Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Khurshid Alam on 19 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01): SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 385/2018
STATE Vs Khurshid Alam & Ors.
FIR No. 537/2017
U/S 323/325/308/341/506/34 IPC
PS Jaitpur
Particulars of the case
1. Date of offence : 19.10.2017
2.Offence complained of : u/s 341/308/323/34 IPC
3.Name of the complainant : Md. Shukur
4. Name of accused no.1 : Mohd. Khurshid Alam
his parentage s/o Mohd. Ali Hussain
his residential address R/o: H. No.2322, Phase III,
J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
Name of accused no.2 : Mohd. Akwar Ali @ Papas
his parentage s/o Mohd. Lakoo Miyia,
his residential address R/o: H. No.2322, Phase III,
J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
Name of accused no.3 : Mohd. Nasir
his parentage s/o Mohd. Sultan Mulla
his residential address R/o: H. No.2316, Phase III,
J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
Name of accused no.4 : Anwar Hussain
his parentage s/o Mohd. Khurshid Alam
his residential address R/o: H. No.2322, Phase III,
SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 1 of 18
FIR No. 537/2017
J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6.Final order : All accused are acquitted
Date of Institution : 13.08.2018
Date of Judgment reserved on : 05.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 19.07.2024
Ld. Addl PP for State : Sh. Ashok Debbarma
Ld. Counsel for all four accused : Sh. Shamsher Ali
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGESHEET 1.1 As per the charge-sheet, on 19.10.2017 ASI Zakir Hussain received a DD No. 59A regarding a quarrel. Thereupon said ASI along with Ct. Mukhtiyar reached at the spot i.e. Phase III where they came to know that a quarrel happened between two parties and the injured persons had gone to the hospital for their treatment. In the meantime, ASI received DD No. 94A dated 19.10.2017 and 14A dated 20.10.2017 regarding information of MLCs of injured persons and accordingly, said ASI along with said constable reached at AIIMS Trauma Center and obtained MLCs of injured Shakir, Hasan, Ramjan, Khurshid Alam and Anwar and came to know that all the injured had left the hospital after receiving their treatment. In the MLCs of injured Shakir, Hasan and Ramjan doctor mentioned alleged history of assault and the opinion on said MLCs was kept pending. However, in the MLCs of injured Khurshid Alam and Anwar, doctor mentioned alleged history of assault and opined simple SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 2 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 injuries. Thereafter, said ASI along with Ct. Mukhtiyar reached at the addresses of injured persons where injured Shukur, Ramjan, Anwar and Khursheed were found present at their homes and ASI asked them to give their statement on which they stated that they were injured and they were taking rest after taking the medicines. The injured persons further stated that they will give their statement only after consulting their family members. Injured Hasan was not found present at his house. Hence, ASI kept all the DDs pending.
1.2 During investigation, on 21.10.2017 ASI along with Ct. Mukhtiyar went to the houses of injured persons vide DD No.69A, DD No.94A and DD No.14A wherein he met injured Shukur who gave his statement to the said ASI.
He stated that he used to reside at Madanpur Khadar and he was a taxi driver. On 19.10.2017 he went to his in-laws house at House No.2042, Phase III, J. J. Colony, Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi. He was sitting on the main road near the gali of his in laws house at about 08.30 pm. One boy namely Anwar s/o Khurshid who resides at Phase III came near his in-laws house and started bursting the fire crackers. The firecrackers bursted by him fell near him and he asked Anwar to refrain from bursting the fire crackers and asked him to burst the same at some distance. On this Anwar replied "saale tere baap ki jagah hai". He even refrained Anwar from abusing him. Meanwhile, Anwar's other friends namely Palas, Nasir and even Anwar's father Khurshid also arrived and started beating him with fists and kicks. Anwar picked up a wooden danda lying nearby and hit him with force on his right hand due to which he sustained injuries and when he tried to escape, he was wrongfully restrained by accused Khursid, Palas and Nasir and they caused beatings to him by fist and kicks. He further stated that when his mama Ramzan and his friend Hasan came to intervene, Anwar attacked them also with danda and other three accused attacked them with fist and kicks and they also received injuries. Someone made a call on 100 SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 3 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 number. Thereafter prior to reaching of police, he himself, his mama Ramzan and his friend Hasan went to AIIMS Trauma Center in an auto for their treatment and after being discharged from there, they returned to their homes. Due to heavy pain, he slept after taking a medicine and did not give his statement. He prayed that accused Anwar, Khurshid, Nasir and Palas be punished strictly for their acts as they all four threatened them that if they reported the matter to the police, they shall not spare their lives.
