Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Khalil on 8 August, 2016
: 1 of 7:
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUM AR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Decided on: 08.08.2016
SC NO: 28369/16
FIR NO: 251/15
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s: 302 IPC
State
versus
Mohd. Khalil
S/o Sh. Abdul Aziz
R/o 1908, Mohalla Qabristan,
Turkman Gate, Delhi.
Date of institution: 19.12.2015
Date of judgment: 08.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd Khalil S/o Abdul Aziz has been facing trial for an offence under section 302 IPC on the accusation that on 18.09.15, between 00.30 to 3 am, at house no. 1908, Mohalla State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 2 of 7:
Qabristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi , he caused death of Anshuma, his daughter, by strangulating her.
2. Present case came to be registered on the statement of Ms. Nazia wife of the accused wherein she levelled allegations against her husband that ever since 10.06.2015, when she was blessed with Anshuma, 5th child, he used to harass and taunt her and have suspicion against her. As regards the occurrence which took place on 18.09.2015 , the complainant told the police that in the middle of the night, her husband quarrelled too much with her whereupon she came out of the house with her child Anshuma but he followed them, snatched the child from her lap and proclaimed that he was going to kill his child. According to the complainant, she returned to her house while weeping. Thereafter, at about 3 am , her husband returned with the child and made her to sleep by her side. According to the complainant, she found her child lying unconscious. She tried to feed her milk, but in vain. Immediately she informed her mother in law Nasima and brotherinlaw Javed, with whose assistance, the child was taken to LNJP hospital, but there the child died.
3. According to complainant, she informed her father about the occurrence. When her father reached her matrimonial home , he State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 3 of 7:
rang up PCR staff. That is how, police reached there and recorded her statement, which led to registration of this case.
4. During investigation autopsy on the dead body of the child was conducted. Statements of concerned witnesses were recorded. Investigation was initially conducted by Insp. Anil Sharma.
Insp. Mahesh Kumar prepared rough site plans. Accused was arrested. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
5. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:
(1) PW1 HC Rafeek Deen (2) PW2 Insp. Mahesh Kumar (3) PW3 Smt. Nazia (4) PW4 Sh. Abdul Aziz (5) PW5 Sh. Sardar Alam State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 4 of 7:
(6) PW6 Sh. Mohd. Iqbal (7) PW7 Sh. Mohd. Javed (8) PW8 Smt. Nasima.
7. After examination of above named witnesses, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that since none of the material witnesses supported the case of prosecution, he was not to examine remaining witnesses, as their statements were not going to improve fate of the prosecution case.
8. After going through the record, when court found that witnesses Smt. Nasima, Smt. Nazia, Sh. Abdul Aziz, Sh. Sardar Alam, Sh. Mohd. Iqbal, Sh. Mohd. Javed did not level any allegation against the accused, court had no option but to dispense with recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
9. Main stay of prosecution was on the statement of the complainant, her father, father of the accused, brother in law and two persons from the public. While appearing in court as PW3 Nazia wife of accused did not raise any accusation finger against the accused. According to her, her husband never complained after the birth of her daughter Anshuma. As regards the occurrence dated State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 5 of 7:
18.09.2015, she has stated that about 2 am, she woke up and found that her daughter was not present on the bed, but she was found lying on the utensils on the ground. She picked up her and found that she was no more alive. She then accompanied by her mother in law Nasima and Brother in law Javed took her to LNJP hospital where the doctor told that she had died the reason being that milk have entered in her wind pipe. She also denied to have made any complaint to the police or to have called her father. According to her, police reached their house, when they were making preparation to take the deceased child to the cremation ground. She learnt from police that someone had rung up which led to their arrival at their house. Ld. Addl. PP for the state put leading questions to the witness, after seeking permission from the court, but she did not level any allegations against the accused. She even denied to have made any statement before the police.
10. Similarly, PW4 Abdul Aziz, father and PW8 Smt. Nasima, mother of the accused have not levelled any allegation against him. They were also put leading questions by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from any of them. Both these witnesses even denied to have State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 6 of 7:
made statement before the police.
11. PW5 is father in law of the accused and father of Smt. Nazia, complainant. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. When the witness denied to have made any statement before the police, Ld. Addl. PP put him leading questions but nothing favourable to prosecution could be elicited from him also.
12. PW7 Md. Javed and PW6 Mohd Iqbal are witnesses from public. As per prosecution version, they had seen the accused taking away the child on the night of 18/19.09.2015. But none of them has supported the prosecution on this point, although they were put leading questions by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the court.
13. Fact remains that none of the star witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore. recording of the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed with, there being nothing incriminating in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016 : 7 of 7:
14. As a result, court finds that prosecution has not been able to substantiate allegations levelled against the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted in this case.
Accused to furnish personal bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ each, under section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 8th Day of August, 2016 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State v. Mohd. Khalil SC NO: 28369/16 DoJ: 08.08.2016