Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA
JUDGMENT
FIR NO. : 164/1999, U/s 325/34 IPC
PS : NEW USMANPUR
A. CIS No. of the Case : 462823/2015
B. FIR No. : 164/1999
C. Date of Institution : 25.03.2000
D. Date of Commission of Offence : 10.11.1999
E. Name of the complainant : Bharat S/o Charan Singh, R/o
B-248, Bhajanpura, Gali
no.11, Delhi-53
F. Name of the Accused, his : (1) Manoj S/o Dhannu, (2)
Parentage & Addresses Ajay S/o Prakash (abated), (3)
Sonu S/o Ram Saran(already
acquitted vide judgement
dated 19.08.2023), (4) Pramod
S/o Dhoom Singh (CCL), all
R/o Gali no.11, Garhi Mendu,
Delhi
G. Representation on behalf of : Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. APP
State
H. Offence complained of : U/s 325/34 IPC
I. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
J. Order reserved on : 20.12.2024 K. Date of Order : 24.12.2024 L. Final Order : ACQUITTED u/s 325/34 IPC and Convicted section 174A IPC.
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.1 of 20
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1. The present FIR is based on DD No.32B dated 10.11.1999
which was kept pending by SI Avtar Singh and on 03.12.1999
HC Subodh Kumar on acting the same recorded statement of the
complainant. It has been stated by the complainant that on
10.11.1999 at about 07:30 pm when he was occupied in
electricity work at his shop four accused persons Sonu, Manoj,
Ajay and Pramod all residents of Garhi Mendu started beating
him with hockey sticks and killi and stole ₹22,000/- from his
cash box at his shop. One of his neighbour called 100 number,
PCR van came took him to the GTB hospital. The accused
persons were chargesheeted for the offence under section 325/34
IPC.
2. FIR was registered and has been investigated by the
officials of Police Station New Usmanpur and IO/SI Subodh
Kumar filed the charge sheet against the accused persons upon
which cognizance was taken by the Court on 25.03.2000.
3. Accused persons appeared before the Court and copy of
chargesheet alongwith other documents under Section 207
Cr.P.C. was supplied to them.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 15.02.2002 for the
offence punishable Under Section 325/34 IPC against all the
accused persons by Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Additionally, 2 charges under section 174A IPC were framed
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.2 of 20
against accused Manoj who was apprehended in kalandara
bearing DD No.56A/19 dated 25.03.2019 and charged under
section 174A IPC was framed against him on 04.06.2019 and
was again apprehended in kalandara bearing DD No.46A/19
dated 28.05.2024 and charged under section 174A IPC was
framed against him on 15.07.2024.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence.
The Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its
case. In nutshell, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are
as follows :-
(i) PW1 Bharat is the complainant in the present case. He has
deposed that on 11.10.1999 he was at his shop and four boys
came there having hockey and dandas and entered in his shop
and gave beatings to him. He became unconscious he got fracture
on his chin. He identified the accused persons present in Court as
the same person who had given him beatings. When he regained
consciousness he found a sum of ₹20,000/- missing from his
cash box. PCR officials came there and took him to the hospital.
He remained in the hospital for nine days. When he came back to
his shop from the hospital, police officials recorded his
statement. The witness identified the danda, stump and hockey
stick in Court. In his cross-examination the witness identified
accused Sonu, Manoj and Pramod. He has further stated that at
the time when the accused persons came to his shop, accused
Ajay was having hockey and accused Pramod was having a
danda. He was hit from behind by Ajay and Pramod while Sonu
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.3 of 20
and Manoj were talking to him.
(ii) PW2 Vijay turned completely hostile and did not support the
case of the prosecution at all. He stated that he does not know
anything about the case and no quarrel ever happened in his
presence. Ld. APP put questions in the nature of cross-
examination to him, however, he denied the suggestion that
accused persons present in Court had given beatings to
complainant Bharat. He also denied the suggestion that he was
present at the spot at the time of quarrel. The witness was not
cross examined by accused persons despite being given an
opportunity.
(iii) PW3 Dr. Vinita Rathi examined the x-ray plate of Bharat
and found fracture near inferior margin of left side of body of
mandible. She submitted her report Ex. PW3/A. The witness
was not cross examined by accused persons despite being given
an opportunity.
