STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16. 4. 1987 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. By the impugned judgment the accused persons were acquitted.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as noted by the Metropolitan Magistrate is that: a DD No. 4 A was recorded at the Police Station Civil Lines at 9:25 a. m. on 16. 2. 1982. On the basis of information received on telephone from pcr by SI Badrinath to the effect that he received information on telephone from one Pawan Kumar about an accident with Car No. WMC 8920 and two wheeler scooter and the Car had driven away from the spot while injured was lying on the road. S. I. Ram Chander along with the constable Raghubir singh, reached the spot and found one Bajaj Scooter bearing No. DHH 6608 at the spot, but did not find any witness. On coming to know that the injured has been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, constable Ram Chander deputed constable Raghubir Singh at the spot and he went to the hospital. MLC of the victim, Dalip Simen was collected; he was declared unfit to make the statement. FIR No. 94/92 was recorded for the offence of under Section 279 and 337 IPC. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the injured dalip Simen on 17. 2. 1982, the next day of the occurrence, as well as statement of the witnesses. According to the injured he was going to Delhi university on his Scooter at about 9:15 a. m. when he came on Yamuna Marg in front of Bud Vihar, a white ambassador car came behind and stopped infront of him. Thereafter six persons came out of the car and attacked him with lead pipe and lathi. According to him that one car driven by a lady stopped there and some other people also collected while assailants ran away. He claimed that he could recognize those persons and had a suspicion that there was hand of college principal, Kartar Singh, J. P. Jain, Physical instructor, Ramjas College and Dr. Karan Singh of Chemistry department. The respondents herein were arrested in the case during the investigation on different dates. As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries of Dalip simen were grievous caused by blunt object. After completing the investigation, the respondents were challaned for the offence punishable under Sections 307/147/148/120-B IPC.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment dated 16. 4. 1987 has been passed on assumptions, conjectures and surmises. The second argument which was raised, was that the Court below erred in not giving full meaning of the statement of the injured person particularly in view of the motive of the crime was writ large and more or less admitted by the respondents. The learned court also failed to appreciate that there was no reason why the injured person would falsely implicate the respondents. The only other argument which was raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that the documents were not exhibited in accordance with law.