Delhi District Court
State vs . Sahiduddin on 29 October, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA : ACMM/
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
STATE VS. SAHIDUDDIN
FIR No.147/01
U/S: 387/506/34 IPC
P.S.: Shahdara
Date of Institution of case: 24.12.01
Date on which judgment is reserved: 29.10.11
Date on which judgment is delivered: 29.10.11
Unique I.D. No. 02402RO252932003
J U D G M E N T
a) Sl. no. of the case 399/03
b) Date of commission of offence 20.04.01
c) Name of complainant Shri Babu Qureshi , S/o Shri Bundoo Qureshi R/o 248, Makki Sarai, Subji Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi
d)Name of accused, his parentage 1.Shahiduddin @ Saiddin @ Chhote
2. Hazi Alauddin (since deceased) FIR NO. 147/01 Page 1 of 5 pages 2 Both S/o Shri Abdul Karim R/o C48/28, Gali No.6, Noorani Masjid, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of or proved U/S: 387/506/34 IPC f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty g) Final order :Acquitted. h) Date of such order :29.10.11
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
1. In brief the prosecution case against both the accused persons was that on 20.04.01, at about 9:15 am in front of house no. 240 Makki Sarai, Shahdara accused Shahiduddin alongwith co accused Haji Allauddin (since deceased) had attempted to put complainant Babu Quareshi in fear of death or of grievous hurt so as to commit an offence of extortion and had also criminally intimidated him by threatening to kill him for which they were booked for an offence u/s 387/506/34 IPC vide FIR No. 147/01. On complaint made in this regard by the complainant, aforesaid FIR was registered and they were arrested in this case but later on FIR NO. 147/01 Page 2 of 5 pages 3 were released on bail by the court orders being involved in a non bailable offence. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against them in this court.
2. Cognizance of offence was taken against both the accused by the learned predecessor of this court and they were summoned to face trial. Both the accused had also duly appeared before the court to contest this case on merits. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 387/506/34 IPC was framed against both the accused on 30.10.02 to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial accused Hazi Alauddin had died and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 10.02.2005.
3. In order to substantiate its version, prosecution had examined 2 witnesses. PW1 W.HC Durga had proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and also proved her endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka. She was not cross examined on behalf of the accused person despite opportunity given to him in this regard.
4. PW2 Lady Ct.Nitu had deposed that on 20.04.2001, at about 9:30am she had recorded DD NO. 17B regarding brawl. She had FIR NO. 147/01 Page 3 of 5 pages 4 proved copy of said DD as Ex. PW2/A. She was also not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given to him in this regard.
5. No other PW was examined till date. Perusal of the record revealed that complainant who was the most material witness in this case had also not been examined despite several opportunities given in this regard. Since remaining witnesses were formal in nature being police officials, hence their testimony was of no use and credit in the absence of main witness. PE accordingly stood closed.
6. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against him had been put to him in his vernacular language to which he had stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He did not lead any D.E.
7. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the material placed on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of complainant/injured's examination on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to FIR NO. 147/01 Page 4 of 5 pages 5 prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
8. It is a cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the benefits arising from the lacunaes of the prosecution must be given to the accused. Hence, in my opinion, prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt holding him guilty for the offence alleged to have been committed by him resulting into his conviction and sentence. The accused is, therefore, acquitted. His PB/SB stand cancelled and discharged. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29.10.11 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ACMMII, North East, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI FIR NO. 147/01 Page 5 of 5 pages