Delhi District Court
State vs . Mustafa @ Vicky on 11 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 160/2010
P.S. Defence Colony
U/s 324/34 IPC
State Vs. Mustafa @ Vicky
JUDGMENT :
a. Sl. No. of the case : 73/1
b. Date of Institution : 27.05.2011
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 05.12.2010
d. Name of the complainant : Harsh Kumar
S/o Trilok Chand
e. Name of the accused and his : Mustafa @ Vicky
parentage and address S/o Noor Jamal
r/o H.no. Jhuggi No.22,
Nizam Nagar Basti, H.N.
Din, New Delhi
f. Offence complained of : U/s 324/34 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 11.04.2013
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 11.04.2013
1. Accused in this case was sent up for trial for the commission of
offence U/s 324/34 IPC.
FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 1 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY
2. The facts in brief are that on 05.12.2010, complainant namely Harsh Kumar along with his two friends namely Balvir Singh and Varun Singhal were present at Defence Colony Market, under fly over for the purpose of purchasing meal after parking their motorcycles near Railway line and left Balbir Singh to look after their motorcycles. At around 9.40 p.m., when the complainant along with his friend Varun Singhal was coming back to their motorcycles, in the meanwhile accused Mustafa @Vicky along with his associates namely Mamoon(since PO) came there and started beating both of them. On seeing this, Balbir also came there and he was also beaten by the accused persons. Public persons also gathered at the spot and apprehended the accused persons. Somebody called the police and police reached the spot. The injured persons were removed to the hospital. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of complainant Harsh Kumar, the present case FIR no. was registered in PS Defence Colony. During the investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented before the court for trial.
3. As a prima facie case was made out against the accused, charge was framed against the accused on 24.11.2002, U/s.324/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses namely Harsh Kumar as PW1, Subhash Haldar as PW2, FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 2 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY Balbir Singh as PW3 and Varun Singhal as PW4.
5. PW1 Harsh Kumar has testified that he did not remember the exact date however in the month of November 2011, at about 10/10.30 in the night, after getting the dinner packed from Babban Chicken Corner, he was going towards his house along with his friends namely Varun and Balbir Singh. They were coming on their own respective motorcycles. PW1 further testified that the moment they sat on their motorcycle to go towards their house, certain anti social elements stopped them and started slapping them and also snatched the money which was lying in his purse. PW1 further testified that he was also hit with a sharp edge weapon on back portion of his neck as a result he started bleeding. On hearing their hue and cry, public persons gathered at the spot and they saved them. PW1 further testified that the persons who gave injury to them, were caught by the public persons. Somebody called the police and police reached the spot and those persons were handed over to the police. PW1 further testified that police recorded his statement and he was removed to Trauma center and got medically examined. PW1 further testified that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP as he was resiling from his statement given earlier to the police. In his cross examination, PW1 has testified that he did not remember whether the date of incident was 05.12.2010. PW1 has denied the suggestion to this effect that the accused present in the court had injured him. PW1 has further denied FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 3 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY the suggestion to this effect that statement Mark A was true account of the incident given by him to the police. PW1 has further testified that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers and he never gave such statement to the police.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW1.
6. PW2 Subhash Haldar has testified that during the year 2010, police repeatedly visited his house and asked for one Mamoon s/o Abdul Hasan however he told the police that he never knew anyone by the name of Mamoon. PW2 further testified that he did not know why he had been summoned by the court and he did not know anything about the incident/quarrel dated 05.12.2010.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW2 also.
7. PW3 Balbir Singh has testified that on 05.12.2010, he along with his two friends namely Harsh Kumar and Varun Singhal were going to Defence Colony market by two motorcycles. At about 9.30 p.m when they reached under the flyover, Defence Colony Market, they parked their motorcycle at the railway line and he stood near the motorcycle. His friends namely Harsh Kumar and Varun Singla went to nearby restaurant to take some food. PW3 further testified that when they were coming back, he saw that two persons were quarreling with them and also beating them. PW1 further testified that he also reached there and tried to pacify the matter but both the said persons also gave beatings to him by an iron rod. PW3 further testified that public persons also FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 4 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY gathered at the spot and apprehended both the persons PW3 further testified that he could not identify the said persons who gave beating to them as long time has lapsed since the incident. In the meanwhile, police reached the spot and took the accused persons with them. PW3 further testified that he along with his friends went to AIIMS trauma center for medical treatment and police recorded his statement in the hospital.
PW3 was cross examined by Ld. APP on the point of identification of accused persons. In his cross examination, PW3 has testified that he did not remember whether the accused present in the court was present at the time of incident and gave beatings to them along with his associate. PW3 further testified that he did not remember whether the name of the accused persons were asked in his presence. Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW3.
8. PW4 Varun Singhal has also deposed the same facts as deposed by PW3.
PW4 was also cross examined by Ld. APP on the point of identification of accused persons. In his cross examination also, PW4 has testified that he did not remember whether the accused present in the court was present at the time of incident and gave beatings to them along with his associate.
Accused did not prefer to cross examine PW4 also.
9. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 5 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY recorded U/s 281 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 r/w 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, accused denied to have committed the offence and claimed to has been falsely implicated in this case. He further denied to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused and also perused the relevant law.
11. The charge against the accused person is that he along with his associate(since PO) caused simple injury to the complainant and his friends. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the testimony of PW1, PW3 and PW4 becomes most important to establish the charge since they are the victim of the offence. However, even an bare perusal of their statement before the court would show that their testimony does not inspire confidence. They all have failed to support the prosecution version. PW1 who is the complainant in this case, was cross examined by Ld. APP as he had resiled from his statement given earlier to the police. In his testimony, PW1 has denied the suggestion to this effect that the accused present in the court had injured him. He further denied the suggestion to this effect that the statement Mark A was given by him to the police. PW1 further testified that he never gave such a statement to the police. He has further testified that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers.
12. PW3 and PW4 were also cross examined by Ld. APP on the point of FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 6 OF PAGE 7 PS DEFENCE COLONY identification of accused. In their testimony, both PW3 and PW4 failed to identify the accused who along with his associate had inflicted injury upon them. PW3 and PW4 both have testified that they did not remember whether the accused was present at the time of incident and gave beatings to them along with his associate.
13. In the result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Mustafa @ Vicky is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 324/34 IPC for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court (DEEPAK SHERAWAT)
On 11.04.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate
South East/New Delhi
FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 7 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY
FIR No. 160/2010
PS Defence Colony
u/s 324/34 IPC
11.04.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Mustafa @ Vicky produced from J/C with counsel. Accused Mamoon is PO.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court, accused Mustafa @ Vicky is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 324/34 IPC for which he stands charged.
At this stage, accused Mustafa @ Vicky states that he belongs to a very poor family and is not in a position to furnish surety bond hence he be released on personal bond. Heard. Request allowed.
Accused Mustafa @ Vicky is released on furnishing fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/. Personal bond furnished. As per section 437A of the Cr.P.C, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused shall remain bound by the personal for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room with the liberty to the prosecution to revive the case file as and when accused Mamoon will be apprehended or produced before the court.
(Deepak Sherawat)
MM/South Delhi/ 11.04.2013
FIR NO. 160/2010 PAGE 8 OF PAGE 7
PS DEFENCE COLONY