1.3 Thereafter, ASI discussed the matter with his senior officials. From the statement, the circumstances and the MLCs of injured, offence u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons and accordingly ASI got the present case registered against the accused persons and after registration of the case, he took up the investigation of the case.
1.4 During investigation, ASI inspected the spot of incident and prepared a site plan at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter ASI along with Ct. Mukhtiyar at the instance of complainant interrogated Anwar Hussain, Mohd. Nasir, Mohd. Akwar Ali and Mohd. Khurshid Alam and after interrogation, he arrested them and recorded their disclosure statements. They even tried to recover the danda used by accused Anwar Hussain in the said incident but without any success.
During investigation, ASI recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses namely Hasan, Ramzan, Shakir and Ct. Mukhtiyar u/s 161 CrPC.
Thereafter, ASI obtained the final results on the MLCs of injured Shakir, Hasan and Ramzan along with their X-ray report with X-ray plate. Doctor opined on the MLC of injured Ramzan as "simple injury caused by blunt object" and opined injuries on the MLCs of Shakir and Hasan as " grievous caused by blunt object:" Thereafter, ASI discussed the matter with the senior officers and added section 325/308 IPC.
SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 4 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 After completion of investigation, SI filed the chargesheet u/s 323/325/308/341/506/34 IPC against all four accused persons in the Court.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge u/s 341/308/323/34 IPC was framed against all four accused. All accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the chargesheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses.
S. No. Name of the witnesses Nature of the evidence
PW-1 Dr. Deeksha Bhalla Doctor who identified the signatures
of Dr. Barun Bagga on X-ray reports
of the injured
PW-2 Rajender Singh Record Clerk who identified the
signatures of Dr. Subrata Saha and
Dr. Vishnu VK on the MLCs of
injured Ramzan, Shakir and Hasan.
PW-3 Dr. Namith R. Record clerk who deposed regarding
the aforesaid MLCs
PW-4 ASI Ratan Singh Duty Officer who made DD entry
no.14A upon receiving message
from AIIMS Trauma Center
regarding admission of injured
Ramzan, Anwar and Khurshid after
a quarrel
SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 5 of 18
FIR No. 537/2017
PW-5 Ramzan Injured
PW-6 Mohd. Shukur Complainant/Injured/eye witness
PW-7 ASI Zakir Hussain IO
In the present case, injured Hasan was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 11.04.2023 as he could not be traced even through the office of DCP, South East. Further, two witnesses by name of Md. Shukur S/o Suban and Shakir S/o Suban were mentioned in the charge-sheet but on 13.12.2022, the IO clarified that they are one and same only i.e. the complainant.
