Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Mohd. Abid on 27 May, 2022

      IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH,
     ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
        SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

                           CR CASE/ 5529/2021
                         STATE VS. MOHD. ABID

State v. Mohd. Abid
FIR No. 323/2020
Police Station : Saket
Under Section : 283 IPC


Date of institution           : 29.04.2021
Date of reserving             : Not Reserved
Date of pronouncement : 27.05.2022 (Oral)


                                 JUDGMENT

a)    Serial number of the case         : 5529/2021
b) Date of commission of                : 04.11.2020
      offence
c)    Name of the complainant           : HC Uday Chand

d) Name, parentage and                  : Mohd. Abid S/o Mohd. Yusuf
                                          R/o H. No. 1721/5 L­IST Block,
      address of the accused              Sangam Vihar, New Delhi­62
e)    Offence complained of             : 283 IPC
f)    Plea of the accused               : Accused pleaded not guilty


State Vs. Mohd. Abid
FIR No. 323/2020, PS: Saket                                    Page 1 of 4
 g) Final order                     : Acquitted
h) Date of final order             : 27.05.2022

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION

1. As per case of the prosecution, on 04.11.2020 at about 05:00 PM, near Shop No. F­350, Lado Sarai, Old MB Road, New Delhi, the accused had kept the cartons and the other stuff of the shop on the road and the same was creating hindrance to the public to move on the road freely.

2. Vide order dated 19.05.2022, notice for the offence punishable under Section 283 IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Vide order dated 19.05.2022, in compliance to the provisions of Section 294 CrPC, the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of i) Endorsement by DO, ii) The present FIR; and

iii) Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex A1 to A3.

4. Prosecution has examined one witness i.e. PW1 HC Uday, who deposed that on 04.11.2020, he along with Ct. Rajesh was present in the area and doing patrolling. At about 05:00 PM, they reached near Shop No. F­350, Lado Sarai, Old MB Road, New Delhi, where PW1 saw that one person had kept the cartons and State Vs. Mohd. Abid FIR No. 323/2020, PS: Saket Page 2 of 4 some other stuffs on the road and it was creating hindrance in the movement of public and the traffic. The name of shopkeeper was disclosed as Mohd. Abid i.e. the accused. The accused was asked to remove the stuff but he did not pay any heed to it and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 283 IPC.

5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire evidence against him. He stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police officials. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

6. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Rajat Bansal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Rahul Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been considered.

7. In the cross­examination, PW1 has admitted that no shop number and address can be seen in the photograph Ex P1. He also admitted that he did not give any certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act along with the photograph. He also admitted that the place of incident was a public place and that there is no public witness in this case. He further admitted that he did not collect any ownership proof that the shop belongs to the accused. PW1 further admitted that he did not seize any cartons or stuff lying outside the shop.

8. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 makes is clear that the State Vs. Mohd. Abid FIR No. 323/2020, PS: Saket Page 3 of 4 prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. There is no incriminating material available on record, which could establish the guilt of the accused. Evidence is the lifeline to arrive at just and right conclusion of a case. Mere allegation without incriminating material against an accused is bald assertion. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 is as clear as day and is reflective of the fact that the accused deserves to be acquitted. Accordingly, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 283 IPC.

9. Necessary bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC with surety along with passport size photographs and proofs of residence of the accused as well as surety and proof of soundness of the surety have been furnished by the accused and accepted.

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

Dictated and announced in open Court on 27.05.2022.

                                      HIMANSHU       HIMANSHU RAMAN
                                      RAMAN          SINGH
                                                     Date: 2022.05.27
                                      SINGH          16:30:09 +0530

                                   (HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH)

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 27.05.2022 State Vs. Mohd. Abid FIR No. 323/2020, PS: Saket Page 4 of 4