Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Adnan Qureshi on 27 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW020024622018
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi
FIR No.252/17
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 324/341/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 16.01.2018
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 1225/2018
2. Name of the Complainant : Mohd. Afzal S/o Mohd.
Jahur Hasan, R/o A-561, J.J.
Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 04.05.2017
4. Name of accused person :1) Mohd. Adnan Qureshi S/o
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017
PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 1 of 13
Digitally signed
by ALKA
ALKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.30
11:31:15 +0530
Mohd. Zulfikar Qureshi
:2) Mohd. Gulzar Qureshi S/o
Mohd. Zulfikar Qureshi
Both R/o A-5, 1st Floor, Om
Vihar, Phase-III, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s 324/341/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused persons have been charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 324/341/34 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 03.05.2017 at about 11:00 pm, at house A Block near Gurudwara Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, both the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant, Mohd. Afzal and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by using some sharp weapon.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed against both the accused u/s 324/341/34 IPC.
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 2 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:31:26 +0530
4. On receipt of charge sheet, Cognizance of offence was taken and both the accused were summoned to face trial. Copy of the charge sheet along with all annexures were supplied to both the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a charge for offence u/s 324/341/34 IPC was framed against both the accused on 13.04.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case.
7. Mohd. Afzal i.e., complainant was examined as PW-1, who deposed that he is a tailor by profession and on 03.05.2017 when he has gone to the fruit market and was on his way back from the market, he met his uncles Gulzar Qureshi and Adnan Qureshi (both the accused were present in the court and correctly identified) and they threated the complainant saying "Tujhe Kanoon ne chorr diya hum tujhe nahin chodenge". The complainant further described that Adnan Qureshi then grabbed his neck and both of them started giving him fist blows on his head and stomach. It was also averred by the witness that accused Gulzar also used some sharp object to attack him on his chest and stomach because of which he got stitches. It was stated that when he tried to escape, he was again caught by the accused persons and was beaten up by him and lost consciousness after falling on the road. He further testified that after regaining his consciousness he found State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 3 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2022.09.30
11:31:38
+0530
himself alongside his brothers and sisters who were searching for him and that thereafter his sister made a call on 100 number and he was taken to DDU Hospital but could not gave any statement to police being unable to speak but later on the statement was recorded on 08.05.2017 Ex. PW1/A and the site plan was prepared at his instance EX. PW1/B. He was alleged that accused persons had grudges against him for he had given a complaint against them.
In his cross examination he affirmed this suggestion of the defence counsel that the place of incident was a public place and people were passing by on that road. The witness also could not tell if there were some disputes between sister of the accused namely Zahida and her husband and also denied that Zahida was residing with him. The witness also could not confirm if an NCR has been lodged by Zahida against him or another complaint dated 04.05.2017, upon which, the witness was confronted with the copy of above said NCR Mark A, as well with as the copy of the said complaint Mark D. All the adverse suggestions on the defence counsel were denied by the witness.
8. As PW-2 the prosecution examined Ms. Kishwari who stated that on 03.05.2017 her brother Afzal had gone to mango go-down to buy some fruits and accused persons Gulzar Qureshi and Adnan Qureshi had come to their house asking about her brother, whereby she informed them that he had gone to mango go-down. She further State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.30
11:31:48 +0530
testified that when her brother did not return, she and her brother Riyaz went in the search of him and after some time found him in an unconscious state at mango go-down. She deposed that she made a call at 100 number whereafter the PCR van arrived and took her brother to DDU hospital where he got stitches and from there, he was taken to RML hospital for further treatment.
During her cross examination she was confronted with her statement given to police Mark-C wherein the fact of accused persons coming to her house has not been stated and also the fact that Riyaz accompanying her at that time. All the adverse suggestions of the defence were denied by the witness.
9. As PW3, prosecution examined Ct. Radhe Shyam, who deposed that on 04.05.2017, he received the DD No. 14A at 01:29 AM regarding a fight at Gurudwara Road, JJ Colony Uttam Nagar, after which he and ASI Jeet Ram reached at the above said place and found out that injured had already been taken to the hospital by PCR van. He stated that they came back to the police station and later on they left for DDU hospital where they met the complainant whose MLC was not complete and he also refused to give the statement as he was in pain. In his cross examination, it was stated that they did not find the eye witness and the place of incident and since he was on an emergency duty, no arrival or departure entry was made by him. All the adverse suggestions were thereafter denied.
