were verified. Accordingly, the said accused persons were not arrested. However, their names were mentioned in the charge-sheet in column No. 11.

11. After culmination of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. In order to prove their innocence, accused persons have examined the following witnesses:

 DW1           Ram Chander Khangwal
                DW2           Zile Singh
                DW3           Surender Kumar
                DW4           Dharampal Tanwar
                DW5           Kishore Dabla
                DW6           Rajender Prasad
                DW7           Shiv Narayan Bagri
                DW8           Fateh Singh
                DW9           Vikas
                DW10          Naresh Chand Goel, DRM
                DW11          Chander Bhan
                DW12          Dinesh Kumar
                DW13          Mohd. Ishrat Sidqqui

SC No. 45/08 & SC No. 26/10                                      Page no. 9 of 28
                                                     State vs. Vinod Chotti & others


                DW14          Jai Parkash Upadhaya
                DW15          Mohd. Rashid
                DW16          Mofidur Rehman

12. Learned counsel appearing for accused Dharamvir @ Sonu contended that there is no iota of evidence against the accused. It was submitted that PW Chanchal Indoria was the only witness against the accused but he did not utter even a single word against the accused. It was thus argued that prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the alleged incident.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the other accused persons contended that injured and his family had enmity with the accused persons and both parties are involved in various litigations and due to the previous enmity, injured had falsely implicated all the accused persons despite the fact that accused persons were not even present at the place of occurrence. To prove this fact, accused persons have adduced the evidence in this regard. It was contended that accused Kishore Dabla was in Gorakhpur in connection with his business but due to previous enmity injured had also impleaded him in this case.

20. From the testimony of PW3 it becomes clear that there was acrimony between the parties since December 2005 when the accused party had lodged an FIR against the complainant party and since then both parties are involved in various litigations and this fact is also corroborated from the testimony of DW1 to DW5. No doubt, previous enmity between the parties may be a ground to implead the accused persons falsely but simultaneously previous enmity may also be a ground to assault the injured. Thus, the Court is required to take extra precaution at the time of appreciating the evidence of injured.