Delhi District Court
State vs . Salauddin on 4 December, 2017
SC/44830/2015
State Vs. Salauddin
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44830/2015
State Versus Salauddin
S/o Mohd. Sajid
R/o House No.1147, Gali No.13,
New Mustafabad, Delhi
Permanent Resident of;
Village Pihani, District Hardoi, UP
FIR No.479/13
PS Gokalpuri
under Section 326A IPC
Date of institution of case : 15032014
Date of reserving the case for Judgement : 09112017
Date of passing of Judgment : 04122017
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused Salauddin S/o Mohd. Sajid, who had caused grievous hurt on victim Usman by throwing acid on him for FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 1 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin the offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as the "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays that accused may be convicted for the offence charged against him.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays for the acquittal of the accused.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on the intervening night of 10th /11th June, 2013 at around 12.05 am in Gali No.12, Naala Road, New Usmanpur, Delhi, accused Salauddin had thrown acid on the face of the person of Usman and had caused FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 2 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin grievous hurt to him. Usman was taken to GTB Hospital and received treatment in GTB Hospital for the said grievous hurt.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the charge sheet was received by the Court on 15032014. Charge was framed against the accused on 15032014 for the offence punishable under Section 326A of the IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence charged against him.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Salauddin was recorded on 14072017.
11. In his defence, 3 witnesses have been examined by the accused.
FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 3 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. In order to establish its case, prosecution had examined injured Usman as PW1, who has stated before the Court that he used to privately work in a unit where ladies slippers/ chappals used to be manufactured. He has further stated that accused Salauddin is the son of his father's sister and he is a resident of Village Pihani, District Hardoi, UP. He has further stated that accused Salauddin had taken money from him of various amounts at different points in time and that amount in aggregate became to about Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/. He has further stated that accused Salauddin had been taking those amounts from him with the promise to return. He has further stated that quite a long time before the present incident when he had started demanding his money back from Salauddin, he started making false allegations that he has been keeping his wife Anjum in an illicit relationship with him. He has further stated that Anjum while residing FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 4 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin with accused Salauddin was being subjected to cruelties and torture and accused Salauddin even caused physical beatings to her. He has further stated that about a year before the present incident Anjum finally left accused Salauddin and came to him and they performed verbal Nikah and they got their marriage papers prepared in Hardoi. He has further stated that both of them lived together in Hardoi where he had hired one room accommodation. When she came to him, she had brought her youngest child with her whereas three children remained with Salauddin and they were residing in Mustafabad. He has further stated that 23 months prior to the date of incident, he came back to Delhi and started working at his old working place in Madipur, Delhi.
13. PW1 has further stated that on 10062013 at about 9 pm, he had received a phone call from the mobile number 8860652400 of accused Salauddin and accused asked him to come to Mustafabad and suggested him to pay some amount to him and then he could live with Anjum as per his wish and choice. He has further stated that he had FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 5 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin declined to follow that command of accused. He has further stated that accused Salauddin made another call and this time Anjum was on the line, who asked him to come to Mustafabad to settle the issue and accused as well as Anjum had further suggested to him that it being late in the night, he could stay in the house of one of the friends of accused Salauddin. He has further stated that he reached the house of accused Salauddin at about 10 pm and accused Salauddin had met him there and they had cordial talks and had food as well. They had food on the first floor where accused Salauddin used to reside. He has further stated that he and accused Salauddin thereafter left his room and accused Salauddin wishes to take him to his friends room for his overnight stay and it was about 11.3012 midnight. He has further stated that when they had reached somewhere near Gali No.10, accused Salauddin asked him to take out his mobile phone and connect a call to the person to whose room they were proceeding for his overnight stay. He has further stated that as soon as he took out his mobile phone and connected a call and offered mobile phone to FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 6 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin Salauddin to come on line, he threw acid on him from a wide mouth bottle and acid fell on his face towards the left side and some acid fell on his left eye. He has further stated that during this incident, Sharif Bhai arrived there and came for his help and he requested Sharif to call Anjum. He has further stated that Sharif tried to wash his acid injury by water and then he brought Anjum and Anjum took him to GTB Hospital. He has further stated that police then recorded his statement in the hospital which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A.
