Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Mohd. Shahrukh on 20 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 194/2016
CNR No. DLNE01-004173-2016
STATE Versus (1) MOHD. SHAHRUKH
S/o Abdul Gaffar
R/o H.No. 269, Gali No. 3,
Old Mustafabad, Delhi.
(2) SALMAN
S/o Sirajuddin
R/o H.No. 605, Gali No. 6/5,
Old Mustafabad, Delhi.
(3) ADIL
S/o Shokat Ali
R/o H.No. 587, Gali No. 6,
Old Mustafabad, Delhi.
(4) JAHID @ KALE
S/o Istiyak Ahmad
R/o H.No. 553, Gali No. 8,
D-Block, Dayalpur, Delhi.
(Already acquitted)
FIR No. : 482/2016
PS. : Khajuri Khas
U/s. : 394/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
Chargesheet Filed On : 16.08.2016
Date Of Allocation : 27.10.2016
Judgment Reserved On : 20.12.2018
Judgment Announced On : 20.12.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Complainant Kafil alleges that on 17.06.2016 at about 5:15 pm, when he was present near Shiv Mandir, Gali No. 5, D-Block, Dayal Pur, Delhi, 3 - 4 boys came to him, grappled with him and snatched Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket. SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 1 of 19 Complainant went to his house and came back and demanded back his money upon which all the said boys again quarreled with him and one of them gave chhuri blow on his chest, back and hand and fled away. FIR was registered upon statement of complainant Kafil vide FIR No. 482/16 u/s 394/34 IPC.
2. PCR had taken injured to hospital. During investigation, Sec. 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act were added. On the basis of secret information, accused Mohd. Shahrukh was apprehended and arrested. At his instance, accused Salman was also arrested. Both of them got arrested accused Jahid and Adil. Accused Shahrukh also got recovered one knife. All the accused refused to undergo judicial TIP. On one day, complainant saw all the accused in judicial custody and identified them as the offenders. He told that accused Mohd. Shahrukh was the person who had given chhuri blow to him. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 394/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
3. After compliance of section 207 CrPC, learned ACMM committed the case to Court of Sessions as offence u/s 397 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 16.12.2016, my learned Predecessor framed charges for offences u/s 394 r/w 34 IPC, 397 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC against all the accused; and u/s 25 Arms Act, 1959 against accused Mohd. Shahrukh. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined around 12 witnesses. Complainant Kafil was examined as PW-1 and is the most material SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 2 of 19 witness. He identified all the accused except Jahid.
6. As nothing incriminating had come on record against accused Jahid, his statement u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with vide order dated 24.07.2018 and he was acquitted of the charges framed against him vide order dated 24.07.2018.
7. Statements of accused Mohd. Shahrukh, Salman and Adil were recorded u/s 313 CrPC. Accused persons examined 03 witness in their defence.
8. Evidence led by the parties may now be noted.
MATERIAL / INJURED / EYEWITNESS
9. PW-1 is Kafil. He is complainant / injured. He deposed that he used to sell clothes by hawking (pheri). He deposed that on 17 th of a month in summer in previous year and those were days of Ramzan, at about 5:00 pm, he was coming from Dayal Pur on foot. When he reached near Kuttey Wali Gali, D- Block, Dayal Pur, 5 - 6 boys were sitting there. He stated that accused Jahid was not one of the said boys. Accused Shahrukh, Salman, Adil and their associates had started beating him and taken out Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket. He went to his house which is situated near to the place of incident. He changed his clothes as his clothes were got torn during the incident. He returned to the spot after ½ an hour. Accused Shahrukh, Salman, Adil and their associates were sitting at the spot. He told them that he was a poor person and asked them to return his money. They again started beating him. He stated that accused SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 3 of 19 Shahrukh had attacked him with a chhuri on right side of his chest, right side of back, left side of abdomen and left palm. He deposed that accused Shahrukh, Salman and Adil alongwith their associates had run away from there.
10. He deposed that after gaining his senses, he came to his house and made call at 100 number through his mobile no. 9873889634. PCR van came and took him to GTB Hospital where he was given treatment. SI Kuldeep Singh came to the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. After discharge from the hospital, he pointed out the place of incident to SI Kuldeep Singh.
11. He identified accused Shahrukh, Salman and Adil. He did not identify silver colour knife. The knife is Ex.P-1. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned Prosecutor.
12. In the said cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Jahid @ Kale was also one of the accused persons who had robbed and beaten him. He also denied that knife Ex.P-1 was weapon of offence.