(iv) PW4 HC Santosh was the Duty Officer. On 06.12.1999 at
about 01:25 pm he received rukka sent by HC Subodh through
Ct. Krishanbir on the basis of which he registered the present
FIR. The witness was not cross examined by accused persons
despite being given an opportunity.
(v) PW5 Davender Singh Tomar on 10.11.1999 he was going to
Bhajanpura market for purchasing household articles and at
about 07:30 pm when he reached gali no.11 he saw four persons
present in Court, beating one person by hockey, danda in gali
no.11 on the matter of urinal. They were saying to the person that
he might urine at some place else and as to why he obstructed
them to do the same. In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.4 of 20
accused persons he has stated that he remained at the spot for
half an hour. Many persons were gathered at the time of incident.
He denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot.
(vi) PW6 SI Avtar Singh DD No.32B dated 10.11.1999 was
handed over to him regarding quarrel. He alongwith Ct. Brij
Bhan went to the spot i.e. B-248, Gali no.11, B-Block,
Bhajanpura where he came to know that the injured was taken to
GTB hospital by PCR van. He alongwith Ct. Brij Bhan went to
GTB hospital and collected the MLC of injured Bharat on which
doctor opined unfit for the statement. No eye witness met him at
the hospital. No eye witnesses were found at the spot. He kept
DD No.32 pending after that the same was marked to HC Subodh
for further investigation. In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel
for accused he has stated that he denied the suggestion that DD
No.32B was never handed over to him for investigation.
(vii) PW7 ASI Kanhaiya Lal was incharge PCR Van B-53 on
10.11.1999. He received a call regarding quarrel at H. No. B-248,
Bhajanpura. He went to the spot and met injured Bharat and took
him to GTB hospital. The witness was not cross examined by
accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
(viii) PW8 SI Subodh Kumar the case was marked to him for
investigation on 03.12.1999. On 05.12.1999 he went to the house
of complainant and recorded his statement. He prepared rukka on
06.12.1999 after receiving the opinion on the MLC. He prepared
site plan at the instance of complainant. On the identification of
the complainant he arrested the accused persons recorded their
disclosure statement on the basis of disclosure one lathi was
recovered. The accused persons were released on bail. He
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.5 of 20
recorded the statement of public witnesses Devender Kumar,
Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar. In his cross-examination he
denied the suggestion that investigation was not done fairly.
(ix) PW9 Ct. Brij Bhan Singh Yadav on receiving DD No.32B on
10.11.1999 he alongwith SI Avtar Singh went to the spot and
came to know that the injured had been moved to GTB hospital.
They went to GTB hospital, collected MLC of injured wherein
doctor opined him unfit for statement. No eye witness was found
at the hospital or at the spot. The witness was not cross examined
by accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
(x) PW10 HC Krishanvir on 06.12.1999 at about 01:45 pm he
was handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR by Duty
Officer by handing it over to HC Subodh Kumar at the spot i.e.
B-248, Gali no.11, Bhajanpura, Delhi. He reached the spot met
the IO and the complainant. He handed over the copy of FIR and
original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, he went in search of accused
persons and on the pointing of the complainant apprehended the
four accused persons. Recovery of stump was effected on
disclosure of Manoj, recovery of lathi on disclosure of accused
Ajay and hockey from accused Pramod. IO recorded statements
of other public persons and complainant. In his cross-
examination he denied the suggestion that he did not join the
investigation of the present case.
(xi) PW11 HC Vijender was the Duty Officer on 10.11.1999 and
recorded DD No.32B on the said date. The witness was not cross
examined by accused persons despite being given an opportunity.
6. PE was closed on 06.11.2015, and the statement of accused
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.6 of 20
persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.11.2015.
Accused persons did not wish to lead DE and the matter was
listed for final arguments; however owing to the additional
charges against the accused u/s 174 A IPC addition witness were
examined by the prosecution as follows:-
(i) PW12 HC Sachin on 28.05.2024, he along with SI Amar
Singh received secret information that Manoj will come to
Khajoori Chowk, after which he along with SI Amar Singh went
there vide DD no. 25A; and apprehended the accused Manoj.
