IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06 (East), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. : 392/05 PS : Preet Vihar Offence complained of : 324/34 [ACT] Date of commission of offence : 21.05.2005 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. 1.
[ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER) R/o House of Islamuddin, Bari Maszid, Jagat Puri, Delhi.
2. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Irsad R/o H. No. 606, Gali No. 8, Maujpur, Delhi.
Accused persons [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o D-block, Gali No. 8, Sonia Vihar, III Pusta, Delhi.
Complainant Date of Institution : 06.02.2006 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 15.10.2011 Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2011 Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF [ENTITY]MENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS The story of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2005 at about 3:50 PM near Petrol Pump, Vikas Marg, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Preet Vihar, both the accused persons namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] caused simple injuries with sharp weapon (pieces of glass) on the persons of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in furtherance of their common intention. Thus, both accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
FIR On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant [ENTITY], an FIR bearing number 392/05 under [SECTION] [ACT] was lodged at Police Station Preet Vihar on 21.05.2005 at about 4:00 PM.
CHARGE After investigation, charge-sheet under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed on 06.02.2006.
The accused persons were summoned to face trial and they were supplied the copy of charge sheet as per [SECTION] [ACT]
During the course of proceedings accused [ENTITY] was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 04.07.2008.
On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused [ENTITY] and read out to the said accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 06.04.2010.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION The accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] as it is alleged that they caused simple injuries on the body of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] with sharp weapon.
In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 11 witnesses, of which the victims/ eye witnesses namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have been cited as PW-1, 2 and 3 respectively in the list of witnesses.
Except PWs / injured persons namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] all the remaining 8 witnesses cited by prosecution are formal witnesses and sufficient only to prove that victims [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] received simple injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS- Preet Vihar vide FIR bearing No. 392/05.
PWs- [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were summoned on several occasions and they were also summoned through IO as well as through DCP concerned. The summons sent to the said witnesses were received back unserved with the report that the said witnesses were not traceable and IO/ Inspector [ENTITY] submitted in his report Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-4 that the said witnesses were not traceable. Thus, in view of the report of the IO Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-4 and in view of the statement of IO/ Inspector [ENTITY] recorded on 23.09.2011 and further in view of the report filed by the Jail Superintendent, the court came to the conclusion that the said witnesses were not traceable and ordered vide order dated 15.10.2011 that the said witnesses be not summoned again and therefore dropped them from the list of witnesses.
In the absence of the testimony of the material witnesses i.e., [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], the prosecution can never prove that the injuries caused to the injured persons in the present case was a result of an act of accused persons.
The remaining witnesses who are yet to be examined by the prosecution are all formal witnesses. None of the remaining witnesses is an eye witness to the incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of the accused persons in the absence of the testimony of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
The case is at the stage of PE, however, in absence of testimony of PWs - [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], there is nothing incriminating against the accused persons for proceeding further and recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be futile and wastage of judicial time, resources and money.
In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit the accused persons today itself so as to protect their right of speedy justice as incorporated in [SECTION] of [ACT].
In "[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY], C.J.I., [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Mrs. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The [ACT], as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. The [ACT] Bench in [ENTITY]'s case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from [SECTION], the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted." (emphasis supplied) "30 In conclusion we hold:-
(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
Accordingly, in the opinion of the court, in absence of the testimony of injured persons namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court needs to protect the right of the accused persons to have speedy justice and acquit the accused persons forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against the accused persons on record.
Accordingly, PE stands closed, S.A. is dispensed with and accused [ENTITY] is acquitted.
As per [SECTION] of the [ACT], as inserted vide the [ACT], which came into force on 31.12.2009, the personal bond and the surety bond of the accused [ENTITY] as well as surety shall remain intact for a period of six months from today.
Incharge Record Room is directed to keep/ revive this file as and when the accused [ENTITY] is apprehended/ arrested in future.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED ON 15.10.2011.
([ENTITY]) MM-06(East)/KKD/ 15.10.2011 Certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signature.
([ENTITY]) MM-06(East)/KKD/ 15.10.2011