14. In the cross examination, questions relating to the working of PW1 had been asked to which he replied and stated that he shifted to his private work of chappal manufacturing and he used to earn about Rs.12,000/ to Rs.15,000/ per month.
15. Questions have also been asked as to how he came in contact with Anjum to which he stated that Anjum was the wife of his cousin Salauddin and he used to visit their house once or twice in a month.
FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 7 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin
16. In the cross examination, he had stated that Anjum had herself suggested to him for Nikah and he had also proposed to Anjum for Nikah. This offer and proposal had been made through phone calls.
17. Few questions have been asked as to his previous marriage to which he replied that his previous marriage turned into divorce as his previous wife could not accommodate herself in his house and family.
18. Few questions have been asked as to the relationship of PW1 visavis Anjum but nothing material could be elicited.
19. A suggestion has been given that site of his left eye has been lost due to his own negligence of not taking proper treatment which has been denied by the witness.
20. It is further stated that acid had fallen on his clothes also and those clothes were not given to the police.
21. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination of PW1 which could make his statement unbelievable. FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 8 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin
22. PW2 Smt. Anjum has come in the witness box and has stated that on 10th and 11th June, 2013, she was residing at New Mustafabad, Delhi. She has further stated that accused Salauddin had been borrowing money from Usman and those small borrowings accumulated to Rs.25,000/. She has further stated that Usman when asked his money from Salauddin, initially Salauddin started giving promises to repay his money but then with the passage of time, he started alleging that Usman had developed some relations with her and had been spending money on her and Salauddin started suspecting her fidelity. She has further stated that Salauddin had given her physical beatings and assaulted her in the year 2012 and also threatened her that he would throw acid on her. She has further stated that accused Salauddin gave beatings to her with the belt and had behaved with her with all sorts of cruelties and torture. She has further stated that she decided to get rid off him and get married to Usman and in the month of August, 2012, she got married to Usman and they shifted to Village Shahbad, District Hardoi where they stayed for about 34 months. She FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 9 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin has further stated that because of the separation from her three children, she got disturbed and she along with Usman came to Delhi where she again started residing with accused Salauddin. She has further stated that accused Salauddin started asking and insisting her to lodge a complaint against Usman with the police but she did not do so. She has further stated that accused Salauddin then started torturing her and used to assault her and even used to throw her out of the house.
23. PW2 has further stated that on 10062013, accused Salauddin in her presence gave a phone call to Usman and asked him to come to his house so that accused could talk to him and he has further told Usman that if he pays some money to him, he can live with Anjum and accused can give Talaq to her. She has further stated that she had objected to the act and contact of the accused but still he succeeded in asking and convincing Usman to come to their house. She has further stated that Usman then came to their house and it was around 9 pm and it was time for dinner and while Usman was in their FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 10 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin house, accused had started to come and go in the house. She has further stated that Usman took food with them and when it was around 11 pm in the night, Usman desired to go back and then accused Salauddin asked him to sit back and suggested that Usman can stay in the house of his friend namely Sharif, who had a room at Gali No.12, New Mustafabad and at about 11 pm, accused and Usman left their house together and proceeded to the room of Sharif. She has further stated that during talks between accused and Usman in their house, accused Salauddin asked Usman to pay Rs.50,000/ to him and then Salauddin would go to his native place along with the children and Usman expressed his inability to pay that bigger amount. She has further stated that she waited for half an hour but Salauddin did not come back and at that time Sharif came to their house and informed her that Usman was injured with acid thrown at his face and asked her to come along with him. She has further stated that she had accompanied Sharif and reached the house of Sharif and Usman was in the house of Sharif and she saw acid burns on his face. She has FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 11 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin further stated that Salauddin was not present around and his phone was "switched off" and she then took Usman to GTB Hospital in an auto.