13. In cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it has come that PW-1 did not make any call to 100 number as he thought that he could get his money back by requesting the offenders. He denied that he already knew accused Salman from before. He denied that there was exchange of hot words between him and Salman as well as Shahrukh. He denied that he sustained injuries due to fall on iron grills as he was under influence of liquor. SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 4 of 19 INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
14. PW-9 is ASI Amar Pal. He deposed that on 17.06.2016, he was posted in PCR, North-East District Zone as I/C PCR. On that day, on receipt of information, he alongwith other staff members went to Gali No. 24, Mustafabad where they met the injured Kafil. On inquiry, he told them that 2-3 boys, again said 5-6 boys, robbed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from him. He further told them that those boys also caused injuries to him with knife. Thereafter they took injured Kafil to GTB hospital where he was got admitted.
15. In cross-examination, it was stated that they received PCR call at about 5:30 pm and reached the spot within 5-7 minutes.
16. PW-10 is Ct. Ajay Malik. He deposed that he was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm on 17.06.2016. On receipt of DD No. 70-B by SI Kuldeep Singh, he alongwith SI Kuldeep Singh went to the spot i.e. near Shiv Mandir, Gali No.5, Kutte Wali Gali, D-Block, Dayal Pur, Delhi. From there we came to know that the injured/robbed person was being taken to GTB hospital by the PCR van. Thereafter we went to GTB hospital where SI Kuldeep collected the MLC of the injured Kafil and met him. SI Kuldeep recorded statement of injured Kafil. SI Kuldeep made endorsement on the statement/complaint of Kafil and rukka was prepared by him. Thereafter he alongwith rukka went to the PS and got the case registered there. He returned to the hospital and handed over to SI Kuldeep the copy of FIR, original rukka and dossier file of suspected persons. The dossiers of the said persons were shown to the complainant in the hospital. SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 5 of 19 In the hospital, doctor had handed over to the IO, one sealed parcel and a sample seal which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW10/A.
17. PW-11 is Ct. Ravit. He deposed that on 18.06.2016, he alongwith IO/SI Kuldeep, Ct. Nishu and Ct. Satender went to Kutte Wali Gali, Dayal Pur for investigation of this case. There a secret information was received by the IO that one person namely Shahrukh who was involved in the present case and he was present in Gali No.3, Mustafabad. The informer further informed that Shahrukh could be apprehended if raid was conducted. IO informed to the SHO about the secret information on mobile phone. Thereafter IO constituted a raiding party and some passersby were requested by the IO to join the proceedings after telling them about the secret information. However, none joined the raiding party due to their personal reasons and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses.
18. He deposed that thereafter they raided the place of secret information and from a distance, the secret informer pointed out towards a person stating that he was Mohd. Shahrukh. When they tried to apprehend Mohd. Shahrukh, he tried to flee from the spot but they overpowered him. On inquiry, the said person told his name as Mohd. Shahrukh. Accused Mohd. Shahrukh was interrogated by the IO and after interrogation, accused Mohd. Shahrukh was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW11/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/B. Accused Mohd. Shahrukh also made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/C. He disclosed that he alongwith his SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 6 of 19 associates namely Salman, Jahid and Adil committed the offence and robbed from him a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. At that time, accused Mohd. Shahrukh had given knife blow to the person who was robbed. He further disclosed that when fleeing from the spot, he had thrown the knife in a pit and he can get the same recovered. The money was being distributed amongst them. He had spent his share of Rs. 1500/- as booty. He further disclosed that he could get his associates arrested.
19. He deposed that accused Shahrukh led them to Gali No. 6/5, Mustafabad and from the gali, he pointed out towards a person stating that he was Salman. Salman was apprehended by the IO. Accused Salman was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW11/D. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/E.
20. He deposed that thereafter both accused Salman and Mohd. Shahrukh led them to Gali No.8, D-Block, Dayal Pur. From the said gali, accused Jahid was apprehended on the pointing of accused Salman and Mohd. Shahrukh. Accused Jahid was also interrogated and after interrogation, accused Jahid was arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/F. His personal search was also got conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/G.
