Delhi District Court
State vs Imran Ali on 27 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI
S.C. No: 44820/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000403-2013
STATE Versus IMRAN ALI
S/o Sh. Mehboob Ali
R/o C-80/14, Gali No. 2/7,
Matkey Wali Gali, Chauhan Banger,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 366/2009
PS. : Seelampur
U/s. : 326/329/34 IPC &
27 Arms Act
Chargesheet Filed On : 17.09.2013
Date Of Allocation : 20.12.2013
Judgment Reserved On : Not Reserved
Judgment Announced On : 27.07.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present case was registered on the statement of complainant Mohd. Akram who alleged that on 01.10.2009 at about 11:00 pm, when he came to his grandmother's house i.e. E-108, New Seelampur, Delhi, accused Sajid and his friend Imran came there and called the complainant. Accused Imran asked him to give Rs.20,000/- while stating that he was a goon (badmash) of the area. Complainant further alleged that when he declined to give money, Sajid caught his hands and accused Imran took out a pistol from the dub of his pant and he fired a gun shot on his right leg. He further alleged that the bullet pierced through right leg and entered into the left leg. Thereafter both the accused persons fled away from the spot. On the basis of said statement, the case was registered vide FIR No. 366/2009 under Sec. 326/329/34 IPC at PS Seelam Pur. SC No. 44820/15 State v. Imran Ali Page 1 of 4
2. During investigation of the case, both the accused were arrested. After conducting formal proceedings and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against both accused persons to face trial for the alleged offences.
3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sec. 329 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 03.04.2014 of my learned predecessor, charges under Sections 326/34 and 329/34 IPC were framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, accused Imran Ali absconded and he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dt. 23.01.2016.
6. Vide judgment dt. 18.03.2016, co-accused Majid @ Sajid has already been acquitted.
7. On 25.04.2017, accused Imran Ali surrendered before the court. Proceedings u/s. 82 & 83 CrPC were recalled and accused Imran was admitted to bail and proceedings were re-opened.
8. Prosecution, thereafter, recalled and examined PW-6 Mohd. Akram, PW-8 Dr. Anil Kumar and PW-7 Irshad.
9. PW-8 proved MLC of patient Sonu.
10. PW-6 deposed about receiving injuries from gun shot but he did not identify the accused as one of the assailants. He was hostile on the point of identity. He was cross-examined by learned Addl. PP but still he did not change SC No. 44820/15 State v. Imran Ali Page 2 of 4 his stand.
11. PW-7 did not depose anything about the case. PW-7 was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Addl. PP for the State. However, nothing came out in the said cross-examination which could establish the identity of the accused persons. He denied the suggestions of the learned Addl. PP for the State in this regard.
12. It is worth to mention here that in the present case the only material witnesses were PW-6 and PW-7. However, both of them have turned hostile. PW-6 has not supported the prosecution case on the point of identity of accused and PW-7 is totally hostile. It is also to be mentioned that earlier also both of them had not supported prosecution case and therefore co-accused Majid @ Sajid was acquitted.
13. As the only material witnesses of this case have not supported the prosecution case in any manner, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses. The witness who could connect the accused with the offence has not supported the prosecution. This was a major blow to the case of the prosecution. As no purpose was going to be served by examining remaining witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
14. As the material and key witness failed to connect the accused with the crime in question and nothing incriminating has come on record against him, statement under Sec. 313 CrPC was, therefore, dispensed with.
15. With these observations, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. Accordingly, accused Imran Ali is SC No. 44820/15 State v. Imran Ali Page 3 of 4 acquitted of the charges framed against him in this case.
16. Accused is required to furnish bail bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC. The bail bonds already furnished by the accused are accepted for a period of further six months for the purposes of Sec. 437-A CrPC.
17. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 27th day of July 2017 Digitally signed by SANJAY BANSAL SANJAY Location: Karkardooma BANSAL Court Date: 2017.08.02 16:12:40 +0530 (SANJAY BANSAL) Special Judge (NDPS)/ ASJ/NE/KKD/Delhi. SC No. 44820/15 State v. Imran Ali Page 4 of 4