Delhi District Court
State vs Mujakkir @ Alam S/O Mobin on 21 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
FIR No.: 247/2010
PS: Timarpur
U/s: 307/34 IPC
S.C. No.: 77/2011
Case ID No.02401R0392402011
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Mujakkir @ Alam S/o Mobin
R/o Faslabad, Tower wali Gali,
Sikarpur Bus Stand, Buland Shahar, UP.
2. Mubssar @ Bunty S/o Mobin
R/o Faslabad, Tower wali Gali,
Sikarpur Bus Stand, Buland Shahar, UP.
3. Mussabir S/o Mobin
R/o Faslabad, Tower wali Gali,
Sikarpur Bus Stand, Buland Shahar, UP.
Date of receiving in Sessions Court : 27.09.2011
Arguments Heard : 21.11.2011
Date of Judgment : 21.11.2011
FIR No.247/2010 1/4
JUDGEMENT
Case Of Prosecution:
1. On 18.9.2010 on receipt of DD no.16A, SI Devendra alongwith Ct. Hari Mohan reached at the spot i.e. Burari Chowk where he came to know that injured has been taken to LNJP hospital by PCR Van. He reached at LNJP hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Mudassir who was declared fit for statement. SI Devendra recorded his statement and on the basis of his statement, case u/s 307/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, seized the exhibits, blood stained clothes of the injured and made efforts to trace out the accused persons but no clue was found. Further investigation was marked to SI Ranjeet Singh who arrested the accused persons and after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet u/s 307/34 of IPC against accused persons in the court.
2. Since the offence U/s 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, after supply of the documents, Ld. MM committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Charge Against The Accused:
3. Prima facie case u/s 307/34 of IPC was made out against the accused persons. Charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.247/2010 2/4 Witnesses Examined:
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined one witness.
5. PW1 Mudassir is the complainant as well as injured of the case who has not supported the case of the prosecution. CONCLUSION:
6. In the present case, PW1 is the complainant as well as injured of the case. It is on the statement of PW1 that present case was registered against the accused persons but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that accused persons are his real brothers and they have not fired upon him. He has been cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State but nothing material has come out of his cross examination. The other witnesses sought to be examined by the prosecution are either the police officials who were present with the IO during the investigation of the case or the doctors who examined the injured. In such circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served by examining the other witnesses. As such PE is closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, statement of accused is dispensed with. All the accused persons are acquitted of the offence. They are on bail. In view of the new amended section 437A of Cr.P.C., the bail bond already furnished by the accused persons are extended for the period of 6 months with the condition that they shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when such notice is issued in respect of any appeal filed by the State against the judgement within a period of 6 FIR No.247/2010 3/4 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after the expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any. File be consigned to record room.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 21.11.2011. FIR No.247/2010 4/4