21. He deposed that thereafter all the three accused persons led them to Gali No. 6, Mustafabad, and from the gali, accused Adil was apprehended at the instance of all the three accused persons. Accused Adil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/H. His personal search was also conducted vide memo SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 7 of 19 Ex.PW11/J. All the four accused persons led them to the place of incident and at their instance, IO/SI Kuldeep Singh prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW11/K. Thereafter all the four accused persons led them to the aforesaid dig and from there they got recovered one knife. There was no specific identification mark on the knife but it was buttondar knife. The measurements of the knife was done by the IO. The total length of the knife was 24 cm, the blade was 10.5 cm and the width of the knife was 2.7 cm. The sketch of knife was prepared by the IO which is Ex.PW11/L. The recovered knife was kept in a parcel and it was sealed with the seal of KS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW11/M. Thereafter the disclosure statements of remaining accused i.e. Mohd. Salman, Jahid and Adil were recorded which are Ex.PW11/N, Ex.PW11/O and Ex.PW11/P respectively. He identified accused Jahid. He identified the knife as the same knife which was got recovered by all the accused persons from a pit, as Ex.P-1.
22. In cross-examination, he denied that no knife was recovered at instance of accused Shahrukh.
23. PW-12 is SI Kuldeep Singh. He deposed that on 17.06.2016, on receipt of DD No. 70B, he alongwith Ct. Ajay Malik (PW-10) had reached near Shiv Mandir, Gali No. 5, known as Kutte Wali Gali, D-Block, Dayalpur, Delhi where he came to know that injured had been removed to GTB hospital by the PCR van. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ajay reached GTB hospital and he had collected MLC of injured namely Kafil S/o Wakil. He made inquiries from Kafil SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 8 of 19 and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He made rukka on the same which is Ex.PW12/A and gave the rukka to Ct. Ajay and sent him to police station for registration of FIR. Thereafter, in the hospital, the doctor had given him sealed pullanda of clothes of injured Kafil alongwith the sample seal which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. Thereafter, Ct. Ajay had come in the hospital and given him copy of FIR alongwith original rukka. He mentioned FIR number on the seizure memo of the pullanda of clothes on injured. Thereafter, Sec. 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act were added in the present FIR.
24. He deposed that on the next day i.e. on 18.06.2016 at about 5:30 pm, he alongwith Ct. Ravit (PW-11), Ct. Nishu and Ct. Satender left the police station in search of the suspects. When they reached near the spot, one secret informer met them who told them that the incident of robbery of this case was committed by one Shahrukh and his associates who resided in Gali No. 3, Mustafabad. He informed about the secret information to the SHO who directed him to organize the raiding party and to effect the arrest. Thereafter, they reached near Gali No. 3, Old Mustafabad where he made efforts to join 4-5 passersby in the proceeding but they went away without disclosing their names and addresses. After that they had entered into the gali and on seeing a boy who was standing in the gali, the secret informer pointed out towards him as Shahrukh. Shahrukh was apprehended by them. After interrogation, accused Shahrukh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/B. He deposed that thereafter, at the pointing out accused Shahrukh, accused Salman was arrested from Gali No. 6/5, SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 9 of 19 Old Mustafabad vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/D. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/E. After that on the pointing out of accused Shahrukh and Salman, accused Zahid was arrested by him from D-Block, Dayalpur vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/F. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/G. After that they reached in Gali No. 6, Old Mustafabad, from where at the pointing out of accused Salman and Shahrukh, accused Adil was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/H. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/J. He deposed that after arrest, all the four accused persons had taken them to the spot where they pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW11/K. Thereafter accused Shahrukh had got recovered one knife from near the spot. He had measured the knife. The total length of the knife was 24 cm. Length of the blade was 10.5 cm. The knife was having one button for closing and opening the same. The knife was made of silver like metal. He had prepared pullanda of the knife and after sealing the same with the seal of KS, he had taken the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/M. Prior to preparing pullanda, he had also prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW11/L. He had also recorded disclosure statements of all the four accused persons. The disclosure statements of accused Shahrukh, Salman, Zahid and Adil are Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/N, Ex.PW11/O and Ex.PW11/P.
25. He deposed that on the next day, all the four accused were produced before the court of learned MM. He had moved application for TIP of all the accused persons vide application Ex.PW12/B. All the accused persons had refused for TIP proceedings and they were sent to JC. He deposed that on SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 10 of 19 21.06.2016, he had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the pointing of complainant and recorded his supplementary statement.
26. He deposed that on 02.07.2016, complainant Kafil had come to the court and when the accused persons were being taken for extension of JC by W/SI Khushbu, at that time, complainant had identified all the accused persons. After that when complainant and SI Khushbu had come to him at the police station after extension of JC period, he had recorded supplementary statement of complainant and statement of SI Khushbu. After completing the investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet u/s. 394/397/34 IPC and filed the same before the concerned court. He had also placed on record PCR form, notification of Delhi Administration regarding knife. He identified all the four accused. He also identified the knife as the same knife which was seized by him as Ex.P-1.