24. In the cross examination, she had denied the suggestion that Salauddin had not taken loan of Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ from Usman. She had stated that accused Salauddin was doubting her fidelity with him without any basis. She had admitted in the cross examination that she had married Usman in the month of August, 2012. She had also denied the suggestion that she had conspired with Usman and had relations with him and that is why, she had made a false storey of taking loan by accused Salauddin. In the cross examination, she had also denied the suggestion that on 10062013, she had called Usman at the house of Salauddin. She had also denied the suggestion that Usman after taking dinner had gone alone from the house of Salauddin and Salauddin had gone to the roof of the house. She had reiterated that both accused Salauddin and Usman had gone together. She had denied the suggestion that she in connivance with FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 12 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin Usman has filed this case to remove Salauddin from their way.
25. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to falsify the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.
26. PW3 Mohd. Sharif has come in the witness box and had stated that on 10062013 at about 11.30 pm, he was lying down on the roof of his house and he received a phone call from Usman that Salauddin had thrown acid on him in Gali No.12. He then reached at Gali No.12 and found Usman sitting there and he was keeping his hand on his left eye. He has further stated that Usman then asked him to call Anjum and he went to the house of Anjum where she was residing and told her that Usman had suffered acid injuries on his face and Anjum then took him to the hospital and he then went to his house.
27. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not see Salauddin on the date of incident and he was not aware if anything was due or not between Salauddin and Usman. He had denied the suggestion that he had been tutored by the police outside the Court. FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 13 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin
28. Nothing material has been asked in the cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which could discredit their testimonies in any manner.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
29. PW1 Usman has clearly stated that he knew accused Salauddin since long and accused Salauddin is his cousin. He has clearly stated that on the day of incident, accused Salauddin had thrown acid on him from a wide mouth bottle which fell on his face towards the left side and his left eye was injured due to which he lost site. He also stated that accused was apprehended by the police in his presence on his identification. He was arrested from his house at Gali No.13. He has clearly stated that accused Salauddin and he were proceeding towards the house of Sharif when he had thrown acid on him.
30. In the cross examination, he had stated that accused was very close to him while walking behind him but he could not see from which pocket, he had taken out the acid bottle. He has clearly stated FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 14 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin that except him and Salauddin nobody else was present at the time of incident. In the cross examination, he has also stated that accused had first thrown acid from the bottle and then threw bottle on his face. He has clearly denied the suggestion that acid was thrown by some unknown person or that because of complete darkness in the gali, he had not been able to identify the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that accused was not at all in his company.
31. PW2 Smt. Anjum has also identified the accused Salauddin in Court being her husband with whom she has four children. She has also stated that Usman is the son of maternal uncle of Salauddin. She has clearly stated that at around 11 O'clock, accused Salauddin and Usman had left from the house together and proceeded to reach the room of Sharif and after the incident, Sharif came to their house and informed her that Usman was injured with acid thrown at his face by the accused.
32. PW3 Mohd. Sharif has also identified accused present in the Court as he is known to him for the last 10 years prior to the FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 15 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin incident being a resident of same area. He has clearly stated that he had received a phone call from Usman to inform him that Salauddin had thrown acid on him.
33. Therefore, as far as identity of accused Salauddin is concerned, three main witnesses including injured himself have unambiguously and unequivocally identified accused Salauddin to be the same person, who had committed the crime upon victim Usman.
34. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 made in this regard.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
35. PW5 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, CCMO, GTB Hospial, Delhi has come in the witness box and stated that as per MLC, the patient was brought with the history of acid attack and physical assault. Patient complained of blurring of vision and following injuries were found on the body of the injured;
(a) Swelling, multiple abrasions over left side of upper back. FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 16 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin
(b) Acid burn over face about 15% of total body surface area (TBSA).
36. It also transpires that Dr. Prashant had prepared the MLC Ex.PW5/A but he could not appear in the Court as he has left the hospital. PW5 had seen Dr. Prashant writing and signing in the GTB Hospital during the course of his duties.
37. PW6 Dr.Upreet Dhaliwal, Professor, Ophthalmology, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi has stated that Dr. Shikha, who was working in the hospital as Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology has left the hospital and her present whereabouts are not known. PW6 has further stated that she had seen Dr. Shikha writing and signing in the GTB Hospital during the course of the duties and she has identified her signatures and writing on MLC Ex.PW5/B. As per MLC, the nature of injuries were found to be grievous.
FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 17 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
38. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW4 ASI Braham Singh Proved DD No.5A regarding admission of
injured in GTB Hospital as Ex.PW4/A.
2. PW5 ASI P. Vijayan Proved FIR as Ex.PW5/A
3. PW8 SI Arvind Kumar Proved his endorsement Ex.PW8/A regarding
registration of case.
Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW8/B Pointing out memo Ex.PW8/C DD No.10B Mark PW8/X DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
39. DW1 Nizamuddin has come in the witness box as defence witness and has stated that Usman told him that someone had poured acid on him in the dark and told him that he could not see the attacker and he told him that Salauddin might have involved somebody to pour acid on him as there was enmity between Salauddin and him. He has further stated that Anjum was seeking custody of her children who were with Salauddin. He has further stated that Usman FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 18 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin was also doing the business of property dealer and he was also having dispute with people. He has further stated that Usman in connivance with Anjum had falsely implicated Salauddin to obtain custody of children of Anjum by pressurizing him.
40. In the cross examination, he had stated that accused Salauddin is his real nephew and he has admitted that Usman was admitted in the emergency unit of the hospital. He has also admitted that he and Salimuddin had called Usman to their house several times after the incident and told him to compromise the matter with accused Salauddin.
41. DW2 Nazmuddin has deposed on the same lines as that of DW1 Nizamuddin.
42. In the cross examination, DW2 has admitted that he had deposed in the Court whatever was asked by his chacha Nizamuddin and Salimuddin.
43. DW3 Salimuddin has also deposed on the same lines as that of DW1 and DW2.
FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 19 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin
44. In the cross examination, it was elicited that his brother had called Usman to his house to compromise with the accused after about 3 or 6 months of the incident.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
45. The incident happened when on 10062013 at about 9 pm on receipt of call from accused Salauddin, PW1 Usman had gone to the house of the accused in order to settle some issue relating to the amount of money he had given to the accused earlier and also to sort out the issue relating to his relationship with Anjum. It was suggested to PW1 that he can spend the night in the house of one Sharif, who is the friend of accused Salauddin. At about 10 pm, he reached the house of accused Salauddin and all of them had dinner together. When they have started to go to the house of the friend of Salauddin and reached near Gali No.10, accused asked him to give a call to his friend and he offered his mobile phone to accused to come on the line, at that time, accused Salauddin threw acid on PW1 Usman with a wide mouth bottle which fell on the left side of his face seriously effecting FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 20 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin his left eye.
46 In the past, Usman had given an amount of Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ to Salauddin and he started demanding his money back from accused Salauddin. About a year back of the date of incident, Anjum W/o Salauddin had performed Nikah with Usman and she started residing with him. Later on, when Anjum showed her desire to meet her three children in Delhi, he came back to Delhi with Anjum and dropped her at Bhajanpura, Delhi and only 23 months prior to the incident, he came back to Delhi and started working at his old working place in Madipur.
47. PW2 Smt. Anjum has cogently corroborated and supported the case of the prosecution and has given a clear account of events relating to her relations with Usman and also visavis her husband accused Salauddin. She has stated that accused has been behaving with her to commit all forms of cruelties and torture and she had decided to get rid off of him and get married to Usman and finally in the month of August, 2012, she got married to Usman. She has FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 21 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin further stated that because of the separation of her three children, she got disturbed and she came back to Delhi with Usman and started residing with accused Salauddin and he started torturing her even more. She had clearly stated that on 10062013, Usman was called to their house for a talk so that she would give Talaq to Salauddin and live with Usman. Usman then came to their house and they had food together. In the house, late night, Usman desired to go back and they left the house together and proceeded to the house of one Sharif. Thereafter, Sharif came to her and informed that Usman was injured with acid thrown on his face. On seeing acid burn injuries, she got him admitted in the GTB Hospital.
48. PW3 Mohd. Sharif has also supported and corroborated the statement of PW1 and PW2 and stated that on 10062013, he had received phone call from Usman that Salauddin had thrown acid on him. He then informed Anjum, who took Usman to the hospital.
