IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, MM-3 (NORTH), ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI UID No. 02404R0151482013 FIR No. 512/10 U/s. : 325/341 [ACT] P.S. : Model Town State Vs. [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
1. Sl. No of the case : 162/2/14 2. Date of institution of the case : 29.05.2013 3. Date of the commission of the offence: 22.11.2010 4. Name of the accused : [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. [ENTITY] R/o. H.No. 15, Kirorimal College, Delhi University, Delhi. 5. Name of the complainant : Sh. [ENTITY] 6. Offence complained of : 325/341 [ACT] 7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Final order : Acquitted 9. Date of such order : 03.02.2016 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION :
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2010 at about 2:00 PM at main road, near Vinayak Hospital, Gujrawala Town, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Model Town, accused [ENTITY] voluntarily caused grievous injury upon the person of complainant Sh. [ENTITY] and also wrongfully restrained him and thereby committed an offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented in the court. Copy of charge-sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused and arguments were heard and vide order dated 07.10.2013, charges for the offences U/[SECTION] [ACT] were framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined only one witness, out of total seven witnesses as cited in the list of witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY], who is the complainant/injured in the present case, has deposed that on 22.11.2010 at about 1:30pm he was coming to his home from his agency by scooter bearing no.DL-7ST-8188 and when he reached near Ashirwad Banquet Hall, at the entrance of the Gujrawala Town Colony and he was about to enter the gate, one Honda Citi Car bearing no. DL-3CV-3559 came in a fast speed and the driver of the said vehicle applied sudden brake and even after applying of the brake, the said car struck against his scooter and he escaped the accident anyhow. That he cautioned the driver of the said car regarding such negligent driving upon which he came out of the car and abused him and caught hold of his hand twisted his left hand wrist and thereafter thrashed him on the floor. That he got injury on his wrist and thereafter the driver of the said car escaped from the spot with his vehicle. That he called at no.100 upon which PCR officials came at the spot and took him to the BJRM Hospital. That he can identify that accused and the accused present in the court was not the person, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident and had beaten him. That his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. He proved the site plan Ex.PW1/B. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld APP for state and during his cross examination he incorrected the suggestion that accused was present at the spot and had beaten him on that day or that he deliberately not identifying the accused in order to save him from conviction or that he deposed falsely. This witness was not cross- examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity for the same.
5. In the meanwhile, the perusal of the record reveals out that PW1 Sh. [ENTITY], the complainant/eye witness/injured did not support the case of the prosecution by not identifying the accused as the person, who was driving the offeding vehicle at the time of incident and had beaten him, during his testimony. It is also revealed that there is no other eye witness to the alleged offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] and the other witnesses are those whose took part in the investigation of the case. Accordingly. PE was closed.
6. Thereafter, statement of accused u/[SECTION] [ACT] has been recorded, in which the accused denied of leading any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State, Ld. defence counsel and perused the record.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. He further argued that the complainant/eye witness/injured examined by prosecution not identified the accused as the person who committed the alleged offence. The only material witnesses i.e. the complainant/injured Sh. [ENTITY] (PW1) has not supported the case of the prosecution as he has stated that the accused is not the person who was driving the offending car on the day of the incident and inflicted injuries on his person and he denied the entire story of the prosecution. It is further argued that since the complainant/ injured i.e., the only star witness has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the prosecution has also failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that since the prosecution could not establish the case against the accused for the alleged offence beyond shadow of doubt, it is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the alleged offence.
On the contrary, the Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the accused may be convicted for the alleged offence.
9. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT] and to connect the accused with the alleged offences, all the ingredients of the abovesaid offences have to be proved beyond shadow of doubt. Initially, the onus to prove its case is on the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the day of the incident and inflicted injuries upon the person of complainant/injured Sh. [ENTITY].
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of complainant/eye witness/injured i.e. Sh. [ENTITY] and found that nothing substantial and convincing against the accused has come in his testimony. No other eye witness was cited by the prosecution in the charge sheet to prove its case against the accused.
In case law reported as [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:-
" In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks " credibility, the benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused" .
11. In the present case also the word credibility as mentioned in the above mentioned case law is found lacking on behalf of the Prosecution. Remaining officials are the police officials who came into picture only after occurrence of the incident and the conviction can not be based on the sole testimony of the police officials, if examined.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT], has also ruled that:
" There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their catena of decisions has emphasized and also ruled that:
" Criminal trial- benefit of doubt- when on the basis of the evidence appearing on record, two views are possible, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt."
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts against the accused for the alleged offence. There is no convincing evidence on the record which could substantiate any charge upon the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused as the complainant/injured has failed to identify the accused, the identity of the accused remained unestablished and accordingly, allegations for commission of the offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] remained unproved and unestablished.
13. Under the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that in the present case the evidence on the record is not at all sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence, as the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the benefit of doubt is the right of the accused. It is also an established law of the land that the accused should not be convicted in doubtful circumstances. Even, if there are two views possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. Since, the prosecution has failed to establish a case against the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, I am also not inclined to convict the accused in doubtful circumstances. Consequently, after giving the benefit of doubt, I hereby acquit the accused [ENTITY] for the offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT].
14. Case property, if any, be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
Fresh bail bond and surety bond of accused [ENTITY] are accepted in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR) COURT ON 03.02.2016 MM-03 (NORTH)/ROHINI DELHI