3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:-
No.of exhibit Nature of exhibit
Ex.PW1/A X-ray report of right hand of injured Ramzan
Ex.PW1/B X-ray report of chest and pelvis of injured
Hasan
Ex.PW1/C X-ray report of right forearm and hand of
injured Shakir
Ex.PW2/A and MLCs of injured Ramzan and Shakir
Ex.PW2/B
Ex.PW2/C MLC of injured Hasan
Ex.PW4/A (written DD entry no.14A regarding a quarrel as Ex.PW5/A) Ex.PW7/P1 DD No. 69A regarding information about quarrel/injured at house no. 2001, Madanpur Khadar, Phase III, Delhi Ex.PW7/P2 DD No.94A regarding admission of two injured persons Ex.PW7/P3 DD No.44B regarding keeping DD No.69A, 94A and 14A pending Ex.PW7/P4 Rukka SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 6 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 Ex.PW7/P5, Arrest memos of accused Anwar Hussain, Ex.PW7/P6, Mohd. Nasir, Mohd. Akhbar Ali @ Palas Ex.PW7/P7 and and Mohd. Khurshid Alam Ex.PW7/P8 Ex.PW7/P9, Personal search memos of accused Anwar Ex.PW7/P10, Hussain, Mohd. Nasir, Mohd. Akhbar Ali @ Ex.PW7/11 and Palas and Mohd. Khurshid Alam Ex.PW7/12 Ex.PW7/13, Disclosure statements of accused Anwar Ex.PW7/14, Hussain, Mohd. Nasir, Mohd. Akhbar Ali @ Ex.PW7/15 and Palas and Mohd. Khurshid Alam Ex.PW7/16 Ex.PW7/17 Site plan of the spot Ex.AD1 Present case FIR admitted by accused persons u/s 294 CrPC r/w section 58 Indian Evidence Act 3.3 Though 07 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but the main witnesses of the case are:
i. PW-5 Ramzan, injured, ii. PW-6 Mohd. Shukur complainant/injured/eye witness and iii. PW-7 ASI Zakir Hussain, IO of the case. 3.4 PW5 Ramzan deposed that the incident was of 2017 or 2018 but he do
not remember the date or month. The incident happened near a mandir and he was not present at the time of incident. He came to the spot after the incident and the incident occurred in the evening hours. The dispute arose regarding bursting of crackers. He do not remember dispute was between whom. He was medically treated at AIIMS Trauma Center. Police inquired him and recorded his statement. He further stated that police did not inquire him about the incident. He deposed that he was stopped by SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 7 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 Hassan and therefore he received injuries due to danda. Hasan was running at that time.
PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he resiled from his previous statement.
During his cross examination by prosecution, PW5 deposed that he knew aforesaid accused persons prior to the incident being the neighbours and he can identify them accordingly.
However he denied the suggestion that on 19.10.2017 there was a dispute regarding bursting of crackers between his nephew Sukoor and Anwar s/o Khursheed Alam and on seeing the quarrel, Hassan also reached the spot. He denied the suggestion that Khursheed, Akwar Ali and Nasir were also present at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that said accused persons had caused beatings to them. He further denied the suggestion that Anwar caused injuries on the head of Sukoor while using a danda and the other three accused caused beatings by fists and kicks. He further denied the suggestion that accused Akwar caused beatings to Hassan with danda and therefore, he, Hassan and Sukoor received injuries. However, he admitted that he himself, Sukoor and Hassan had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center for medical examination. He denied the suggestion that he was not disclosing the complete and true facts of the incident being won over by the accused persons.
During his cross examination, PW5 identified accused Nasir. He claimed that he can identify the other accused but their identification was not disputed by the Defence Counsel.
PW5 was cross examined nil by Ld. Counsel for all accused. 3.5 PW6 Mohd. Shukur deposed that his sasural (in law's house) was about 200 meters away from his house. The incident was of year 2017 around the time of Diwali. He do not remember the date. The incident was of night around 08.00 pm. SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 8 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 He was standing in the gali outside his in laws' house when somebody threw a firecracker near him and thereafter there was an altercation and a quarrel. There were 3-4 persons with whom such quarrel happened. All of them were his relatives. Said persons were his brother's sala namely Khurshid and Khurshid's son namely Anwar, Anwar's mama Nasir and one person namely Palas. He received injury on his hand and same was fractured. He do not remember the details of the incident as it was more than five years old. It was Diwali time and there was crowd. He was hit by danda but he do not know who hit him.
When he received injury, he was taken to the hospital by his mama namely Ramzan and his friend namely Sameer. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. Somebody informed the police but he do not know who informed the police. Next day, he was called in police station. Police made inquiries from him and recorded his statement. He stated to the police that the accused had caused beatings to him but he did not tell the police as to which particular accused beat him with danda. He further stated that he was not beaten by anything else other than danda.
PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he did not depose as per his previous statement given to the police.
During his cross examination, he stated that he had not made statement Mark PW6/A to the police. However, he admitted that same bear his thumb impression at point A. He further admitted that the date of incident was 19.10.2017 and the time was of 08.30 pm. He admitted that it was accused Anwar who bursted the firecrackers. He further admitted that the firecrackers bursted by said accused fell near him and he refrained him from bursting firecrackers and bursting the same at some distance. He denied the suggestion that on this he replied " saale tere baap ki jagah ha i" He denied the suggestion that thereupon he asked him to refrain from abusing him. He denied SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 9 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 the suggestion that thereupon the other three accused Palas, Nasir and Khurshid also arrived and started beating him with fist and kicks. He voluntarily stated that his quarrel was with Anwar. He admitted that Anwar hit him with a danda on his right hand and he received injuries. He denied the suggestion that when he tried to escape, accused Khurshid, Palas and Nasir wrongfully restrained him and caused beatings to him by fist and kicks. He denied the suggestion that his mama Ramzan and his friend Hasan came to intervene but Anwar attacked them with danda and other three accused attacked them with fist and kicks and they received injuries. He denied the suggestion that he himself, his mama Ramzan and his friend Hasan went to AIIMS Trauma Center in auto and received treatment and after being discharge returned to their homes. He voluntarily stated that his friend was not named Hasan but his name was Sameer and only he (PW6) had injury and medical treatment. He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that action shall be taken against all four accused. He denied the suggestion that said four accused had given threat to them that if they shall report to police they will not spare their lives.He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons as he had settled the matter with them. He stated that police did not accompany him to the spot and police did not arrest the accused persons in his presence. He had signed some documents and put his thumb impression on some documents but he do not know the nature of such documents.
PW6 was shown the disclosure statement of all four accused and after seeing the same he admitted that same bear his thumb impression at point A on each of the disclosure statement. The disclosure statement of accused Akwar Ali @ Pala was marked as Mark X1, disclosure statement of accused Nasir was marked as Mark X2, disclosure statement of accused Khurshid was marked as Mark X3 and disclosure statement of accused Anwar Hussain was marked as Mark X4. He denied the SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 10 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 suggestion that he was deliberately deposing that he put his thumb impression on the disclosure statements without knowing the contents/import of said statement/document. He denied the suggestion that he was not revealing the true and complete facts of the case so as to help the accused persons as he had been won over by them.
During PW6 testimony, he correctly identified all four accused in the present case.
PW6 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all four accused. 3.6 PW-7 ASI Zakir Hussain, IO of the case, deposed as per the contents of the chargesheet.
During his testimony, PW7 correctly identified all four accused in the court. PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all four accused persons.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused Khurshid Alam, Anwar Hussain, Mohd. Akwar Ali @ Papas and Mohd. Nasir were questioned u/s 313 CrPC regarding incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4.2 Accused Khurshid Alam stated that he was not present at the spot. He came later on after he came to know that his son Anwar was being beaten. When he reached at the spot, he found that his son was bleeding and he fell down unconsciously. There was crowd but the witness Shukur was not there. Accused stated that PW6 Mohd. Shukur knows them as they were from the same locality. 4.3 Accused Anwar Hussain stated that he was returning after purchasing vegetables. Shukur, Rubel, Ranjan and Sameer were drinking and they were bursting SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 11 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 the crackers also. He got some of the sparks on his clothes and he asked them to be careful while bursting crackers. They said that whether the road was of his father and they will burst the crackers wherever they want. Thereupon haata pai started between and Shukur hit him (he slapped him) and all the other boys attacked him ( saare ladke mujpar chipak gaye) and Shukur hit him with a patti (stone slab) and he received injury on his head. He also received injury on his shoulder on being hit by danda by them. When accused moved out Shukur may have received injury with danda wielded by his associates. Accused was bleeding and he fell down. Then accused's known persons ran and brought his father. His father on seeing him bleeding took him to Trauma Center. All the said assailants had run away after beating him. He knew PW6 Shukur being his relative and he knew him since prior and PW5 also knew him beforehand as they all were living in the same colony. Accused stated that other persons were not even present at the spot of incident as they came later on. Accused admitted that they were released from the police station. Accused stated that he was being beaten by the danda and he was bleeding profusely. Shukur may have received injuries due to his own associates using dandas.
