Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/578/2008 on 31 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02
(SHAHDARA) , KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 558/05
PS : Seemapuri
U/s 452/324 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0682592005
State v. Jafar
JUDGMENT
a)Serial No of the case : 586RBT/13
b)Date of commission of offence : 11.09.05
c)Name of the complainant : Sh. Jihad
S/o Sh. Idrish
R/o E44/FA63, Jhuggi,
New Seemapuri, Delhi
d)Name parentage and : Jafar S/oLate Sheikh Kaju
address of the accused E44/A15, Jhuggi, New
Seemapuri, Delhi
e)Offence complaint of : U/s 452/324 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 31st day of July, 2013
h)Final Order : Acquitted U/s 457/324IPC
i)Date of decision : 31st day of July, 2013
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
FIR No.558/05 State v. Jafar Page No.1 of 5
1. The accused is facing trial on the allegations that on 11.09.05 at 9.30 pm at Jhuggi EBlock, near Kabristan Gate, Seemapuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri accused was found to have committed house trespass in the house belonging to the complainant Jihad S/o Idris having made preparation to cause hurt and assault and voluntarily caused simple hurt with blade to one child Abdul Kalam while escaping
2. On conclusion of the investigation, the present chargesheet U/s 452/324 IPC was filed in the Court. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of the chargesheet and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie offence U/s 452/324 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge was accordingly framed on 09.04.08 by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 05 witnesses.
PW1 Sheikh Jihad, complainant deposed that he is a rickshaw puller and an illiterate person. About 34 year back at 8.39 pm he was outside his house. Two boys came there. Again said one boy came there in intoxicated condition and started abusing him. He stopped him but the boy started beating him. He was having blade in his hand and FIR No.558/05 State v. Jafar Page No.2 of 5 gave him a blade cut on his right cheek. Blood started oozing out from his cheek. Somebody informed the police. Accused fled away from the spot. Police came and took him to the hospital where he was medically examined and police took his thumb impression on plan papers. He failed to identify the accused in the Court. As he was resiling from his earlier statement, Ld. APP cross examined him but nothing incriminating could be extracted against the accused from PW1.
PW2 ASI Somvir Singh recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/B. PW3 ASI Vinod Kumar stated that on 11.09.05 he was posted as a driver at PS Seemapuri. At about 9.30 pm he was on patrolling duty on gypsy. He reached at EBlock, Jhuggi, New Seemapuri where he saw two injured namely Jihad and Abdul Kalam. He took both injured in Gypsy to the hospital for medical examination.
PW4 Abdul Kalam is the victim/injured. He was also declared hostile. He stated that on 11.09.05 he was going to his house after duty through Kabristan Gali. At about 9.30 pm 45 boys came running in the gali. He was not able to seem them as it was dark and one of the boy collided with him and he sustained injuries. He also did not identify the accused present in the Court.
PW5 Farid is one of the eye witnesses. He also was declared FIR No.558/05 State v. Jafar Page No.3 of 5 hostile. He stated not to have any knowledge about the present case. As complainant, victim and eye witness have turned hostile it would have been futile exercise to examine the remaining witnesses who are police/formal witnesses. Hence P.E was closed. As no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused, hence statement of accused was dispensed with. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. 4. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Vijay Goswami Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
In the instant case the prosecution has examined five witnesses and out of them PW1Sh. Sheikh Jihad/complainant, PW4 Sh. Abdul Kalam, victim/injured and PW5 Sh. Farid, the eye witness are the most important and vital witnesses being the complainant/injured and sole eyewitness to the incident. All three of them have failed to identify the accused to be the perpetrator of the present offence. On the other hand, PW1 stated that accused is not present in the Court. PW4 stated that due to dark he could not identify the boy and he collided with one boy and sustained injuries. PW5 stated not to have any knowledge about the present case. They were cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but despite that nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from their FIR No.558/05 State v. Jafar Page No.4 of 5 testimony. Thus, merely by establishing the incident, the accused cannot be convicted unless he is stated to be the culprit of the said offence.
5. Even as per the version of the prosecution, the only witnesses who could have deposed about the incident are PW1, PW4 and PW5. Other witnesses are formal witnesses. Therefore, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence on record against the accused to convict him for the offence U/s 324/452 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus placed upon it and accordingly, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
6. In view of the above discussion, accused stands acquitted for the offence U/s 324/452 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused submits that his earlier bail bond be extended. In view of the submission made, earlier bail bond of accused extended for 06 months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on this 31st day of July, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate 02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
All pages signed.
FIR No.558/05 State v. Jafar Page No.5 of 5