Back
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Jai Prakash & Others
Versus
State of Delhi
CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008
Decided On: 12-05-2014
Indian Penal Code - Offences - Section 147, 149, 308, 325, 427 - The judgment discusses the offenses under Section 147, 149, 308, 325, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellants were convicted of offenses including assault, causing hurt, and mischief. The prosecution's case was based on an incident where a truck driver and the owner were assaulted and the truck was set on fire.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, lack of individual identification of the accused, failure to conduct a test identification parade, and discrepancies in the investigation. As a result, the court gave the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitted them of the charges.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the failure to conduct a test identification parade, inconsistencies in the investigation, and the failure to try the case together with another case arising from the same incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of consistent testimonies of witnesses, the necessity of conducting a test identification parade, and the need for thorough and unbiased investigation. The failure to address these aspects led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellants of the charges.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi, convicting the Appellants of offences under Section 147 read with 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 308 read with 149 IPC, 325 read with 149 IPC and 427 read with 149 IPC and the order on sentence dated 12th March 2008 whereby, for the offence under Section 147 read with 149 IPC, each of the Appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 2 months; for the offence under Section 308 read with 149 IPC, to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo SI for two months and, for the offence under Section 325 read with 149 IPC, to undergo 2 years’RI with fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo SI for 2 months and, for the offence under Section 427 read with 149 IPC, to undergo six months’ SI. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9th February 1996 Sukhwinder Singh (PW3) after getting his truck (No. HR-10-5772), which was owned by his father, loaded with badarpur along with two labourers was moving towards Yusuf Sarai. Kali Charan (since absconding) was the driver of the truck. At around 2.30 a.m., the truck reached Adhchini Village. It is stated that bhangra dance was going on in the middle of road. When Kali Charan slowed down the truck, some persons boarded the truck from the driver’s side as well as the conductor’s side asking them to move the truck. Some persons came in a Maruti car and stopped their car in front of the truck and started assaulting Kali Charan by pulling him down. Some 10-15 persons also arrived at the spot.PW-3 was also beaten by them and the truck was set on afire. When the mob tried to throw PW-3 into the burning truck, some people intervened and they were saved. However, PW-3 was mercilessly beaten. It is state that Kali Charan was beaten to the extent that he was half dead. Thereafter, they put him in a rehri and threw him on a heap of rubbish. PW-3 and Kali Charan were moved to AIIMS Hospital.
3. Arising out of the above incident a DD (No. 5A) was noted after a call was made to the Police Control Room (PCR).
4. Thereafter, FIR No. 114 of 1996 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the five accused. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were sons of Om Prakash. Jai Prakash (A-1) had in fact got married on that very date and the barat was returning from the wedding.
5. The charge-sheet alleged that all five persons had committed offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) committed the case to the Sessions Court. By an order dated 17th July 2002, the five accused were charged with the aforementioned offences under Sections 147, 308, 325 and 427 read with 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Arising out of the same incident, another DD No. 34A was noted pursuant to the information received from the PCR. DD No. 34A was entrusted to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Ram Avtar (PW-10). PW-10 found that the truck had run over Ram Prakash, the eldest brother of A1 to A4 in the present case, killing him. An FIR No. 113 of 1996 was registered under Section 279/304 IPC. The trial arising out of the said case is stated to be pending. Further, although the two FIRs were registered arising from the same incident, the trial of the said FIR No. 113 of 996 was not joined with the trial that had arisen out of the FIR No. 114 of 1996. By some coincidence the same PW10 was assigned FIR No. 114 of 1996 as well.
7. In the case arising out of FIR No. 114 of 1996, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. PW1 (Jai Singh), was put forth as witness to the incident. However, he turned hostile and denied making any previous statement to the police. He was a taxi driver
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