4.4 Accused Mohd. Akwar Ali @ Papas and Nasir stated that they were not present at the spot. Both accused stated that PW5 Ramzan and PW6 Modh. Shukur knew them as they were from the same locality.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 No defence evidence was led by any accused.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that out of three eye witnesses the prosecution has been able to SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 12 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 examine only two eye witnesses. Out of said two eye witnesses, PW5 Ramzan has not deposed any incriminating against the accused persons and has not supported the case of prosecution. The other eye witness i.e. complainant Mohd. Shukur has not deposed in categorical terms against the accused persons and had to be cross examined by the prosecution. Even in his cross examination, he has deposed only against accused Anwar. However, his testimony is not credible and admittedly there was a cross FIR No.539/2017 PS Jaitpur against the said witness. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused persons and all of them are entitled to be acquitted. 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that eye witnesses have turned hostile deliberately having being won over by the accused persons. However, all the accused have been named in the complaint which bears the thumb impression of the complainant and categorical allegations have been made against them in the same. Further, complainant has deposed against accused Anwar in categorical terms and has identified the other accused as the persons present during the quarrel. Accordingly, all the accused persons shall be convicted for the alleged offences.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 The relevant legal provisions applicable in the present case are reproduced herewith:
Section 341 IPC provides"Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both ".
Section 308 IPC provides"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 13 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 323 IPC provides "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 34 IPC provides "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
7.2 Thus, from the facts of the case, arguments of the parties and relevant provisions of law, the following points for determination arise:-
1. Whether there is any evidence against the accused person Mohd. Khursheed Alam, Mohd. Akwar Ali and Mohd. Nasir?
2. Whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused Anwar Hussain?
3. Whether any of the accused is liable to be convicted for the alleged offences?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 As argued by Ld. Defence Counsel, the prosecution has been able to examine only two eye witnesses/injured out of the three injured of the case. Out of said two eye witnesses, PW5 Ramzan has not even deposed about his presence at the spot at the time of incident. When he was questioned by Ld. Addl. PP about the cause of his injuries, he has deposed that he was stopping Hassan and therefore received injuries due to danda. He also deposed that Hassan was running at that time. It is to be noted that the name of third eye witness/injured is Hassan only. Therefore, PW5 have not attributed any role of any accused qua his injuries or qua the injuries of other SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 14 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 injured. Even in his cross examination, nothing substantial has come to safely conclude that he has been won over by the accused persons and the suggestions put to him regarding the incident represent the true nature of the incident.
Further, PW6 Shukur has deposed against the accused persons as the person with whom he had the quarrel. However, he did not make any specific allegations against the accused Khursheed Alam, Akwar Ali and Nasir. He deposed that he failed to remember the details of the incident as the matter is old and there was crowd. Even in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that his quarrel was only with Anwar and that it was Anwar only who hit him with a danda on his right hand and therefore, he received injuries. However, he has denied the role of other accused in the incident. He denied that they had restrained him and caused beatings to him. Thus, nothing substantial has come against said three accused in the entire examination of PW6.
All the other prosecution witnesses are witnesses regarding the facts of investigation and do not even collectively prove the allegations against the said accused in the absence of testimony of the eye witness. Accordingly, there is no evidence against the accused Khursheed Alam, Akwar Ali and Nasir regarding the alleged offences.
