Delhi High Court
Amit vs State on 15 July, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
31.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 354/2010
Date of decision: 15th July, 2010
AMIT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Rai, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
1. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner-Amit is identical to the
case of Satpal, Dharambir, Sandeep and Pradeep, who have been discharged
vide order dated 12th May, 2010.
2. FIR No. 676/2006 under Section 341/308/506/34 IPC was recorded
on 5th June, 2006 on the statement of one Mr. Jai Prakash. In this FIR Mr.
Jai Prakash had stated that at about 8.30 p.m. on 3rd June, 2006 he was
going towards Lado Sarai bus stop with his sister-in-law and children to see
them off. Mr. Vineet Malik was walking ahead, when two boys Deena and
Titu obstructed the way of Mr. Vineet Malik. Both of them started beating
and giving blows to Mr. Vineet Malik. In the meanwhile, two other boys
came at the spot with wickets in their hands and started beating Mr. Vineet
Malik. Mr. Jai Prakash had stated that he does not recognize these two
boys.
CRL.REV.P. No. 354/2010 Page 1
3. Mr. Vineet Malik was admitted in a hospital and was unconscious.
Subsequently, Mr. Vineet Malik was discharged and his statement was
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on
22nd June, 2006. He has stated that he, his mother, sister and maternal uncle
(Jai Prakash) were going to the bus stand at 8.30 p.m. on 3rd June, 2006 and
he was about 50-60 steps ahead of them. When he had crossed CNG Petrol
Pump, a Maruti car without number plate stopped and Titu, Amit (the
petitioner herein), Dinesh and Charni stepped out and started giving him fist
blow. Titu and Dinesh were wearing brass punches in their hands. He has
stated that he knew these persons from before. He has further stated that
when he fell down on the floor due to the beating, Amit, the petitioner
herein, hurled a gupti and in the meanwhile their maternal uncle, mother
and sister intervened and raised an alarm. He became unconscious and after
few days gained consciousness when he was in Safdarjung Hospital. Mr.
Vineet Malik has specifically named Amit, the petitioner and his
involvement. He had named Sandeep, Pradeep and Dharambir as persons,
who came on a black coloured motorcycle and started beating him. This
fact about motorcycle and 3 persons was not mentioned by Mr. Jai Prakash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an earlier statement
of the complainant Jai Prakash was recorded on 4th June, 2006. In this
statement Mr. Jai Prakash had stated that he had not seen the actual beating
and when he reached the spot he found that Mr. Vineet Malik was in an
injured condition and accordingly he was taken to the hospital. At this
CRL.REV.P. No. 354/2010 Page 2
stage, it will not be appropriate to comment in detail about the so-called
contradiction. Even if the contention of the petitioner that the statement
dated 4th June, 2006 is correct is accepted; then due importance has to be
given to the statement of the injured, which was recorded on 22nd June,
2006.
5. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision
petition and the same is dismissed.
6. It is clarified that this order will not be construed as an order
expressing opinion on merits, which is binding on the learned trial court and
observations made above are only for disposal of the present revision
petition. It is also clarified that this Court has not examined the alleged role
of Satpal, Dharambir, Sandeep and Pradeep.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JULY 15, 2010
VKR
CRL.REV.P. No. 354/2010 Page 3
