Delhi District Court
Fir No. 33/09; State vs . Azad Khan Etc. Page 1 Of 22 on 28 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 38/10
FIR No. 33/09
P.S. Swaroop Nagar
U/S: 308/325/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) AZAD KHAN
s/o Sh. Ismail Khan
r/o jhuggi no. 15,
Vishwanath Puri, Kabadi gali,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi
(2) SHEIKH DILA KHAN
s/o Sh. Ismail Khan
r/o jhuggi no. 15,
Vishwanath Puri, Kabadi gali,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi
(3) Smt. JUMMA BEGUM
w/o Sheikh Dila Khan
r/o jhuggi no. 15,
Vishwanath Puri, Kabadi gali,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi
FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 1 of 22
(4) Smt. KHARUN BEGUM
w/o Azad Khan
r/o jhuggi no. 15,
Vishwanath Puri, Kabadi gali,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi
(5) Smt. RABIA
w/o Ismail Khan
r/o jhuggi no. 15,
Vishwanath Puri, Kabadi gali,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi
Date of Institution: 05082010
Date of arguments: 28022013
Date of judgement: 28022013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that Smt. Momina Bibi filed a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 19112008 against five persons namely Azad Khan, Sheikh Deela, Smt. Rabia, Smt. Kharun, Smt. Jumma in the court of CMM. In her complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant stated that she and her children are doing the job of rag picking for the last 78 years and her husband is heart patient. The complainant used to sell the rag FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 2 of 22 to Azad Khan who was engaged in the purchase of waste material and complainant used to take some money against the said sale from accused Azad Khan and the balance used to remain deposited with accused Azad Khan. By 2006, the complainant saved Rs. 25,000/ with Azad Khan. Accused Azad Khan transferred the jhuggi no. 147, Vishwanath Puri, Kabari gali, Bhalaswa Dairy in favour of complainant against a sum of Rs. 12,500/ and a balance of Rs. 12,500/ remained deposited with accused Azad Khan. Accused Azad Khan also executed a document in this regard in the name of Sheikh Mujibur, son of complainant. On 03092008, complainant sent her son Sheikh Mujibur to accused Azad Khan for taking the balance amount of Rs. 12,500/ but accused Azad Khan refused to give the money and he along with his brother Sheikh Dila Khan gave beatings to Sheikh Mujibur. On hearing the news of beating to Sheikh Mujibur, his sister Salima also went to the place of accused but she was also given beatings. On 04092008, complainant along with her husband approached accused Azad Khan to inquire the matter and to get back the money. In the meantime, accused Sheikh Dila, Smt. Rabia, Smt. Kharun, and Smt. Jumma also gathered there. Thereafter, accused gave beatings to complainant and her husband. Accused Azad Khan picked up an FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 3 of 22 iron rod and attached the complainant and her husband. Other accused persons also started beating the complainant and her husband with legs and fist blows. Accused Azad Khan hit on the head of complainant's husband due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Accused persons made a call at 100 number to misguide the police. Police took complainant and her husband to BJRM hospital where complainant got three stitches and her husband got eight stitches on his head. The police took no action. Complainant gave a written complaint to police. FIR u/s 325/308/34 IPC was registered by the police on 10022009 in pursuance of directions passed by Ld. MM u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against accused Azad Khan, Sheikh Deela Khan, Smt. Rabia, Smt. Kharun Begum, Smt. Jumma Begum and investigation was entrusted to ASI Om Prakash. On 14022009, all five accused were arrested and later on they were released on bail. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 308/325/34 IPC was filed in the court.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 308/34 IPC was framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 4 of 22
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Initially, all accused opted to lead defence evidence but later on they declined to lead defence evidence.
4. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.