8.2 Let us proceed to examine the evidence against the accused Anwar. As mentioned earlier, only PW6 Shukur has deposed against the said accused. However, even his testimony regarding the allegations against said accused is not consistent and credible. During his examination in chief, he failed to tell who hit him with danda and rather he deposed that he do not remember the details of the incident as it was more than five years old. However, during his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted the role of accused Anwar as the person who bursted the fire crackers and admitted that it was accused Anwar who hit him with a danda on his right hand SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 15 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 whereupon he received injuries. Subsequently, during his cross examination by defence, the complainant / PW6 admitted that spot where he was standing was dark and there was no light. Further, he did not comment on the suggestion that some unknown persons were bursting crackers and it was their fire crackers which fell on him. He also admitted that it was dark at the spot and he could not have seen the face of any person in the quarrel, but he still insisted that accused Anwar was present there.
It is to be noted that as per the IO/PW7, he attended the call and reached the AIIMS Trauma Center but injured was not found there as they had been discharged. On the next day i.e. on 20.10.2017 he went to the addresses of injured persons mentioned in the MLC for inquiry. The injured Shukur i.e. complainant was found at his residence but he refused to give his statement. As per the IO/chargesheet the incident occurred on 19.10.2017 around 08.30 pm but the complaint was given by PW Shukur on 21.10.2017. Accordingly, there was delay in making the complaint/registration of the FIR and it appears that same was made after due deliberation. Thus, the scope of manipulation in the allegations made in the FIR cannot be ruled out.
Further, in the complaint/FIR there are categorical allegations against all the accused but subsequently the complainant has denied making such statement. He has denied the substantial portion of the said complaint wherein categorical allegations were made against the other accused.
It has come in the cross examination of the complainant that FIR No.539/2017 PS Jaitpur was got registered against him, Rubail, Ramzan and Sameer regarding the same incident by accused Khursheed, who is father of accused Anwar. Further, it is apparent from the chargesheet that it was a cross fight since even two of the accused persons were found admitted in the hospital under various MLCs. It is mentioned in SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 16 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017 the chargesheet that MLC of accused Anwar and Khursheed was also obtained and alleged history of assault was mentioned even in said MLCs and the nature of injuries was simple. However, no explanation regarding the injuries of the accused persons have come forth in the entire examination of complainant Mohd. Shukur.
Further, the testimony of complainant does not explain even the injuries of other prosecution witnesses. As per the MLCs (Ex.PW2/A, B and C) proved by the prosecution, no visible injury was observed on the patient Ramzan and only laceration over scalp was observed on the body of patient Shakir (complainant Shukur). However, as per said MLCs various visible injuries were observed by the doctor on the body of the patient Hassan i.e. laceration 5X1 cm over the forehead and laceration 0.5X0.5 cm over the scalp occipital region. Therefore, the main injured of the case was patient Hassan. However, PW6/complainant has not deposed anything about the injuries to said injured and has rather denied the role of accused persons in assault on Ramzan and Hassan. He has even volunteered to state that his friend was not named Hassan but his name was Sameer and that it was only complainant who had received injuries and received medical treatment. However said assertion is contrary to the case of prosecution itself.
Further, even the alleged weapon of offence i.e. danda was not recovered from the accused Anwar during investigation. Moreover, there is no independent witness regarding the incident.
Therefore, considering the afore-said facts/ circumstances, the background of the incident and the selective testimony of the complainant, the Court considers it unsafe to rely on his testimony qua the accused Mohd. Anwar. Hence, Court is of the view that the evidence against the Mohd. Anwar is insufficient to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubts.
SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 17 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017
9. CONCLUSION 9.1 Thus, in view of the above said discussion, all four accused Mohd. Khurshid Alam, Mohd. Akwar @ Papas, Mohd. Nasir and Anwar Hussain are acquitted from all the offences charged against them.
(Announced in the Open Court on by SACHIN Digitally signed SACHIN 19th July, 2024) SANGWAN SANGWAN Date: 2024.07.19 14:57:06 +0530 (Sachin Sangwan) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-01): South East: Saket District Court: New Delhi. SC No. 385/2018 State v. Khurshid Alam & Ors. Pages 18 of 18 FIR No. 537/2017