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.30
11:32:10 +0530
10. Dr. Paras Kumar Gupta was examined as PW4, who stated that on 04.05.2017 one patient Md. Afzal at MLC No. 93041/2017 was referred to surgery department and he had examined the said patient and has also made his observations on the said MLC which was Ex.PW4/A. It was stated by him that he has opined the nature of injury as simple. In his cross examination the witness could not confirm if the injuries sustained by the patient was self-inflected or was inflected by some third person. The witness also testified that the patient was oriented and conscious of at the time of examination.
11. As PW5 SI Jeet Ram was examined who testified the similar facts as that of Cr. Radhe Shyam and further stated that on 08.05.2017 he went to the house of complainant, where the complainant gave him a written complain disclosing an offence u/s 324/341 IPC whereafter the rukka Ex.PW5/A was prepared by him, on the basis of which the FIR was registered by the DO. It was further testified in the month of June; he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and in the month of August complainant took him to the address of accused but accused persons were not found there but his sister was found. It was further deposed that on 24.08.2017 both of the accused came to the police station and were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C but despite his efforts the alleged weapon could not be recovered. He stated that he collected the MLC of the complainant and placed the same on record.
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:32:28 +0530
In his cross-examination he was generally questioned about his arrival and departure time to the place of incident from the Police Station and it was also stated that he did not give any notice to the person who had informed him about the fact that injured has been taken to the hospital by the PCR van. He also stated that he did not find any eye witness and that the complainant did not turn up on the next date as well and therefore his statement could not be recorded. It was also stated that no blood-stained cloths were handed over to him either by the doctor or by the complainant. All the suggestions of the defence counsel having adverse inferences were denied by the witnesses.
12. The record of the case transpires that the formal proof of the present FIR as well as of DD No. 14A were dispensed with in accordance of the provision of Section 294 IPC as the accused had admitted the above said documents without admitting their content.
13. Since, no other witness was examined by prosecution, hence, the PE was closed and statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences against them wherein it was stated by both the accused that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant as the complainant had established physical relationship with their sister on the pretext of marrying her. They also alleged that complainant had also taken away the sale proceeds of the State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 7 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:32:37 +0530
property from their sister and was further pressurizing them. It was also alleged that it was all a well-planned conspiracy so that the complainant does not have to marry their sister or to refund the amount received from their sister and he had also threatened them to implicate in false cases.
14. Defence also examined one witness namely Zahida Praveen who had deposed that in the year 2011, she sold her house and received the consideration amount, which fact came to the knowledge of her one relative namely Md. Afzal @ Guddu and who told her that he loves her and started to pursue her. It was stated that Afzal convinced her that he will provide her with a good life and made all kinds of flowery promises, thus on the pretext of this he also recorded her video in a compromising state and started taking money from her. She further elaborated that he was taking the money on the pretext that he will deposit the money as security for taking a house on rent and withdrew all the money from her account. It was further alleged by the witness that she has been cheated by the complainant, who spend all her money. She further deposed that she lodged a complaint against him for he had started to fight with her and torture her under the influence of alcohol but she withdrew her complain under his influence but then he filed the complaint against her brothers. The witness also placed on record the copy of the above said complaint ExDW1/A and the copy of the NCR Mark-B. In her cross-examination all the adverse suggestions put forth by the Ld. APP for State were State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.30
11:32:47 +0530
denied.
15. Vide order dated 06.06.2022, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the parties.
16. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the accused wherein, it was argued that the incident took place on 03.05.2017 at 11.00 pm and she was admitted in hospital on 04.05.2017, whereas the FIR was registered on 08.05.2017 on which date her statement was also recorded, hence, there is a delay of three days which has not been explained by the prosecution which creates serious doubts. Further, neither any blood-stained clothes nor any weapon of offence have been recovered in the present case and even the doctor who was examined as a witness could not certify if the injuries sustained by the patient was self-inflected injury or was inflected by some third person. IT has also been argued that neither there are any eye witnesses to the incident nor any CCTV footage of the said incident is available, which could prove that accused persons visited the house of the complainant. Moreover, the defence witness i.e., Zahida during her testimony produced the copy of the NCR which was registered against the complainant, which clearly shows that the present FIR was an afterthought of the complainant and no such incident ever took place. Hence, it is argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 9 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:32:57 +0530
17. Per-contra, it was the arguments of ld. APP that the complainant and the other witnesses have been consistent throughout the trial and identity of the accused has also not been dispute as he was identified by all the witnesses.