After informing of the PO declaration he was arrested by the IO.
Personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO and the
accused was produced before the court after medical examination
vide DD no. 46A dated 28.05.202, PS GTB Enclave. Witness
correctly identified the accused in court. In his cross
examination, he has denied suggestion of false implication.
(ii) PW 13 Si Amar singh, has also deposed on the same lines as
PW12, being the IO of the arrest of the accused on 28.05.2024.
Witness correctly identified the accused in court. In his cross
examination, he has denied suggestion of false implication.
7. PE was closed on 20.12.2024 and the statement of accused
persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.12.2024.
Accused persons did not wish to lead DE and the matter was
listed for final arguments. Case record perused meticulously.
8. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on
record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.7 of 20
9. Proceedings against accused Ajay had abated on
29.11.2013. File regarding qua accused Pramod was sent to JJB
for trial on 23.01.2019. Accused Sonu has already been acquitted
vide judgement dated 19.08.2023. Accused Manoj was present
before this Court to face trial. The present judgment is limited to
the examination of the role of accused Manoj only.
10. In the present case the prosecution has charged the accused
persons for offence punishable under section 325 IPC. Section
323 IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous
hurt.
11. “Grievous hurt” has been defined in Section 320 IPC,
which reads as follows:
“320. Grievous hurt.–The following kinds of hurt
only are designated as ‘grievous’:
First.–Emasculation.
Secondly.–Permanent privation of the sight of either
eye.
Thirdly.–Permanent privation of the hearing of
either ear.
Fourthly.–Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.–Destruction or permanent impairing of the
powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.–Permanent disfiguration of the head or
face.
Seventhly.–Fracture or dislocation of a bone or
tooth.
Eighthly.–Any hurt which endangers life or which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.”
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.8 of 20
12. In Mathai v. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 695 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 87 at page 263, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that:
“Some hurts which are not like those hurts which are
mentioned in the first seven clauses, are obviously
distinguished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be
more serious. Thus a wound may cause intense pain,
prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim,
although it does not fall within any of the first seven
clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of
grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries
defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the
eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law
that a penal statute must be construed strictly.”
13. In the present case, the prosecution has solely relied on the
testimony of complainant/PW1 Bharat. In his deposition PW1
has stated that on 11.10.1999 four boys entered in his shop
having hockey and dandas and gave beatings to him. He became
unconscious, got a fractured chin. He identified the accused
persons in the Court as the persons who gave beatings. He has
stated that he remained at the hospital for nine days and when he
came back to his house, police officials recorded his statement.
Nowhere in his examination in chief has mentioned any details as
to which accused, by which weapon caused him injury on which
body part. The said witness was recalled for cross-examination
and he has clarified that he did not mention the name of accused
persons in his examination in chief as same was not asked. He
identified accused Sonu, Manoj and Pramod in Court on
25.10.2016. He has further clarified that at the time when the
accused persons came to his shop accused Ajay was having
hockey, accused Pramod was having danda and accused Manoj
and Sonu were not having any weapon. He was hit from behind
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.9 of 20
by Ajay and Pramod while Sonu and Manoj were talking with
him. He lost consciousness due to the beating. PW2 turned
completely hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution
at all. He refused to identify the accused persons and denied his
presence at the spot. PW5 stated that on 10.11.1999 at 07:30 pm
when he reached gali no.11, Bhajanpura, he saw four persons
beating one person by hocky, danda in gali no.11 on the matter of
urinal.
14. The offence of grievous hurt is an aggravated form of the
offence of hurt as defined in section 319 IPC. For a hurt to be a
grievous hurt it has to form either of the eight clauses of section
320 IPC. Prosecution has placed his reliance on the testimony of
complainant/PW1. In his examination in chief PW1 /
complainant has given a bald statement that the four boys entered
in his shop and gave him beatings by hockey and dandas. He did
not mention the name of the accused persons, weapons used by
individual accused or injuries caused to him by which accused by
which weapon and on which body part. In his cross-examination
dated 25.10.2016 he has categorically stated that “I was hit from
behind by Ajay and Pramod while Sonu and Manoj were talking
with me”. PW5 has stated that he saw four persons beating one
person in gali no.11 on the issue of urinal.
