Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 30.01.08 framed charge against the accused for trial of offences u/s 363/366/376/302/201/203 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC

9. Prosecution in support of its case examined :-

Public Witnesses :

1. PW1 Munna Lal

19. PW6 Chhedi Lal Singh, tehsildar has deposed that on 11.07.06 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at District Jaunpur and on receiving information that a lady expired at State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC village Jagdishpur, he reached there. The informant was Anil Kumar. He inspected the dead body and came to know the name of deceased as Neetu w/o Anil Kumar. The dead body was lying under the chhaper near chulah outside the house. The body was covered with a cloth. The body was inspected with the help of local ladies. The clothes of deceased were also found burnt. The hands, legs, breasts, stomach, back and some other parts were also found burnt. The face was also not properly visible due to burn injuries. He deposed that punch of locality namely Vinod Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Ramesh Chand, Manik Chand and Rajesh Kumar Tiwari requested for postmortem for cause of death. He made endorsement for postmortem by two doctors team to ascertain the cause of death. The body was handed over to local police. This witness proved the panchnama Ex. PW6/A, police form Ex. PW6/B, form no. 379 Ex. PW6/C and request for postmortem Ex. PW6/D. He further proved the letter Ex. PW6/E sent to CMO District Hospital, Jaunpur for conducting the postmortem by a team of two doctors. He also proved the sample seal documents Ex. PW6/F. In the cross examination he stated that he reached the spot at about 18.10 pm and conducted State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC proceedings upto 19.45 pm. The villagers also gathered there. He was not sure that whether accused was present at that time or not.

29. A charge u/s 376 IPC has been framed against the accused. However, there is no witness examined by prosecution to prove the charge u/s 376 IPC. This charge is only based on presumption. The sole witness to this offence is State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC Ritu, who has already expired and investigation agencies had no chance to investigate on this aspect. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the charge u/s 376 IPC against the accused.

32. Hence on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 201 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. However, offence u/s 203 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC

33. On the basis of above observation and discussion, prosecution has proved the charge against the accused u/s 363/366/203 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offence punishable u/s 302/376/201 IPC. In these circumstances, accused Anil Kumar is acquitted of charges framed against him u/s 302/376/201 IPC. However he is convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 363/366/203 IPC. Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR) today i.e. 27.04.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. Anil Kr // FIR No. 183/06 PS : Bawana // u/s 302/376/366/363 IPC