27. Site plan prepared by PW-12 at instance of complainant is Ex.PW12/C.
28. He was generally cross-examined about his investigation. He denied that he had falsely implicated the accused persons. He denied that knife was planted upon accused Shahrukh.
MEDICAL / EXPERT WITNESSES
29. PW-7 is Dr. Ankita. She had medically examined patient Kafil. After examination, the patient was referred to surgery department for further management and treatment. She prepared MLC Ex.PW7/A. She collected Kurta SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 11 of 19 of patient and sealed and handed over the same to the police.
30. PW-8 is Dr. Imran Abdulla Khan. He deposed that on 09.07.2016, after going through the medical record of patient Kafil, he opined the injury on patient Kafil as simple. His opinion on MLC Ex.PW7/A is Ex.PW8/A. FORMAL WITNESSES
31. PW-2 is W/SI Khushboo. She deposed that on 02.07.2016, complainant had come to the court and identified all the accused persons as the offenders who had robbed Rs. 5,000/- from him on 17.06.2016. He also identified accused Shahrukh as the person who caused injuries to him with a knife. She identified all the accused.
32. PW-3 is W/Ct. Babita Yadav. She deposed that on 17.06.2016, she was posted as Channel Operator in CPCR, PHQ, New Delhi. On that day, on the basis of information received through phone, she passed the said information to dispatcher. The call was that 'jhagde me injured hai'. The PCR form Ex.PW3/A regarding this case was filled up.
33. PW-4 is ASI Rajesh. He was Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight of 17.06.2016. He deposed about receiving of rukka and getting recorded of FIR through computer operator at about 7:45 pm I.e FIR No. 482/16 u/s 394/34 IPC. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW4/A. He also made kayami DD No. 21-A and its endorsement Ex.PW4/B on the rukka. He also proved certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/C. SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 12 of 19
34. PW-5 is Israr Babu, Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He deposed that as per record, mobile no. 9873889634 was allotted in the name of Abdul S/o Abdulla. Copy of Customer Application Form (CAF) alongwith Voter ID card is Ex.PW5/A (colly.). He also produced Call Detail Record (CDR) of the said number for 17.06.2016 which is Ex.PW5/B. Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW5/C and Cell ID Chart of Vodafone for Delhi and NCR is Ex.PW5/D.
35. PW-6 is Ct. Hawa Singh. He was DD Writer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight of 17.06.2016. He deposed that on that day at about 5:45 pm, on the basis of information given by Duty Officer, he recorded DD No. 70-B dated 17.06.2016. Attested copy of the same is Ex.PW6/A. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
36. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused Mohd. Shahrukh, Salman and Adil were put to them as required u/s 313 CrPC. Accused persons stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated.
37. Each of the three accused examined one defence witness each. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
38. DW-1 Amir is elder brother of accused Mohd. Shahrukh. He deposed that Sharukh was working with him in his factory at Karawal Nagar. His SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 13 of 19 working hours were from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. He deposed that on 17.06.2016, Shahrukh was working in his factory at the time of alleged offence. On 18.06.2016, police officials had taken away his father. Thereafter, they received phone call from police who asked to produce Shahrukh before them. His father also talked to him and asked him to produce Shahrukh to police station as his father was detained by the police. On 18.06.2016 between 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, he took his brother Shahrukh to police station. Police officials detained Shahrukh and released his father. He deposed that his brother had been falsely implicated in the present case.
39. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not made any complaint against police officials for detaining his father.
40. DW-2 Mehraj is elder brother of accused Salman. He deposed that he was doing work of welding. Salman also worked with him. They had a shop at Karawal Nagar. He deposed that 3 - 4 days prior to 18.06.2016, complainant Kafil had come to their shop to get some welding work done. As he was not at the shop, Salman had done the welding work. There was some dispute between complainant and Salman regarding payment of Rs. 50/- regarding the welding work. He deposed that when he returned, he resolved the matter. Complainant Kafil did not give any money and threatened Salman to teach him a lesson. Later on Kafil implicated salman in this case.
41. In cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he had not made any complaint against complainant for non-payment.
SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 14 of 19
42. DW-3 Shokat Ali is father of accused Adil. He deposed that he was junk dealer. His son Adil used to help him in his work. He deposed that on 18th of a month in 2016, when he came from work alongwith Adil at about 8:00/9:00 pm, he came to know that police had taken away his sons Shakeel and Alam and asked them to produce Adil before them. He had taken Adil with him to PS Khajuri Khas. Police detained Adil and released other sons Shakeel and Alam.
43. In cross-examination, he also stated that he had not made any complaint against police officials.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
44. I have heard Sh. D.K. Singh, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sandeep Srivastava, learned Counsel for accused Shahrukh, Sh. I.K. Khare, learned Counsel for the accused Salman and Sh. V.K. Asthana, learned Counsel for accused Adil.
45. Learned Addl. PP argued that evidence of PW-1 Kafil who is the injured is sufficient to prove the charges. He contended that evidence of PW-1 should be believed as his evidence is of an injured witness. However, he fairly conceded that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against accused Jahid.
46. On the other hand, learned Counsels for the accused persons vehemently submitted that evidence of PW-1 is not reliable. They pointed out various contradictions in his testimony. They argued that PW-1 does not deserve SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 15 of 19 any creditworthiness. They pointed out that PW-1 did not identify accused Jahid or the knife Ex.P-1 which shows that his version is full of doubts. They prayed for acquittal.
47. I have considered the submissions.
FINDINGS
48. The prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offences. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
a). Whether incident as alleged by PW-1 ever took place?
b). Whether any of the accused was involved in the incident?
49. Both the points for determination are taken up together.
50. The evidence of an injured witness commands greater respect and weightage under the law. In several decisions, such as Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6SCC 673; and Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the value of an injured witness and has observed:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 16 of 19 and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".
51. As per MLC Ex.PW7/A, PW-1 received following injuries:
a) Incised wound on back lower right chest posteriorly 3 x 1 cm approx.
b) Incised wound on anterior right chest medial to nipple 4 x 1 cm approx.
c) Incised wound on left iliac crest 2 x 0.5 cm approx.
52. As per opinion Ex.PW8/A, said injuries have been opined to be simple in nature.
53. It is peculiar to note that the incident occurred in two parts. After the first part of the incident of robbery, PW-1 had gone back to his house. He says that he changed his clothes and came back to the spot and found the offenders present there even then. In the second part of the incident, he requested the offenders to return his money but accused persons again quarreled with him and one of them namely accused Mohd. Shahrukh caused injuries to him with chhuri.
54. The story propounded by PW-1 does not appear to be SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 17 of 19 believeworthy. It consists of highly unnatural conduct. After the first part of incident of robbery, PW-1 went back to his house to change his clothes. This is highly unnatural conduct. He did not make call to police at 100 number which is again an instance of unnatural conduct. PW-1 says that when he came back, all the offenders were still present at the spot. This again is highly doubtful. Offenders after committing robbery would not stay at the same place.
55. Even after second part of incident i.e. causing of injuries with chhuri, PW-1 again came back to his house and thereafter only he made call to 100 number. This conduct is also inexplicable. Why he did not make call from the spot after first part of incident or second part of incident has remained a mystery.
56. To make matters worse for the prosecution, PW-1 did not identify one of the accused i.e. Jahid. Case of the prosecution from the beginning was that accused Jahid alongwith other three accused had committed the offence against complainant. However, complainant himself demolished the said story by not identifying accused Jahid, that too, contrary to his supplementary statement dated 02.07.2016 u/s 161 CrPC.
57. Further, PW-1 did not identify knife Ex.P-1 as the weapon of offence. Prosecution was claiming that this knife was used in causing injuries to PW-1 and it was got recovered at instance of accused Mohd. Shahrukh. This has rendered knife as useless object. The recovery of the knife itself has become doubtful.
SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 18 of 19
58. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances is that the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. There will always remain doubt about the prosecution case. Evidence of PW-1 suffers from infirmities, contradictions and discrepancies which go to the root of the matter and seriously affect credibility of the witness. All the three accused deserve benefit of doubt.
59. In view of the above, all the accused persons are hereby acquitted of all the charges. Accused persons are required to furnish bail bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC.
60. Case property is confiscated. It be destroyed as per rules.
61. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court Digitally signed by
on 20th day of December, 2018. SANJAY SANJAY BANSAL
Location:
BANSAL Karkardooma Court
Date: 2018.12.20
15:29:35 +0530
(Sanjay Bansal)
Special Judge (NDPS) / ASJ /
NE / KKD Courts / Delhi.
SC No. 194/16 State Vs. Mohd. Shahrukh & Ors. Page 19 of 19