Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Md Sharjil Talib on 28 February, 2023

         IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­03
               (SOUTH­EAST), DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
                             Presided by: Ms.Akanksha Garg

Cr CASES No.178/2017
STATE Vs. MD SHARJIL TALIB
FIR No.422 /2016
Police Station : Hazrat Nizamuddin
Under Section : 279 IPC


Date of institution             : 07.01.2017
Date of reserving               :04.02.2023
Date of pronouncement: : 28.02.2023
                                       JUDGMENT

 a)      Cr Cases Number                         : 178/2017

 b)      Date of commission of                   : 25.07.2016
         offence

 c)      Name of the complainant                 : Anurag Kumar

 d)      Name, parentage and                     :      Md. Sharjil Talib
         address of the accused                       S/o Sh.Naiem Ahmad
                                                      R/o H.No. B­32, Police colony,
                                                      New Friend colony, New Delhi

 e)      Offence complained of                   : 279 IPC

 f)      Plea of the accused                     : Accused pleaded not guilty

 g)      Final order                             : Acquitted

 h)      Date of final order                     : 28.02.2023



State v. Md. Sharjil Talib     FIR No.422/2016       P.S.: H.N.Din            Page 1 of 5

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgment, the accused namely Mohd. Sharjil Talib is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in the instant case, Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin for the reasons mentioned below.

CASE OF PROSECUTION

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.07.2016 at about 9.00PM at 178, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din, accused driving a care bearing no. DL­3CBF­4307 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit car bearing no. DL­9CU­1819 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.

CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED

3. Vide order dated 02.05.2017, charge for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

4. The complainant is eyewitnesses/ star witness of the incident. However, summons issued to him were received back with the report that he was not traceable. The said witness has remained untraceable, despite several sufficient opportunities afforded to the prosecution. He was even summoned through IO/SHO and DCP­South East, but it also yielded no fruitful results. The remaining witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses, who State v. Md. Sharjil Talib FIR No.422/2016 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 2 of 5 are admittedly not the eye­witness to the incident and thus, their testimonies were not likely to substantiate the culpability of the accused. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examination of the said witnesses. Hence, PE was closed.

5. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide detailed order of even date. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

6. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of Ld. APP and learned counsel for the accused, have been heard and considered. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and prosecution has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Perusal of record reveals that the only material against the accused is his disclosure statement. The complainant who was the star witness of the prosecution and could have identified the accused has failed to depose about the facts of the case as the prosecution failed to secure his presence before this court as he remained unserved through the DCP concerned. This court is of the opinion that prosecution shall stand on its own leg and merely by raising the presumption, the case of the prosecution can not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Therefore, no admissible incriminating evidence against the accused in respect of the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC has come on record. Hence, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. Support is drawn from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr."(1996 JCC 507), wherein it has been held that:

"When 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 procedures to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."

9. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused and the case property is of utmost importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless the identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the facts of the given case, the identity of the accused could only be established by the complainant who was the only eye­witness to the alleged incident. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature and the identity cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.

10. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:­ "6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof."

11. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court on 28.02.2023                                        Digitally signed by
                                                       AKANKSHA              AKANKSHA GARG
                                                       GARG                  Date: 2023.02.27
                                                                             16:59:20 +0530
                                                    (AKANKSHA GARG)

Metropolitan Magistrate­03 (South­East), Saket Courts, New Delhi State v. Md. Sharjil Talib FIR No.422/2016 P.S.: H.N.Din Page 5 of 5