18. I have heard the submissions of the State and I have also perused the case file meticulously.
19. Now this court shall examine the evidences of the witnesses one by one in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused.
20. As per the testimony of the complainant he has gone to the fruits market where he was abused and assaulted by the accused persons and he was hit with some sharp object because of which he got stitches on his stomach but then there are certain ambiguities in the prosecution story which has not been sufficiently explained such as; though it has been claimed that complainant was beaten up by the accused persons on 03.05.2017 but, the FIR was not lodged on the same date rather after three days of the alleged incident, even though as per the MLC Ex. PW4/A dated 04.05.2017 complainant was reported to be conscious and oriented b he did but he did not give any statement to the police on that day and in the MLC, it has nowhere been opined that complainant was not in a fit mental or physical condition to give any statement and, in fact the same has only been asserted by the complainant on its own.
State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 10 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:33:18 +0530
21. Thus, it is not in dispute that there is delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR and whenever, there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it should be viewed with suspicion, because the chances of manipulations by the complainant cannot be denied i.e. it gives sufficient opportunity to the victim or the prosecution to embellish the narration which may often involve false allegations which can completely be a product of one's imagination without having any touch of truth in it or it can also very well be a compound of genuine and false allegations, but even in such cases it casts profound suspicions on the prosecution version and the veracity of the testimony of the witness becomes questionable.
22. In addition to above even though it has been time and again claimed by the complainant and his sister that he got stitches on his stomach because he was attacked with some sharp object but no such weapon was ever recovered from the accused and even if this part is ignored, the court certainly cannot ignore that no documents have been adduced by the Prosecution to show that complainant received the stitches, which again put his claim under clouds.
23. Furthermore, the complainant has also not been very sincere while giving replies to the questions put to him by the defence counsel i.e., evasive reply was given by him when he was questioned regarding the NCR mark A which was lodged against him by the sister of the accused persons namely Zahida who was later on examined as DW1 and thus, though the said NCR cannot be said to be a proof State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.30
11:33:35 +0530
against the allegations levelled by the complainant but the same can be considered to be an essential piece of evidence which certainly does have the potentiality to create a dent in the prosecution story so much so that the claim of the defence also seems to be genuine that the present case was nothing but an afterthought of the complainant. More so, since the complainant himself failed to report the matter to the police immediately after the occurrence of the incident. Hence, the doubt has all the more solidified owing to such omission on the part of the complainant.
24. It has also nowhere been specified either in the testimony of complainant himself or in the testimony of PW2 Kishwari, who is the sister of complainant that at what time on 03.05.2017 the complainant was assaulted and at what time the accused persons have come to the residence of the complainant and inquired from his sister regarding his whereabouts. It also does not seem probable that when the accused left for the fruit market immediately thereafter, the accused persons went to his residence and inquired about him and also reached exactly at the spot where the complainant was present in the market and assaulted him. It also seems very spurious that in the market nobody saw or even tried to stop the accused persons from beating the complainant and even as per the complainant's evidence he was rendered unconscious because of all the beating and though various public persons were present there nobody helped him rather he was found on road in an unconscious state by his sister and brother and even in State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 12 of 13 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.09.30 11:33:44 +0530
between this entire duration, none of the public person saw him lying unconscious on the road and reported about it to the police.
25. Thus, from the entire evidence that have been led by the prosecution, it appears that the present FIR was a motivated FIR lodged by the complainant owing to personal discord between him and the accused persons which renders that entire prosecution story as incredible.
26. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, it can conclusively, be held that prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused Mohd Adnan Qureshi S/o Zulfi Kar Qureshi and Mohd Gulzar Qureshi S/o Zulfi Kar Qureshi are acquitted of the charge for the offence U/s 324/341/34 IPC.
27. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 27th of September, 2022. This judgment consists of 13 signed pages.
ALKA Digitally signed
by ALKA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.30
SINGH 11:33:56 +0530
(ALKA SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Mohd. Adnan Qureshi and Ors.
FIR No.252/2017 PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 13 of 13