State vs 1. Dharambir
| Case Name: | State vs 1. Dharambir |
| Date of judgment: | 13 August 2009 |
| Court: | TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI DISTRICT COURTS |
| Case Type: | Criminal Appeal |
| Case Number: | SC No.36/08 |
| Appellant: | 1. Dharambir,2. Vicky, 3. Raju, |
| Respondent: | State |
| Bench: | SMT. PRATIBHA RANI, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE |
| Statues Referred: | Section 308 IPC Section 323 IPC Section 324 IPC Section 341 IPCSection 34 IPC |
Facts Of the Case:
This is a criminal case where Dharambir, Vicky, and Raju are accused of committing various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a complaint made by Sh. Subhash. The specific charges against them are under sections 308, 323, 324, 341, and 34 of the IPC.
The case revolves around an incident that allegedly occurred on 21st May 2005, when the complainant, Sh. Subhash had an altercation with the accused Raju and Dharambir.
Later that day, around 9:30 to 10:00 pm, the accused trio, Raju, Dharambir, and Vicky, came to Sh. Subhash’s shop started quarreling and assaulting him.
Raju held him, while Dharambir struck him on the forehead with a brick. Subhash’s son, Amit, and his wife, Kaushalya, and daughter, Seema, arrived at the scene and tried to intervene, but Vicky allegedly hit Amit on the head with a brick, and all three accused continued to assault Amit with kicks and punches.
During the altercation, Subhash’s wife and daughter were also injured.
The police were informed, and the injured parties were taken to DDU Hospital.
Subsequently, the accused were arrested and charged with the offenses mentioned above. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
Arguments:
The prosecution’s contention is that on 21st May 2005, the accused persons, namely Dharambir, Vicky, and Raju, went to the complainant’s shop with the intention of causing harm and engaged in a quarrel with the complainant, Sh. Subhash.
The prosecution alleges that during the altercation, accused Raju held the complainant, while accused Dharambir intentionally hit him on the forehead with a brick.
It is further contended that when the complainant’s son, Amit, wife, Kaushalya, and daughter, Seema, tried to intervene and save him, the accused Vicky hit a brick on the head of Amit, causing injuries to him.
The prosecution claims that all three accused, Dharambir, Vicky, and Raju, jointly and unlawfully attacked the complainant and his family members, leading to injuries sustained by all of them, including the complainant’s wife and daughter.
The prosecution has presented four witnesses, including the complainant, his wife, daughter, and son, to support their case and establish the sequence of events leading to the incident and the involvement of the accused.
The prosecution alleges that the injuries sustained by the complainant and his family were a direct result of the accused’s actions and their intention to cause harm during the altercation.
It is also contended that the accused’s actions during the incident were in violation of sections 308, 323, 324, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution may argue that the accused’s actions were premeditated and carried out with a common intention, as evidenced by the fact that all three of them were involved in the attack on the complainant and his family members.
Based on the cross-examinations of the witnesses, PW-1 Sh. Subhash, PW-2 Smt. Kaushalya, PW-3 Ms. Seema, and PW-4 Sh. Amit, it is evident that they did not support the case of the prosecution.
They denied the suggestions put forth by the State, which included the following:
PW-1 Sh. Subhash denied that on 19.5.2005, there was an altercation between him and accused Dharambir and Raju. He denied that on 21.5.2005, at around 10.00 pm, accused Dharambir, Raju, and Vicky came to his shop and beat him. He also denied that Dharambir hit a brick on his forehead while Raju held him and that Vicky hit a brick on his son Amit’s head when his wife and daughter tried to save him.
PW-2 Smt. Kaushalya denied the suggestion that an altercation occurred between the accused and her husband on 19.5.2005 or that the accused came to their shop on 21.5.2005 and beat her husband and son, causing injuries to her and her daughter.
PW-3 Ms. Seema, the daughter of the complainant, also denied the suggestion that an altercation took place between the accused and her father on 19.5.2005 and that the accused came to the shop on 21.5.2005 and beat her father and brother, causing injuries to her and her mother.
PW-4 Sh. Amit, the son of the complainant, testified similarly, denying the suggestions of an altercation with the accused and that the accused came to their shop on 21.5.2005, causing injuries to him. Additionally, all the witnesses admitted that a cross-case was registered against them and their family members, but it was compromised in court. They denied intentionally suppressing the true facts and giving false testimony to save the accused, stating that the matter had been settled with the accused.
Judgement:
After considering the evidence and testimonies presented during the trial, the court found that the prosecution’s case was not supported by the witnesses, including the complainant, his wife, daughter, and son. All four witnesses denied the allegations against the accused and provided inconsistent statements, which did not prove the guilt of the accused persons.
The court noted that there was no incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution to support the charges against the accused. Additionally, the witnesses stated that they had signed a statement without knowing its contents, suggesting that there may have been inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the investigation process.
Given the lack of evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted all three accused persons (Dharambir, Vicky, and Raju) of the charges brought against them. The court observed that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish the accused’s involvement in the alleged incident or the commission of the offenses they were charged with.
As a result, the accused persons were acquitted, and the case was closed. The court ordered that the file be consigned to the Record Room, bringing an end to the legal proceedings against the accused.
Conclusion:
In this case, the accused individuals, Dharambir, Vicky, and Raju, faced charges under Sections 308, 323, 324, 341, and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case relied on the complaint made by Sh. Subhash, but during the trial, all witnesses, including the complainant and his family, did not support the prosecution’s claims. As a result, the court acquitted the accused due to a lack of sufficient evidence and closed the case.
Written by Shobhita Shrivastava intern under legal vidhiya.