5. Ld. Defence counsel for accused argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing remained deposited with the accused Azad Khan. It were not the accused persons who inflicted injuries to PW1 and PW5 but PW5, husband of PW1, gave a danda blow on the head of accused Azad Khan and as a result of which, he received injuries. No beatings were made to the son and daughter of the injured persons by the accused persons. Whereas, the injured persons and their son and daughter abused and quarrelled with the accused persons and when the accused Azad Khan objected to the abusing, they were beaten by the injured persons and their son and daughter. It was only the accused Azad Khan who had informed the police at 100 number since he was beaten by the injured persons and their son and daughter. Medical examination of the accused persons was also FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 5 of 22 got conducted by the police. Due to the aforesaid incident, police booked both the parties u/s 160 IPC.
6. The Ld. APP for State argued that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted and caused injuries to PW1 and PW5. The accused Azad Khan hit the iron rod on the head of PW5 and the accused Azad Khan also hit a danda on the head of PW1 on 04092008. Even otherwise, the PW1 and PW5 have also identified all the accused persons. As per ME Ex. PW10/A of PW1, the injury was grievous and as per MLC Ex. PW14/A of PW5, the injury was simple. The accused cannot take benefit of faulty investigation, if any. The accused persons can even be convicted on the sole testimony of a witness if that testimony is trustworthy and reliable and corroborates with the other evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by way of oral testimony of PWs coupled with medical evidence. The Ld. APP for State, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1).
FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 6 of 22
7. Let us examine whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the complainant Momina Bibi with danda and her husband Rahul Amin with iron rod and by leg and fist blows with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act the accused persons had caused their death. PW5 Sheikh Rahul deposed that in September 2008, he was living in Delhi at Bhalaswa Dairy and doing the work of Kabadi. They used to sell the kabada (junk) to Azad Khan and the money used to remain deposited with Azad Khan. On 03092008, PW5 sent his son Sheikh Muzibur to bring money from accused Azad Khan (correctly identified) but instead of giving the money to him, Azad and his family beat son of PW5. PW5 then sent his daughter Salima to inquire the reason but she was also given beatings. The neighbours counselled the accused persons. Next day on 04092008, PW5 and his wife Momina Bibi demanded money from accused Azad Khan. Accused Azad Khan, his brother accused Sheikh Dila (correctly identified), mother of accused Azad (correctly identified) and the wives of accused Azad Khan and Sheikh Dila Khan (correctly identified) quarrelled with them. The mother of accused Dila Khan and his wife pulled the hair of PW5's wife and when he questioned them, accused Azad Khan hit an iron FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 7 of 22 rod on the head of PW5 due to which he fell down and became unconscious. Accused Sheikh Dila Khan was also having danda. During crossexamination, PW5 denied the suggestion that they used to spend the entire earning on family needs and therefore nothing remained deposited with accused Azad Khan. PW5 further deposed in his crossexamination that he was hit iron rod by accused Azad from behind. PW5 denied the suggestion that he along with his wife gave beatings to accused persons and also abused them. PW5 further denied that due to aforesaid incident, police booked both the parties u/s 160 IPC. PW5 further denied that he did not tell in his statement that he along with his wife were given beatings by the accused persons. PW5 deposed that he was lying unconscious at the place of occurrence. PW5 denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused Azad who attacked him with saria on his head. PW5 further denied that he received injury due to fall and accused had not caused any injury to them. PW5 also denied that no jhuggi was sold by accused Azad.
8. PW1 Momina Bibi deposed that on 04092008, she along with her husband went to accused Azad Khan and demanded back Rs. 12,500/ saved by her with him. Accused Sheikh Dila Khan, Smt. Jumma Begum, Kharun Begum and Rabia also gathered FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 8 of 22 there. When PW1 and her husband insisted for money, accused refused to return the same and instead accused Azad Khan hit a saria on the head of her husband due to which head of her husband was opened and he sustained injuries. Accused Dila Khan hit a danda on the head of PW1 due to which she also sustained head injury and PW1 and her husband started bleeding. Accused Sheikh Dila Khan gave a telephone call to police at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and rushed PW1 and her husband to BJRM hospital. PW1 deposed that her complaint Ex. PW1/A was read over to her before filing in the court. During crossexamination, PW1 deposed that in the incident, only she and her husband received injury and first of all, they were taken to hospital by the police. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband gave a danda blow on the head of Azad and he received 78 stitches. PW10 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM Hospital proved the ME of injured Momina Bibi as Ex. PW10/A thereby it was opined that injury was grievous. PW14 Dr. R. S. Mishra, CCMO, BJRM Hospital proved the MLC of injured Rahul Amin as Ex. PW14/A thereby it was opined that injured was having simple injury.
