Delhi District Court
State vs . Sher Khan on 18 December, 2014
State vs. Sher Khan
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Sher Khan
FIR No. 139/11
U/sec. 324 IPC
PS: Gandhi Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 05.09.2011
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 18.12.2014
Unique I. D. No. 02402R0268162011
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 129/11
b) Date of commission of the offence : 27.05.2011
c) Name of the complainant : Ali Hasan
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Sher Khan,
S/o Mohd. Salim,
R/o H. No. 2815/2, Gali No. 12,
Chander Puri, Kailash Nagar,
Delhi
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 324 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order :18.12.2014
FIR No. 139/11 Page No. 1 of 5
State vs. Sher Khan
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.05.2011 at about 09:00 pm at place Mark "A" in the site plan, the complainant Ali Hasan and the accused Sher Khan were enjoying drinks together. Accused Sher Khan asked him to take two more pegs of liquor but when the complainant Alin Hasan refused, he took out a razor (ustra) from his pocket and hit him on his left cheek and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant made a telephone call at number 100 and PCR Van came and took the injured to SDN Hospital. A DD entry No. 33-A was recorded with regard to the aforesaid incident by the police of PS Gandhi Nagar. The same was marked to HC Kunwar Pal for investigation, who immediately reached the place of occurrence, where he came to know that the injured has been removed to SDN Hospital. Thereafter, he reached the Hospital, obtained the MLC and recorded the statement of complainant/injured Ali Hasan, wherein he narrated the incident in the manner above mentioned. On the basis of his statement, FIR bearing No. 139 under sections 324 IPC was registered. Accused was arrested and subsequently, released on bail on his executing bail bonds.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court. Consequently, the accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
Thereafter, the charge under section 324 of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined FIR No. 139/11 Page No. 2 of 5 State vs. Sher Khan only two witnesses including the complainant/injured Ali Hasan. PW1/Dr. Mohammad Yunus has proved the MLC/Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that the patient had consumed alcohol.
PW2/Ali Hasan is the complainant/injured who set the criminal law into motion. He during his examination-in-chief, inter-alia, has stated that on the day in question he was drunk and at about 11:00 pm -11:15 pm when he was returning home after purchasing milk, he was attacked by un-known persons with ustra. Since this witness had resiled from his previous statement given to the Investigating Officer, he was cross-examined by the ld. APP for the State with the permission of the court and confronted him with his statement Ex. PW2/A purportedly given to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused was not the person who committed the offence. As the sole eye witness to the incident has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution that it was accused who caused injuries to him, PE was closed by the order of the court and the request of the ld. APP for the State to examine remaining witnesses was declined as no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses who are formal in nature. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that "...In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
FIR No. 139/11 Page No. 3 of 5State vs. Sher Khan Thereafter, statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded to afford him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
I have heard the ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Dinesh Yaduvanshi and ld. APP for the State and have also perused the records very carefully. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution is under legal obligation, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution can succeed only on discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused. Strongest of suspicion, does not constitute the proof required. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in cateena of judgments by the superior courts, now let us see, as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Sole contention of the ld. Defence counsel is that the complainant PW2/Ali Hasan did not identify the accused in Court as his assailant and that being so, the accused is entitled to be acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. The entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of the complainant/injured PW2 Ali Hasan. There is no other eye witness to the incident. First informant Ali Hasan during his examination-in-chief feigned complete ignorance as to who were the perpetrators. He stated that he was drunk at the time of incident and therefore, FIR No. 139/11 Page No. 4 of 5 State vs. Sher Khan he could not identify anyone. He was specific to depose that the accused present in the court was not the assailant. He was cross-examined by ld. APP with the leave of the court, however, nothing material could be elicited to ascertain the identity of the assailants. He denied the suggestion that the accused had assaulted him with an ustra. He denied all the suggestions given by the prosecution. The witness, during his cross examination conducted by ld. APP for the State, stuck to his hostile stand which he had taken in his examination in chief to complete disadvantage of the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of the assailants who inflicted injures on PW2/Ali Hasan. Keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused and accordingly, the accused Sher Khan is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Bail bond under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 furnished. Perused and accepted for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 18th day of December, 2014 (Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 18.12.2014 This judgment contains 05 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-01/East/KKD Courts/Delhi 18.12.2014 FIR No. 139/11 Page No. 5 of 5