Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Hanif on 22 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique Identification no. 02403R0112552007
Case no. RBT723/1 dated 19.07.2013
FIR No. 717/06
PSNew Friends Colony
State Vs Mohd. Hanif
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT723/1 dated 19.07.2013
Date of Commission : 30.12.2006
of offence
Name of Complainant : Sh.Ahtesham Afzal Khan
Name and address : 1. Mohd. Hanif S/o sh.Abdul Kalam,
of accused R/o S46/38, Indra Gandhi Camp,
Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi25.
2. Mohd. Nizam S/o Sh.Yunus Khan,
R/o S46/62, Indra Gandhi Camp,
Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi25.
3. Mohd. Shakoor S/o Mohd. Atam,
R/o S46/63, Indra Gandhi Camp,
Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi25.
Offence Complained : U/s. 392/394/411/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 17.10.2013
Date of judgment : 22.10.2013
Find order : Acquitted
1. The brief case of prosecution is that on 30.12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. on public road, near Ganda Nala, Pahari No.2, Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi, all FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 1 of 8 2 the accused in furtherance of their common intention, wrongly restrained the complainant Ahtesham Afzal Khan and robbed him of a mobile phone make Nokia N72 and his black colour leather purse of make Jane Shilton containing around Rs.2,000/, one symbiosis Icard and some documents and they also caused hurt to the person of the complainant. The said mobile phone make Nokia N72 was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Nizam and the leather purse containing aforesaid items were recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Hanif.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the court and all the accused persons were supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2007, charge for the offence punishable u/s 392/394/34 IPC framed against all the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No charge u/s 411 IPC was framed which amounts to discharge of the accused from section 411 IPC.
3. In order to prove charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. HC Bhuley Ram, who was the Duty Officer, was examined as PW1, Sh.Ahtesham Afzal Khan i.e. complainant was examined as PW2, Ct. Ranvir Singh was examined as PW3, HC Dhram Singh, who was the Duty Officer, was examined as PW4, HC Ram Niwas was examined as PW5, SI Ramesh Chand was examined as PW6, Ms. Geetanjli Goel, Ld. MM was examined as PW7, Dr. Anjana Kharbanda from Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi was examined as PW8 and SI Ravinder Pandit was examined as PW9. The FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 2 of 8 3 following documents were exhibited in the prosecution evidence.
(i) Copy of the FIR Ex. PW1/A
(ii) Endorsement on the Rukka Ex. PW1/B
(iii) Complaint Ex. PW2/A
(iv) Seizure memo of purse Ex. PW3/A
(v) Disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Hanif Ex. PW3/B
(vi) Seizure memo of Rs.13,000/ Ex. PW3/C
(vii) Seizure memo of the Motor Cycle Ex. PW3/D
(viii) Seizure memo of mobile phone Ex. PW3/PX1
(ix) Disclosure statement of accused Nizam Ex. PW3/PX2
(x) Arrest memos and personal search memos Ex. PW3/PX3 to
of accused persons. Ex. PW3/PX8
(xi) DD No.25A Ex. PW4/A
(xii) Application for TIP Ex. PW7/A
(xiii) TIP proceedings with certificate Ex. PW7/A to D
(xiv) Statements of accused Ex. PW7/E to G
(xv) Application for giving TIP application Ex.PW7/H
(xvi) MLC report Ex. PW8/A
(xvii) Tehreer Ex. PW9/A
(xviii) Site Plan Ex. PW9/B
(xix) Case properties Ex. P1 to Ex.P3
4. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded where they denied the deposition of witnesses against them being false and interested witnesses. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully.
6. PW2, complainant deposed that he did not remember the date, FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 3 of 8 4 however, he was coming from his office on his Motor Cycle no. MP20KD5984. His Motor Cycle was got disturbed and he was about to go to mechanic to repair his Motor Cycle, but he was surrounded by 67 boys, who started using abusive language against him. They gave beating to him and took away his mobile phone. PW2 further deposed that he ran away from the spot and had left his bike there. PW2 further deposed that he had given his complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police, however, he could not identify the persons who had given beating to him and took away his mobile phone.
7. As PW2 was resiling from his statement given to police, therefore, he was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court. PW2 did not identify the accused persons when he was shown all the accused who were present in the court and nothing material came in the cross examination of PW2.
