Delhi District Court
State vs Sameer Khan @ Banti on 6 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANIMESH KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 529/2018
U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 02.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 15009/2022
2. Name of the Complainant :Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late
Sh. Dalip Kumar, R/o H. No.
158, Gali No. 6, Samadhi
Road, Om Vihar, Phase-5,
New Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 17.06.2018
4. Name of accused person : (1) Sameer Khan @ Banti S/o
Sh. Md. Kasim Khan, R/o H.
No. A-83, Om Vihar Phase V,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
(2) Salman S/o Sh. Md.
Kasim Khan, R/o H. No.
A-83, Om Vihar Phase V,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
(3) Zahir Saifi @ Sonu, S/o
Ayub,
State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 Digitally Page No. 1 of 9 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2023.10.07 16:44:20 +0530 R/o H. No. A-77, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
5. Offence charged : 323/341/506/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty.
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Gaurav Dutt
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Brie y stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint led by Sh. Rajesh Kumar. It was stated by the complainant that on 17.06.2018 at around 10:30 PM, he along with his children was at his home situated at A-158, Gali No. 6, Samadhi Road, Om Vihar Phase-5, New Delhi. At that time, the accused persons namely Salman, Sameer along with some other persons came in front of his house and started calling his sons Akshay and Nikhil. When his sons went outside, the accused persons started ghting them and also abused them. They had hit the son of the complainant with a beer bottle. When the complainant and his wife intervened in the ght in order to save his sons, the accused persons State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, ANIMESH PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 Page No. 2 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:44:28 +0530 fi fl fi fi started beating the complainant also and hit him with beer bottle due to which the complainant had sustained injuries in his left eye.
Thereafter, the complainant made a call at 100 number. After some time, the accused persons again came to the house of the complainant armed with danda, iron rod etc. and again beaten the complainant when he was waiting for the PCR of cials in his gali. They also restrained the complainant and threatened to kill him. In the meanwhile, the PCR van came at the spot. After the arrival of the PCR, the accused persons ed away from the spot.
2.Investigation was conducted and was concluded by filing the charge sheet. Arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was framed against accused persons vide order dt. 11.05.2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
3.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4.As PW1 the complainant Rajesh Kumar deposed that no incident related to beating and criminal intimidation had taken place on the State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 ANIMESH Page No. 3 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:44:37 +0530 fl fi date of incident. He also stated that he did not give any complaint to the police. He further stated that the accused persons present in the Court were not even present at the spot at the time of incident. He also denied giving any statement to anyone regarding the incident
5.PW-2 Akshay and PW-3 Nikhil are the sons of the complainant. They were the other two eye-witnesses and victims of the present incident. In their respective testimonies, they also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by the complainant. They stated that no incident related to the beating and criminal intimidation had taken place on the date of incident. They also stated that the accused persons were not even present at the spot at the time of incident.
6.Since, all the material witnesses cited in the present case turned completely hostile, there being no possibility of establishing guilt of accused persons on the testimony of remaining official witnesses, examination of remaining official witnesses was dispensed with, thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Since, no incriminating material had come on record against the accused persons during testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 qua commission of offence U/S 323/341/506/34 IPC, therefore, recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr. PC was State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 ANIMESH Page No. 4 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:44:45 +0530 dispensed with.
7.Final arguments heard and record perused.
8.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt".
9. It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 ANIMESH Page No. 5 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:44:53 +0530 best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
10.In the instant case, all the eye-witnesses of the occurrence cited by prosecution in the present case have turned completely hostile during their respective examination-in-chief. They were duly cross- examined by Ld. APP wherein they denied all the suggestions. Complainant was also confronted with his complaint Mark A and he denied giving any such statement. All these witnesses denied the suggestions that on 17.06.2018 at about 10:30 PM, the accused persons had started shouting outside their house. They also denied the suggestion that the accused persons had beaten them due to which the complainant sustained injury. They also denied the suggestion that the accused persons had beaten them with beer bottle. They also failed to identify the accused persons even when their attention was drawn to them in the Court. During his examination in chief also, the complainant and other eye-witnesses had nowhere stated that accused persons were present at the spot at the time of incident or they had beaten him.
11.In the present case, from testimony of PWs, it is clear there is no direct evidence to even support the presence of the accused persons State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 ANIMESH Page No. 6 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:45:00 +0530 at the spot of occurrence and there is no electronic evidence of the occurrence which could associate the accused persons from the alleged offence and could establish that the accused persons had beaten the complainant. In absence of any incriminating evidence given by PWs, the prosecution could never hope to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons. The testimony of remaining witnesses even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons, accordingly, examination of remaining official witnesses was accordingly dispensed with. The occurrence of incident accordingly stands not proved by the prosecution.
12.The right to speedy trial is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to FIR dated 13.07.2021, thus, continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ram Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its powers available under criminal procedure code to give effect to the right to speedy trial of the accused. Similar observations were made State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, ANIMESH PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 Page No. 7 of 9 KUMAR Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:45:08 +0530 in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
13.Further, in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration &Anr. 1996 SCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that valuable time of courts should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
14.Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (CRI.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubts where the onus of proving ingredients of the offences is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of the offences, thus, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
15.In view of the above discussion, since, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, thus, the accused persons Sameer Khan @ Banti, Salman and Zahir Saifi @ Sonu are acquitted for offences punishable U/S 323/341/506/34 IPC.
16.The bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused persons at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, ANIMESH PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 KUMAR Page No. 8 of 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:45:15 +0530 discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
17.Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 06th September, 2023. This judgment consists of 9 signed pages.
Digitally signed
ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.10.07 16:45:22 +0530 (ANIMESH KUMAR) Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Sameer Khan & Ors. FIR No. 529/2018, PS Uttam Nagar, Judgment dated 06.10.2023 Page No. 9 of 9