Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Istiyak Etc on 30 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, MM-03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc
FIR No. 287/12
Police Station : Jaitpur
Under Section : 325/341/506/34 IPC
Date of institution : 28.02.2013
Date of pronouncement : 30.01.219
JUDGEMENT
a) Cr. Cased number of the case 91236/2016
b
Date of commission of offence 05.09.2012
)
c) Name of the complainant Sabir
Mohd. Istiyak
S/o Sh. Babban
R/o H. No.600, Phase-3, JJ colony, MPK
ND.
Naushaba
d Name, parentage and address of the W/o Sh. Istiyak
) accused R/o H. No.600, Phase-3, JJ colony, MPK
ND.
Amber
D/o Mohd. Istiyak
R/o H. No.600, Phase-3, JJ colony, MPK
ND.
e) Offence complained of Section 325/341/506/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g Convicted of offences U/s325/341/34
Final order
) IPC and acquitted u/s 506/34 IPC.
h Date of final order 30.01.2019
FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.1/8
)
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2012 at about 2.51PM in front of H. NO.600, JJ colony, Phase-III, Jaitpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jaitpur, accused persons namely Ishtiyak, Naushaba and Ambar in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Sabir, caused grievous injuries to him and also threatened to kill him and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 325/341/506 (II) IPC.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charge for the offences punishable under Section 325/341/506(II)/34 of I.P.C. was framed upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case in all examined eight witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Sabir is the complainant who has deposed that accused persons along with Shabbu gave him beatings when he was going to his aunt's place and wrongfully restrained him.
(ii) PW-2 Jummi Begum has turned hostile and stated that she does not know anything about the incident. She was cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein she has failed to support the case of prosecution in any manner.
(iii) PW-3 Dr. Anamika Meena has deposed with respect to the radiologist report of the complainant, which is Ex-PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 Ct. Kiran Pal has deposed that on 05.09.2012 upon receipt of DD No.35A, he along with IO reached at the spot of incident where he got to know that injured was taken to the hospital. PW4 also deposed that on 06.09.2012, injured came to the police station and gave his statement regarding the incident to the IO FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.2/8 thereafter which rukka was prepared by IO and an FIR was registered by PW4.
(v) PW-5 SI Rajpal Singh has deposed that he received DD No.35A which is Ex-
PW5/A. PW5 proved rukka and site plan prepared by him as Ex-PW5/B and Ex- PW5/C respectively. PW5 has also deposed that accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos which are Ex-PW5/D to Ex- PW5/I.
(vi) PW-6 Dr. Muthu Kumaran has proved MLC of Sabir Khan as Ex- PW6/B.
(vii) PW7 ASI Mahender has proved FIR as Ex-PW7/A.
(viii) PW8 SI Mahesh is the IO who has deposed with respect to investigation conducted by him.
After examination of above-said witnesses, PE was closed.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
4. In their examination under Section 313 CrPC., the accused persons denied the entire evidence put to them. In defence the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
ARGUMENTS
5. Learned APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses have established negligence on the part of accused persons and that they be convicted for offences under Section 325/341/506 (II) IPC. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for accused persons that accused persons are innocent as there is no evidence, which will prove their guilt to the hilt.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused have been considered.
Charge u/s 325/341 IPC FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.3/8
7. The injuries suffered by PW1 were of grievous nature for which the punishment is provided in Section 325 IPC respectively.
8. In the present case, PW1 has consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by accused persons. PW1 who is the injured person in the present case has very categorically specified that accused persons had caused injuries on his right hand and his evidence remains unshaken during crossexamination. Evidence of witnesses cannot be brushed aside because of some minor contradictions. The consistent testimony of PW1 regarding hurt caused to him has been duly corroborated by his MLC. The said injuries did not occur in vacuum, rather it is to be accounted for.
9. The testimony of injured witnesses has its own efficacy and relevancy. It is a well settled law that once the eye version is given particularly by the injured himself, the Court would normally rely upon such version of the prosecution unless it suffers from serious infirmities or improvements (Balbir Singh V. State of Punjab, (P&H) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3148). The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies and discrepancies that do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded.