8. PW3 deposed that in the intervening night of 30/31.12.2006, he was with SI Ravinder on emergency duty. At about 0100 a.m., DD No.25A was received and they reached at Taimoor Nagar, near Gurudwara, where they did not meet anybody and they came to know that injured had been removed to Holy Family hospital. They reached at Holy Family hospital and found injured Ahtesham there. IO recorded the statement of the complainant and on the basis of which, the case was registered. PW3 further deposed that they met a secret informer at Ganda Nala, Taimoor Nagar, who informed regarding accused persons and thereafter, one raiding party was prepared and Nakabandi was made near FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 4 of 8 5 Ganda Nala. At about 0415 a.m., three persons came on a Motor Cycle No. DL3SAH4973 and they were apprehended. Their names were revealed as Mohd. Hanif, Mohd. Nizam and Mohd. Shakoor. Personal search of Mohd. Hanif was carried out, who produced one purse containing Rs.2,020/ and some papers. PW3 further deposed that accused disclosed that they had robbed Rs.18,000/, out of which, Rs.13,000/ was in their jhuggi and the same were recovered from jhuggi. PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court. PW3 admitted in his crossexamination that one mobile phone of Nokia was recovered from accused Nizam. The case property was taken into pullanda and was duly sealed with seal of 'RKP'. PW2 identified the purse containing Rs.2,020/ in the denomination of 3 notes of Rs.500/, 5 notes of Rs.100/ and two notes of Rs.10/, some papers / cards. PW3 has also identified mobile phone Nokia.
9. PW9 IO deposed that on 30.12.2006, he was posted at P.S. New Friends Colony. On that day, he received a DD No.25A. He alongwith Ct. Ranbir Singh reached at Taimoor Nagar, Ganda Nala, where he came to know that injured has been removed to Holy Family hospital and they reached the hospital and found the complainant. He recorded the statement of complainant Ex.PW2/A and on the basis of which, present case was registered. PW9 further deposed that he reached at the spot alongwith complainant and prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/B at the instance of the complainant. He tried to search the accused, but nobody was found. During investigation, Ct. Brij Bhushan had also joined. Efforts were made FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 5 of 8 6 to search the accused near Taimoor Nagar Jhuggi and there they met secret informer who disclosed the accused persons by their names as Hanif, Nizam and Shakoor. On this information, Nakabandi was done and all three accused present in the court were arrested and on their search, one black purse was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Hanif containing Rs.2,020/ and some papers / card. From the possession of accused Nizam, one mobile phone was also recovered and the same was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/PX1. The disclosure statement of the accused were recorded. PW9 identified the case property. PW9 deposed in crossexamination that the place of occurrence was thickly populated and a residential area and there were number of jhuggis situated. PW9 further deposed that he left the spot at about 0600 a.m., but he did not make any inquiry from the public persons who were residing around the spot. PW9 further deposed that no information was reduced by him in writing regarding that accused persons were involved in the present case. PW9 further deposed that he arrested all the accused persons at 0540 a.m. on 31.05.2006. He did not make any search of the accused persons and the accused produced the case properties themselves. PW9 deposed that the statement regarding recovery given by him (in the crossexamination) was correct, however, the statement which he gave on 07.01.2008 in his examinationinchief was wrong.
10. PW2, complainant is the material witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution as he did not identify the accused persons. PW2 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State, but nothing material came in his cross FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 6 of 8 7 examination. On the other hand, the deposition of PW3 and PW9, who are recovery witnesses according to the prosecution, are not trustworthy as there are contradictions in their depositions. PW3 deposed that at about 0415 a.m., the accused persons came on their Motor Cycle and they were apprehended. Personal search of the accused was conducted and one purse containing Rs.2,020/ was recovered from Mohd. Hanif and mobile phone Nokia was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Nizam. Whereas, PW9 deposed that he arrested the accused persons at about 0540 a.m. on 31.12.2006. PW9 further deposed that he did not make any search of the accused persons and the case properties were produced by the accused themselves. PW9 also admitted that the place of occurrence is thickly populated and residential area and a number of jhuggis situated there. It is difficult to believe that if the place of occurrence is thickly populated area and a number of jhuggis are situated there, then, why no public person was made a witness regarding the arrest and recovery of the purse and mobile phone from the accused.
11. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that as PW2 / complainant did not support the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were involved in the commission of offences and the depositions of PW3 and PW9 also raise doubts regarding the recovery of stolen purse and mobile phone from the possession of the accused, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is well settled law that benefit of law goes in favour of the accused.
FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 7 of 8 8
12. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 392/394/34 IPC. Bail bond and surety bond of all the accused persons are extended for next six months at request of the accused persons u/s 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 22.10.2013 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/22.10.2013
FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 8 of 8