9. PW2 Sheikh Mujibur deposed that on 03092008, his mother sent him to the house of Azad Khan to bring money which FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 9 of 22 she had deposited with him but Azad Khan did not return the money and instead started quarrelling with PW2. The matter was patched up by the neighbours and PW2 returned back to his house. On 04092008, the parents of PW2 went to Azad Khan to take money from him where accused Azad Khan hit saria on the head of father of PW2 and coaccused Sheikh Dila Khan, Jumma Begum, Kharun Begum (correctly identified) and accused Rabia gave beatings to father and mother of PW2. On hearing this, PW2 also reached at the spot. The father and mother of PW2 sustained injuries and were rushed to hospital by the police. During crossexamination, PW2 deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the road when accused inflicted saria on the head of his father. PW2 deposed that on 03092008, when he reached at the spot, accused Azad Khan and Dila Khan met him and he told them that he was sent by his mother to take Rs. 12,500/ but they refused to make the payment. PW2 also deposed that he accompanied his mother and father to BJRM hospital in the PCR Gypsy. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused Azad Khan had informed the police at 100 number because his mother, father, Murtaja, and Salima had beaten and abused accused Azad Khan. PW2 further denied that when Azad Khan stopped them from abusing, Murtaza gave a fist blow on FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 10 of 22 his nose causing him injury. PW2 also denied the suggestion that his father gave danda blow on the head of Azad Khan resulting in 7 stitches. PW3 Sheikh Murtaza only came to know that accused Azad Khan had hit saria to his father in law/ PW5 and to his mother in law/ PW1. PW4 Salima Bibi, daughter of injured persons PW5 and PW1 stated that on 03092008, she came to know that her brother Sheikh Mujibur had gone to Azad Khan to take the money of his parents lying with him and that instead of returning the money, Sheikh Mujibur was given beatings by Azad Khan. On coming to know of the same, PW4 went in the gali where the house of Azad Khan is situated. Accused Rabia, Harun Begum and Jumma Begum (correctly identified) started giving her beatings and she sustained injuries. The people of the gali counselled the accused persons. The husband of PW4 was called telephonically and he took her to doctor. During crossexamination PW4 deposed that on 03092008 when she reached the spot, she found accused Dila Khan giving beatings to his brother with fist. PW4 and her brother were brought to her house by the people of gali. The brother of PW4 received injuries on his stomach. PW4 also sustained injuries on her stomach and head because of pulling of her hairs. PW4 denied the suggestion that on 04092008, Azad Khan and his family members FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 11 of 22 had not caused any injuries to her mother and father.