15. There are apparent contradiction in the testimonies of the
PWs. PW1 in his cross-examination has stated that no injury has
been caused by Manoj and Sonu and they were only talking with
him. Nowhere in his deposition the complainant has stated as to
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.10 of 20
what was the reason of the quarrel or if there was any existing
feud between the accused persons and the complainant. PW5
who is an independent public witness has stated that he saw four
accused persons beating the complainant at gali no11 whereas
complainant in his own deposition he stated that accused persons
came to his shop. Therefore, contradiction is also found as to the
place of the incident. Therefore, considering the totality of the
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish that it was a
case of hurt caused by accused Manoj.
16. In the present case during the trial accused Manoj had
stopped appearing. Process under section 82 Cr. PC against him
vide order dated 20.02.2018 and 23.02.2023; after recording the
statement of process server he was declared a proclaimed
offendeer vide order dated 07.01.2019 & 08.08.2023
respectively. The accused was formally charged for having
committed offence under section 174A IPC on 04.06.2019 and
15.087.2024. He did not plead guilty and preferred trial. The
prosecution has examined HC Sachin and SI Amar Singh as the
prosecution witness in this regard.
17. Section 174A of the Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
“174A. Non-appearance in response to a
proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.–
Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and
the specified time as required by a proclamation
published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or with both, and
where a declaration has been made under sub-
section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a
proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.11 of 20
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
18. Section 174A IPC is divided into two parts. First part deals
with the situation where the proclamation is issued under Section
82(1) Cr.P.C. and when the accused failed to appear despite its
publication, he is to undergo imprisonment upto three years or
with fine or with both. The second part of Section 174A relates to
the declaration issued by the Court under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.
wherein serious offences have been prescribed and despite
declaring a person as proclaimed offender, when he fails to
appear, the punishment provided is imprisonment upto seven
years and payment of fine.
19. An argument was raised by Ld. Counsel for accused that
Section 195 Cr.P.C. clearly barred the Court from taking
cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188
IPC. Provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and the Court
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence mentioned
therein unless there is a complaint in writing by the public
servant.
20. In Maneesh Goomer vs. State, 2012(1)JCC 465 (Crl.M.C.
4208/2011) decided on 04.01.2012 Hon’ble Delhi High Court has
categorically held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been
correspondingly amended so as to include Section 174A IPC
which was brought into the Penal Code with effect from
23.06.2006.
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.12 of 20
21. Section 174A IPC was introduced in the Code with effect
from 23.06.2006 and Section 195A Cr.P.C. which provides that
no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under
Sections 172 to 188 IPC (Both inclusive) or of the abetment of
committing the offence, except by complaint in writing by the
public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate, was a part of the Criminal
Procedure Code since 1974 when the new Criminal Procedure
Code came into force. No corresponding amendment was
brought into Section 195 (1) (a) in the year 2006 when a new
offence, by adding Section 174A was introduced in Indian Penal
Code. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred or
presumed that Section 174A would be deemed to be included in
between Section 172 to Section 188 IPC.
22. The Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) held :
“….it may be noted that Section 174-A IPC was
introduced in the Code with effect from 23rd June,
2006. Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. provides that no
Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable
under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the
IPC or of the abatement, or attempt to commit the
said offences, except on the complaint in writing
of the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate. Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been
correspondingly amended so as to include Section
174-A IPC which was brought into the Penal Code
with effect from 23rd June, 2006. The Legislature
was conscious of this fact and that is why though
all other offences under chapter X of the Criminal
Procedure Code are non cognizable, offence
punishable under Section 174-A IPC is cognizable.
