Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/4653/2019 on 21 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Md Khalid
FIR NO. : 448/2019
P.S. : Sultanpuri
R-NO. : 4653/19
Date of commission of offence : 30-04-2019
Name of Informant/complainant : Ahsan Ali
Name of accused : Mohd. Khalid
Offence/s complained of : s. 323/341 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 323/341 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 323/341 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 21-03-2022
Date of pronouncement : 21-03-2022
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP Sh. Pankaj Yadav
For the Defence : Sh. Prem Prakash
Present : Pritu Raj
M.M.- 01,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State v. Md Khalid R. No. 4653/19 Page 1
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Rozi is facing trial for offences u/s s. 323/341 IPC.
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that on 30-04-2019, at around 08:00 pm, the accused person namely Mohd. Khalid stopped the informant and started quarrelling with him over an alleged incident of quarrel between the kids of the informant and the accused in a madrasa. During the quarrel, the accused assaulted the informant and caused simple injuries to him.
3. On the written application of the informant, Sultanpuri P.S. registered in relation to the above incident as FIR no. 448/19 on 30-04-2019 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 14-08-2019 against the aforementioned accused persons s. 323/341 IPC. Cognisance was taken vide. order dated 28-09-2019.
4. Charges s. 323/341 IPC IPC were framed and read over to the accused, in Hindi, on 06-09-2021 to which he denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, examined the informant in support of its case.
6. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 21-03-2022 in light of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration and since nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused persons, SA was dispensed with. Final arguments were heard on behalf State v. Md Khalid R. No. 4653/19 Page 2 of both sides on 21-03-2022 and the matter was fixed for judgement vide. order dated 21-03-2022.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. The primary issue to be decided in the present case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove it!s case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. In the present case, perusal of the list of witnesses arrayed by the prosecution in the list of witnesses shows that the same contains the informant as the star witnesses. Perusal of the testimony of the said witness shows that he has failed to identify the accused when called upon to do so in Court. He has categorically stated that he does not remember anything the present case. Upon being so asked by Ld. APP for the State, he has failed to identify the accused in Court.
9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the primary burden in order to bring home the guilt of the accused I.e. the identity. Regardless of other evidence adduced pointing to ample proof of an offence being committed, incase the identity of the accused remains unproven, the same would be fatal for the case of the State v. Md Khalid R. No. 4653/19 Page 1 prosecution. Notwithstanding the fact that the commission of offence is proved, the identity of the accused assumes importance. It is only when the occurrence is attributed to an individual and proved to the satisfaction of the court that such a person can be convicted for the offence and imposed punishment.
10. Therefore, identity of the accused persons could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal, though his innocence may be doubted. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the Prosecution.
11. In light of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, any discussion on the negligence aspect becomes redundant and the same is accordingly dispensed with.
12. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the State v. Md Khalid R. No. 4653/19 Page 4 prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it 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. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
13. The accused Md. Khalid is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323/341 IPC.
14. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ)
on 21st March, 2022 Metropolitan Magistrate-01
N/W, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State v. Md Khalid R. No. 4653/19 Page 5