10. In State of Gujarat v. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai, (Gujarat) (DB) Cri.L.J. 2531 it was observed that while appreciating evidence of the injured witnesses it has to be kept in mind that their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. They do not have any reason to omit real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons. Further in the case of State of UP v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of rejecting the prosecution versions either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. The Court held that if there is a ring of truth in the FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.4/8 main case, the case should not be rejected.
11. Reliance can also be place upon the findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh VII (2010) SLT 724 wherein it was observed that:
"Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." Further, in State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Chand, Appeal (crl.) 29 of 1999, Supreme Court observed that the testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to their testimony that they were present during the occurrence. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
12. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned as well as the fact that the testimony of PW1 remains unshaken during cross examination with respect to accused persons, and that the MLC of injured PW1 Sabir which is Ex.PW6/B also states that when injured Sabir were brought to the hospital, he were observed to have suffered 'laceration over figure of this left hand' on the said date, the guilt of accused persons stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Thus, the consistent testimony of PW1 regarding hurt caused to him has been duly corroborated by his MLC. In so far as the inconsistencies and anomalies highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the accused are concerned, I am of the view that these inconsistencies are very minor in nature that are not sufficient to disclose the FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.5/8 otherwise reliable version of the complainant.
Charge under Section 506 I.P.C.
14. For making an offence under section 506 IPC, it is essential that the requirements of section 503 IPC are fulfilled. The requirements of section 503 are as follows: -
(a) A person threatens another with injury;
(b) injury is to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested;
(c) intention is:
(i) to cause harm to that person, or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, as means of avoiding, execution of such threats, or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat.
15. Besides the above stated three requirements as stated in section itself, to make out an offence under section 506 IPC, it is also required that the alleged threats also caused alarm to the complainant. Mere threat in itself is not an offence. If the person advancing such threats, is unable of executing them, and if the person to whom the such threats are advanced, does not get alarmed by raising of such threats alone, no offence is made out.
16. In Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 CRI. L.J.4772 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "The averments made in the FIR and in the case diary statement of the complainant against the petitioners also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under section 506/509 IPC. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant Ms. Bharti by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.6/8 threat is no offence". In Vasant Waman Pradhan Vs. Dattatraya Vithal Salvi 2004(1) Mh.L.J, Bombay High Court observed "Section 506 revolves around the definition given in section 503 of Indian Penal Code which reads: "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
17. In judgment titled Surinder Suri Vs State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed, "The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance, mere vague allegations by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation".
18. Thus the law is settled that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506. There is no mention of the said threats or that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant in the testimony of the complainant before the court. The witnesses have also not deposed that any such threats were given or caused alarm to the complainant. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to such threats or alarm caused to the complainant in consequent to the alleged threats, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not constituted. Hence, offence punishable u/s 506 IPC is not made out against any of the accused persons. Therefore, this Court holds that the complainant has failed to prove prima facie case for offence under section 506 of IPC against the accused persons. No ingredients as indicated by section 503 defining criminal intimidation has been brought in picture by the complainant.
FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.7/819. In view of foregoing reasoning, the court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all accused persons beyond reasonable doubt with respect to charge framed under section 506 (II)/34 IPC. Hence, accused persons stand acquitted from the charges framed U/s 506 (II) /34 IPC.
CONCLUSION
20. From the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against all accused for offences under 325 /341/34 IPC.
21. Since the prosecution has conclusively established all the essential ingredients against the accused persons namely Ishtiyak, Naushaba and Amber as provided U/s 325/341 IPC, beyond any reasonable doubt, they stand convicted for the said offences. However, benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons of offence u/s.506 IPC.
Accused persons be heard on quantum of sentence.
Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convicts.
Let copy of this judgment be placed on the district court website. Announced in open Court on 30.01.2019 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) MM-03 (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi 30.01.2019 FIRNo.287/12 State Vs. Mohd. Istiyak Etc, PS Jaitpur Page No.8/8