Thus the Police officer on a complaint under
Section 174-A IPC is competent to register FIRFIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.13 of 20
and after investigation thereon file a charge-sheet
before the Court of Magistrate who can take
cognizance thereon. Thus, I find no merit in the
contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner. ”
23. In Moti Singh Sikarwar vs. State of U.P. and Ors,
MANU/UP/2481/2016, decided on 29.11.2016 by the High Court
of Allahabad it has been observed that bar created by Section
195(1) (a) Cr.P.C. would not apply to the provisions of section
174AIPC. It held:
“21. The reasons are as follows:
“1. It is to be noted that all the offences under
Section 172 to 188 I.P.C. (both inclusive) are non-
cognizable and bailable, whereas Section 174-A
I.P.C. which provides for punishment upto 7 years
imprisonment and fine, in case the offender fails to
appear at the specified place and the specified
time, as required by the proclamation published
under Section 82 Cr.P.C., is cognizable and non-
bailable. The legislature was conscious of this fact
and that is why while introducing Section 174-A in
the I.P.C. in the year 2006, it made no
corresponding amendment in Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C. so as to include Section 174-A I.P.C. in
between all the non- cognizable offences and
bailable from Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C.
2. It cannot be said that due to inadvertence, the
corresponding amendment in Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C., was left to be made by the legislature. It is
noteworthy that Section 195 has been
correspondingly amended in the year 2006, by
amending the exception clause of it. Had there
been any intention on the part of the legislature to
include Section 174-A I.P.C. in Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C. it would have definitely correspondingly
amended Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. also.
3.Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for information in cognizable cases and
the concept of “locus standi” has been completely
washed off by this section, as any person can setFIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.14 of 20
the law into motion, in case any cognizable
offence is noticed by him, by registering a first
information report. The public interest demands
that criminal justice should be swift and sure and
the court should not let the guilty scot free only on
the basis of mere some technicalities. Section 460
Cr.P.C. is also based on the same principle.
4. The basic principle of law is that one, who seeks
equity should do equity. In other words the
persons, who seeks equitable reliefs, should come
before the court with clean hands. The accused has
no right to choose the mode by which he is to be
prosecuted specially in the circumstances when he
has failed to comply with the orders of the court
and is prolonging the matter by filing one case
after another.
5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maneesh
Goomer‘s case (supra) has held that Section 195
Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so
as to include section 174-A I.P.C., which was
brought into the Penal Code with effect from 23rd
June 2006 and there is no reason to deviate with
the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.”
22. In view of the above discussion, this court is of
the considered view that the bar of Section 195 (1)
(a) Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the present case and
a private person is competent to lodge a complaint
or even an F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C.”
24. In A. Krishna Reddy v. CBI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7266 :
(2017) 3 DLT (Cri) 391, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para 29
has observed that:
“No separate investigation is required to be
conducted as the orders of the Court declaring the
petitioner to be Proclaimed Offender are part of the
record in the main challan. Object and purpose to
incorporate Section 174A IPC primarily is to
ensure that the accused / suspects do not scuttle
investigation or trial by remaining absconding
without valid or sufficient reasons. In such a
scenario, when the suspects or accused abscond,FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.15 of 20
possibility of valuable evidence to be washed away
cannot be ruled out.”
25. In State vs. Proclaimed Offenders of Delhi and others,
Crl.No.2021/2010, decided on 11.08.2010, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has held that supplementary charge-sheet under Section
174A IPC can be filed or the offence under Section 174A IPC
can be added in the main charge-sheet. Apparently, no fresh
investigation was required to be carried out.
26. In Sunil Tyagi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another
CRL.M.C. 4438/2013 & CRL.M.A. 15894/2013, Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has observed that:
“21. The legislature by enacting Section 174A IPC
has further penalised the non-appearance of a
proclaimed offender. The very basis of fair trial is
threatened if an accused/suspect is declared as a
proclaimed offender without proper service, or if
proclamations and non-bailable warrants are issued
in a routine manner.
22. The legislature seeing the growing number of
Proclaimed offenders inserted Section 174A IPC
by way of Clause 44 of the CrPC. (Amendment)
Act, 2005 (25 of 2005) which was brought into
force w.e.f. 23rd June, 2006 vide Notification No.
SO 923(E) dated 21st June, 2006, hoping that it
would be a deterrent for persons fleeing from
justice.
