Full Text
* IN THE HIGII COUR.T
-r- CIU-.L.P. 3lI/20I0
STATE
Thr ough:
Through:
OF DELI{I AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioncr
Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State ..... Itespondents
Mr. Sudhanshu Palo, Advocatc for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjeev Narang, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
02.09.2011
Crl.
M.A. No. 14218/201.0 (Delav)
Iior the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the leave to appcal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 3tt/2010
Lcarned APP for the State states that the learned Trial Court has crroneously passed the order dated 18'h March, 2010 acquitting the
I{espondents for offences punishable under Section 304134IPC. The reason statcd is that except the cornplainant, prosecution has no other evidence to connect the accused with the present crime. Only one Pradeep could say sornething but in the total denial of the incident by the conplainant, the
Crl.L.P. No. 3I I/2010 Page I of 4
2011:DHC:7537 learned Trial Court did not find it proper to call Pradeep. It was held that no useful purpose will be served in examining the remaining witnesses who were forrnal in nature. The recording of statement of accused under section
313 was dispensed with and respondents were acquitted of the charges.
Learned APP for the State states that apart from one witness, that is, Smt. Durga Singh the other witness Pradeep has not been examined by the learned Trial Court who was the eye-witness of the incident. Thus the impugned
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the petition, the leave to appeal is granted.
Leave to appeal petition stand disposed of.
Crl. Appeal No. I l28 /2011 (To be numbered)
1. Registry to nurnber the Appeal.
2. 'fhe case of the prosecution is that on 18th August, 2009 at about 1.15 A.M. near lJmesh I(a Ahata near Parchun Ki Dukan, Daupura, New Ashok Nagar one Mahipal @ Lala was beaten to death by the people who were assembled there after seeing Mahipal @LaIa stealing in the shop of Durga Singh. Smt Durga Singh had stated to the police the she was living on rent for the last three and a half years and used to run STD shop, Parchun shop there and was having three children. FIer husband was doing the job of cycle Crl.L.P. No. 3I1/2010 repair at the abovesaid address and had gone to the native village for the last eight to ten days. On the intervening night of 17- 1 8 August, 2009, at about
1.15 P.M. one Pradeep had knocked the door. She came out and Pradeep told her that Mahipal who was living along with farnily in the house of Jaggi was trying to steal goods by putting his hand after breaking the wall of the shop. On his making noise, people gathered and stafted beating Mahipal after holding him. Nithai Haldar, Deepu Sarkar, Nimai were beating Mahipal by saying chor-chor. Nithai Haldar was having a danda in his hand and gave beatings, Deepu Sarkar and Nimai were beating Mahipal by fist blows. IJpon this statement police registered FIR No. 310/2009 under Section 308134IPC which was later converted to offence punishable under Section 304134IPC as the injured died in the hospital.
3. Apart fiom Srnt. Durga Singh no other witness has been exarnined in the Court. Before the Courl, Smt. Durga Singh in her testimony has taken a complete somersault. She has denied that Mahipal was known to her prior of the incident and that she had called the police at 100 number. She has deposed that in her presence nobody had given beatings to Mahipal who had attempted to cornmit theft in her shop.
4. Learned APP for the State contends that the Court despite knowing Crl.L.P. No. 3l I/2010 Page j of 4 that there was another eye-witness to the incident namely Pradeep did not deem it proper to examine him and based upon the sole testimony of the hostile witness Smt. I)urga acquitted the Respondents.
5. lirom thc perusal of record, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has only examined one witness, that is, Srnt. Durga Singh and has not appropriately considered the facts of the case that actually the eye-witness of the incident whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded was Pradeep. This witness Pradeep has actually witnessed the entire incident and informed the complainant. Thus he ought to have been exarnined.
6. In the interest of justice, I deem it proper to grant an opportunity to the Appellant to prove its case against the Respondents. The order dated 18tl' March, 2010 acquitting the Respondents in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 304134IPC is set aside. The rnatter is remanded back to the learned Trial Courl. The Trial Court is directed to examine the remaining witnesses and conclude the trial in accordance with law.
7. Appeal stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. IM6"L ' MUKTA GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 02, Z0ltfvn'