Delhi District Court
Mirza Ibrahim Beg vs State on 9 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.407/2019
CNR No. DLCT01-014108-2019
Mirza Ibrahim Beg,
S/o Late Sh. Mirza Ayub Beg,
R/o H.No.4469, 2nd floor, Gali Shahtara,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006
........... Revisionist
Versus
State
........... Respondent
Date of filing : 15.10.2019
Date of arguments : 02.09.2025
Date of order : 09.09.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order of conviction dated 28.05.2019, whereby Mirza Ibrahim Beg was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 323, 354, 354-B IPC and the order on sentence dated 18.09.2019 vide which the appellant herein was sentenced to six months SI for the offence punishable u/s 323, one year SI for the offence punishable u/s 354 and three years SI u/s 354-B IPC. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC was given to him. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.09.09 15:15:50 +0530 Crl.Appeal.No.407/2019 Page 1 of 5
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 18.06.2014, when the complainant 'R' returned home in the evening, she found that her brother-in-law (jeth) Ibrahim was demolishing the staircase leading to her floor. When she asked him not to do so, he started hurling abuses upon her and also pulled her wearing shirt and inappropriately touched her. He also said "teri sari vakalat yahin nikalta hun" and hit on her face. He outraged her modestly. She made a call at 100 number. On this complaint, FIR was registered. She was got medically examined. Chargesheet against the accused was filed.
3. Accused was charged for the offences punishable u/s 323, 354, 354-A, 354-B and 509 IPC, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
5. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the entire evidence. He claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated to pressurize him to compromise the civil litigation in the suit titled Mirza Islam Beg Vs Mirza Ibrahim Beg. He wished to lead evidence in defence, but did not examine any witness in defence evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.09.09 15:15:58 +0530 Crl.Appeal.No.407/2019 Page 2 of 5
6. Ld. MM after hearing the arguments passed the order of conviction and order on sentence which are under challenge in the present appeal.
7. In the present case during the pendency of the appeal as the counsel for the appellant was not coming, Ld. ASJ had appointed Sh. Pulkit Jain as amicus for the appellant. However, Sh. V.K. Jain also appeared on behalf of appellant who was engaged by the appellant herein.
8. Notice of appeal was accepted by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. Trial Court Record was requisitioned.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. V.K. Jain for the appellant, Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Ld. Addl.PP for the State and Ld. Counsel representing the victim/complainant.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a false case. No such incident had taken place. There was property dispute between the appellant and his brother. The brother of the appellant herein, in order to pressurize him got the false FIR registered through his wife and got him falsely implicated. Ld. Counsel further submitted that principles of natural justice have also not been followed in this case. There are 8 witnesses examined by the prosecution, but there is no cross examination of the witnesses PW-1 to PW-6. The record even does not show that the appellant was represented by any counsel at the relevant time when these witnesses were examined and the opportunity to cross examination Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Crl.Appeal.No.407/2019 Page 3 of 5 BANSAL Date:
2025.09.09 15:16:05 +0530 was closed. Ld. Counsel submitted that even PW-7, the complainant has also not been properly cross-examined. The cross-examination of the complainant was conducted by the accused himself and one Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Amresh Kumar, but the record itself shows that no proper cross-examination was conducted resulting into miscarriage of justice. Ld. Counsel submitted that it was the duty and responsibility of the Ld. Magistrate to provide counsel to the appellant to defend himself. Ld. Magistrate had failed to do the same. Even the opportunity was not afforded. It is submitted that under the circumstances, the order passed by Ld. Magistrate is not sustainable under the law. Ld. Counsel submitted that his appeal be allowed and the order of Ld. Trial Court be set aside.
11. Ld. Amicus appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that in this case as there is no cross examination of the witnesses from PW-1 to PW-6 and even the cross examination conducted by the appellant himself and the Ld. LAC on 26.10.2017, is also not proper. Therefore, the case be remanded back with direction that these witnesses be recalled and put to the test of cross examination.
12. Ld. Addl.PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant have also admitted the factual position that PW-1 to PW-6 wee not cross examined.
13. Keeping in view the submissions, the facts of the case and also the Trial Court Record, it is clear that out of eight witnesses, six witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. Rukaiya, PW-2 ASI Deshraj, PW-3 Ms. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
Crl.Appeal.No.407/2019 Page 4 of 5 BANSAL 2025.09.09 15:16:11 +0530 Priyanka, PW-4 Ct. Muddin Khan, PW-5 Ms. Deepika Singh and PW-6 HC Hardayal were not put to the test of cross examination. The record even does not show that accused/appellant was represented by any counsel at the relevant time. In fact, the ordersheet dated 20.05.2016 shows that he was not having any counsel. The Court has not provided any counsel to defend. So far as PW-7, the complainant is concerned, the record shows that she has not been properly cross examined.
14. Under the circumstances the order passed by the ld. Trial Court is not sustainable. The same is therefore set aside. Case is remanded back with direction to recall witnesses PW-1 to PW-7 for cross examination and decide the matter afresh. This exercise be conducted within one month from today. Appellant is directed to appear before the Court of Ld. Magistrate on 10.09.2025 at 10.00 am. It is made clear to the defence that they will not take adjournments and will co-operate with the Trial Court for concluding the trial.
15. TCR be sent back with copy of this order.
16. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIRENDER by VIRENDER Announced in the open Court KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.09.09 BANSAL on 9th day of September, 2025 15:16:18 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) Crl.Appeal.No.407/2019 Page 5 of 5