49. The case of the prosecution completely stands corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW5/A which shows that there was FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 22 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin swelling, multiple abrasions over left side of the upper back, acid burn over face about 15% of total body surface area (TBSA) and the nature of injuries were opined as grievous.
50. At this stage, it would be appropriate to have a look at Section 326A IPC. The essential ingredients of Section 326A IPC are as under;
(i) Accused caused permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of the victim or caused grievous hurt.
(ii) He did it by throwing acid on the victim or by administering acid to him or by using any other means.
(iii) He did it intentionally or with knowledge that his acts would likely to cause such injury or hurt.
51. The kinds of injuries caused clearly brings the case within the four corners of provisions of Section 326A IPC against the accused. The knowledge that by his action, the accused would cause grievous hurt to Usman is evident from the type of injuries, he has FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 23 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin inflicted. The same have already been delineated above.
52. The prosecution has successfully joined all the dots in its case and clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that on 1006 2013, accused Salauddin had thrown acid on the face of Usman which had caused grievous injuries and seriously effected his left eye. The fact that on the day of incident when accused Salauddin and Usman were going to the house of friend of Salauddin namely Sharif, Salauddin clandestinely carried with him the acid bottle and on the way taking advantage of the darkness threw acid on the face of Usman. This clearly shows that he had voluntarily on his own threw acid on the face of Usman.
53. The accused has been clearly identified by PW1 Usman as at that time, there was noone else accompanying him except accused Salauddin.
54. The defence by way of evidence has been completely failed to create any doubt in the prosecution case as none of the defence witness could discredit the case of the prosecution in any FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 24 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin manner whatsoever. Moreover, DW2 Nazmuddin had deposed on the asking of his uncle Nizamuddin and Salimuddin.
55. Accused Salauddin by way of suggestion had tried to raise a defence that it was Anjum, who called from the mobile phone of accused Salauddin and asked Usman to return her jewellary as well as amount of Rs.10,000/ and for the said reason, Usman was called to their house.
56. This defence on the face of it is absolutely feeble for the simple reason that the same was not put to PW2 Smt. Anjum, who was the best person to answer the said question.
57. Accused has also tried to raise a defence that FIR was registered after a long delay.
58. Keeping in view the fact that the accused was admitted to hospital and was receiving treatment, there may have been some delay in the registration of the FIR which is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution in any manner.
59. The accused has also tried to raise a defence that acid was FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 25 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin thrown by some unknown person and because of the complete darkness, he has not been able to identify the accused.
60. The aforesaid defence has got no legs to stand for the simple reason that on 10062013 after taking dinner, it was the accused Salauddin and Usman, who were going to the house of one Sharif and at that time, noone else was present there. Moreover, PW1 knows the accused since long being his cousin. There was no occasion on the part of the injured to have falsely implicated the accused considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter.
61. Accused has also raised a defence that Usman after taking dinner had gone alone from the house of accused Salauddin which defence has been falsified by the statement of PW1 and PW2.
62. Had the accused been innocent, he instead of vanishing from the scene should have been the one to have taken the injured Usman to the hospital. PW3 Mohd. Sharif had also stated in the cross examination that he had not seen accused Salauddin there whereas FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 26 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated that after the dinner, both Usman and accused Salauddin have left the house together to go to the house of Sharif.
63. Defence has completely failed to discredit, demolish or denounce any of the prosecution witnesses.
64. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved its case within the four corners of provisions of Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
65. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of injured Usman which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards the accused Salauddin.
66. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Salauddin for the FIR No.479/2013 PS Gokulpuri Page No. 27 / 28 U/s 326-A IPC SC/44830/2015 State Vs. Salauddin offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code.
67. Accused Salauddin is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04th DECEMBER, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Digitally signed by DEEPAK JAGOTRA DEEPAK Location:
Karkardooma
JAGOTRA Courts
Date: 2017.12.04
03:24:58 +0530
FIR No.479/2013
PS Gokulpuri Page No. 28 / 28
U/s 326-A IPC