23. Section 174A IPC penalizes the non-
appearance of a person as required by a
proclamation published under. In case of non-
appearance consequent to a proclamation under
Section 82(1) of the Code for a term up to three
years/fine/both and in case of a declaration under
Section 82(4) of the Code (in respect of offences
under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393,
394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449,
459 or 460 of the IPC for a term upto seven years
with fine.
Since non-appearance of accused in response to
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.16 of 20
the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC has been
made a substantive offence, the provisions of
Section 174A IPC are required to be invoked
against absconding accused. When the accused
fails to appear before the court in response to the
proclamation issued under Section 82(1) CrPC,
within the period of 30 days from the date of
proclamation, or fails to appear at the specified
place and time required by the proclamation issued
under Section 82(4) CrPC, he is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both and
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years or with fine or both, respectively.”
27. In the present case, proclamation under S. 82 Cr. P.C. was
issued against accused Kalu @ Trilok on 08.06.2017 and he was
directed to appear before this Court on 09.08.2017. The order
passed by Ld. Predecessor is already on record. As per the order
dated 27.02.2018, statement of process server Ct. Javed was
recorded and after due consideration accused Kalu @ Trilok was
declared a proclaimed offender. ASI Ram Mehar has deposed
that he received intimation about the arrest of Kalu @ Trilok
from the police officials of PS Geeta Colony on 07.06.2022 and
he came to the Court and met ASI Rajeshwar Rao who handed
over the entire kalandara bearing DD No.12A dated 23.05.2022,
PS Geeta Colony. He formally arrested the accused, prepared the
supplementary chargesheet and filed it before the Court.
28. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond
reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid
down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence
in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3
SCC 116 at page 117, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.17 of 20
“Before a person can be convicted on the strength
of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in
question must be satisfactorily established and the
proved circumstances must bring home the of-
fence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If
those circumstances or some of them can be ex-
plained by any other reasonable hypothesis then
the accused must have the benefit of that hypoth-
esis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary pos-
sibilities have no place. What is to be considered
are ordinary human probabilities.”
29. In Bhagirath (supra) at page 99 Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that:
“But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs ex-
clusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine
doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when
there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a consci-
entious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of
the entire evidence that the accused might not have
committed the offence, which affords the benefit to
the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit
of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at
every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to
be afforded to the accused at the final end after
consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge
conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt re-
garding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impos-
sible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements
with a scientific precision. A criminal court could
be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of
a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression “rea-
sonable doubt” is incapable of definition. Modern
thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond
a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which af-
fords moral certainty to the Judge.”
30. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the
United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.18 of 20
book Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th
Edn.) as follows:
“It is difficult to define the phrase ‘reasonable
doubt’. However, in all criminal cases a careful
explanation of the term ought to be given. A
definition often quoted or followed is that given by
Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says:
‘It is not mere possible doubt, because everything
relating to human affairs and depending upon
moral evidence is open to some possible or
imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which,
after the entire comparison and consideration of all
the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that
consideration that they cannot say they feel an
abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth
of the charge.”
31. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored
by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.)
thus:
“The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as
an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might,
with reason, entertain consistent with a
conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An
honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable
doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the
possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a
reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one
which arises from a consideration of all the
evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must
be a candid consideration of all the evidence and
if, after this candid consideration is had by the
jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of
the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for
a reasonable doubt.”
32. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not
sufficient to link the accused Manoj to the commission of the
crime. Prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused
Manoj has caused the injury to the complainant which is sine qua
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.19 of 20
non for proving the offence under section 323 IPC. Sufficient
doubt has been created by the accused. Moreover, the charge
under section 174A IPC stands duly proved by the prosecution in
the presence of the kalandara and the order declaring the accused
Manoj a proclaimed offender.
33. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has
not been able to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, accused Manoj is found not guilty for offence
punishable u/s 325/34 IPC in the present case and resultantly,
stands acquitted in the present case for offences u/s 325/34 IPC.
However, he stands convicted for having committing offence
punishable under section 174A IPC.
34. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of
₹10,000/- with a surety of like amount u/s 437A Cr.P.C and is
directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and
when directed.
Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 24th December, 2024 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS
FIR No.164/99 State vs. Manoj & Ors. PS New Usmanpur Page No.20 of 20