Delhi District Court
State vs Junaid Khan on 23 September, 2024
THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ RAI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1. FIR No. 71/2017, PS Bhajanpura
2.Unique Case no. 2170/2017
3.Title State Vs. Junaid Khan and Ors.
3(A).Name of complainant Paras Choudhary
S/o Sh. Neh Pal Singh
R/o V-605/A, Gali no. 14, Vijay Park,
Maujpur, NE, Delhi.
3(B).Name of accused 1) Junaid Khan
S/o Sh. Jahid Khan
R/o H. No. V-201, Gali no. 22, Vijay
Park, Maujpur, Delhi
2) Maajid @ K.K.
S/o Sh. Rashid
R/o H. No. 156, Gali no. 12,
Kardampuri Extension, Delhi,
3) Ashraf @ Ashfaq
S/o Sh. Arshad
R/o H. no. V-700/16, Gali no. 21, V
Block, Vijay Park, Delhi
4) Shahid Khan
S/o Sh. Kallu Khan
R/o H. No. V-342, Gali no. 23, Vijay
Park, Delhi
4.Date of institution of challan 06.09.2017
5.Date of Reserving judgment 23.09.2024
6.Date of pronouncement 23.09.2024
7.Date of commission of offence 17.02.2017
8.Offence complained of U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
State Vs. Junaid Khan and ors. Page 1 of 4 FIR No. : 71/2017
9.Offence charged with U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
11.Final order All accused stand acquitted under
Section 323/341/506/34 IPC
12. Date of receiving of judicial 06.09.2017
file in this court
JUDGMENT
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint of the complainant Paras Choudhary, alleging that on 17.02.2017 at about 06.40 p.m. at Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Vijay Park, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bhajanpura, all accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongly restrained complainant Sh. Paras Choudhary and caused simple injury to his person and you all criminally intimidated complainant Sh. Paras Choudhary extended threat to his life. Hence, on the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 71/2017, PS Bhajanpura U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
2. On 06.09.2017, cognizance was taken and accused persons were supplied the chargesheet. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 22.08.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution had named total 10 witnesses in the charge sheet. Complainant/injured Paras Choudhary and eye witness Gaurav were to be examined as PW1 and PW 2. But State was unable to secure their presence despite ample opportunities. PW 1 was dropped as a witness on 19.07.2023.
State Vs. Junaid Khan and ors. Page 2 of 4 FIR No. : 71/2017 PW 2 Gaurav was absent despite execution of B/Ws against him for the reasons best known to him. Accordingly, he was dropped as a witness on 23.09.2024 by the Court. In the absence of the testimony of the complainant, there is no material on record to establish the identity of the accused persons as well as any material to link the accused persons with the incident. In the absence of the testimony of the complainant, the original complaint remains unproved. Further, in the absence of testimony of complainant and eye witness, the version of the prosecution cannot be proved since they are the only witnesses of the incident and they could have deposed regarding the incident. Identity of accused as well as ingredients of offence also remain unproved. There is no other witness or material on record to link the accused person with the incident on 17.02.2017. Therefore no purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses who was prely formal in nature when the complainant/injured Paras Choudhary and Gaurav who are the eye witnesses have not shown any interest to appear in person in court and to pursue the case. Thus there are important missing links in the chain of circumstances which create holes in the prosecution story.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and others 1996 JCC 507 had held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date".
5. Considering the same, the prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order of even date. The recording of statement of the accused person under Sec. 313 CrPC was dispensed with for want of incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
State Vs. Junaid Khan and ors. Page 3 of 4 FIR No. : 71/2017
6. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that the accused persons are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. It is further rule of Evidence in Criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the story of the prosecution cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of testimony of complainant and eye witness.
7. Hence, in view of the above, both accused namely, Junaid Khan, Maajid @ K. K, Ashraf @ Ashfaq, and Shahid Khan stand acquitted for the offence U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC as the State fails to establish the identity of all accused persons and the incident. Surety of all accused, if any, stand discharged. Original documents of all accused be released to the rightful person after due acknowledgment. Superdarinama, if any, stands cancelled. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ Date:
RAI RAI 2024.09.23 14:58:39 +0530 Announced in the (PANKAJ RAI) Open Court on 23.09.2024 JMFC-01, North East KKD Courts, Delhi State Vs. Junaid Khan and ors. Page 4 of 4 FIR No. : 71/2017