10. Let us examine whether the above testimony of PW2 and PW4 who are the son and daughter of the injured PW1 and PW5 can be considered as trustworthy. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgements reported in the case of Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1), it has been held that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. It cannot be said that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon. In the present case, in my view, testimonies of PW2 and PW4 cannot be discarded merely because they are the son and daughter of the injured persons. Further, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence for determining if the accused is convicted or acquitted. In this regard, a reliance can be had upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 12 of 22 principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 and PW5 has not only inspired the confidence but also trustworthy and corroborated with the testimonies of other PWs. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
11. PW6 HC Rajender proved the arrest memos of accused persons Azad Khan, Dila Khan, Rabia, Jumma Begum and Kharun Begum as Ex. PW6/A to PW6/E. During crossexamination, PW6 deposed that arrest memos and other memos were prepared by the IO while sitting in the house of accused. PW6 denied the suggestion that accused were called at the PS where they were falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainants. PW7 W/Ct. Nisha proved the personal search FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 13 of 22 memos of accused Jumma Begum and Kharum Begum as Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B. During crossexamination, PW7 deposed that she signed the departure entry while leaving the PS and IO had made arrival entry in the PS and they came back to PS by TSR. PW7 denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation in this case. PW8 HC Manoj Kumar, Duty Officer proved the FIR as Ex. PW8/A. PW9 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 10022009, he along with Ct. Samarvir reached Kabadi Gali, Vishwanath Puri, Bhalaswa Dairy and prepared site plan Ex. PW9/A on the instance of Momina Bibi. PW8 recorded supplementary statement of Momina Bibi. On 23102009, accused persons namely Azad Khan and Sheikh Dila Khan were again arrested after attracting provision of section 308 IPC in this case vide arrest memos Ex. PW9/B and PW9/C and their personal search memos Ex. PW9/D and PW9/E were also prepared. During crossexamination, PW9 deposed that proceedings u/s 160 IPC was carried out against both the parties on the first call of PCR by the local police. PW9 denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case property and fairly. PW11 L/ Ct. Poonam deposed that on 14022009, she joined investigation of this case with ASI Om Prakash and Ct. Rajender and reached at jhuggi no. 15, Vishwanath Puri, Bhalaswa Dairy where the accused FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 14 of 22 Azad Khan, Sheikh Dila Khan and Rabia (correctly identified) were found present and they were arrested and their personal search memos were also prepared. However, after the arrest, they were released on bail.
12. PW12 Habis Raza, Zonal Officer deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Asstt. Ambulance Officer at Badarpur. PW12 saw the medical examination register of injured Momina Bibi w/o Rahul Amin, aged about 40 years who was admitted in BJRM hospital in the Department of Casualty by CATS ambulance on 04092008 at about 9:20 am with alleged history of physical assault. PW12 also saw the MLC of Rahul Amin s/o Sheikh Kadir, aged 50 years who was admitted by CATS Alfa1 with alleged history of physical assault on 04092008 at 9 am. PW13 SI Ravinder Singh deposed that on 04.09.08, he was posted as SI in PS Swaroop Nagar and doing job of Duty officer from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. On receipt of DD no. 17B Ex. PW13/A, PW13 along with Ct. Kunwar Pal reached at Jhuggi No. 15, Kabari Wali, Shani Bazar, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi and came to know that injured have been shifted by the CATS ambulance. PW13 along with Ct. reached BJRM hospital and found Rahul Amin, Momina Bibi, Azad Khan and Rabia under treatment in the hospital. PW13 collected MLC as well FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 15 of 22 as ME of the aforesaid injured persons. After medical treatment all the aforesaid injured discharged. PW13 brought the injured to the place of occurrence. After having discussion by both the injured party and with the intervention of neighbours matter was compromised. As there was no result on MLC/ME hence, the same was kept pending. At around 5:00 pm, again a call was received regarding quarrel. PW13 along with Ct. Kunwar Pal reached at the aforesaid place. All the four injured persons were pushing each other and abusing. PW13 tried to specify both the parties but they did not bother. Thereafter, all the aforesaid injured persons were put U/s 160 IPC and PW13 got registered FIR through Ct. Kunwar Pal. The investigation of the said matter handed over to HC Ashok Kumar. During crossexamination, PW13 deposed that all the injured persons were brought at the spot via TSR. The compromise reached between the injured was in handwriting and the same was handed over to PW13. PW13 again reached at the spot vide DD no. 19A. The rukka was prepared by PW13. PW13 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation properly and carefully. PW15 SI Suresh Chand deposed that on 30042010, he formally arrested accused Rabia, Smt. Kharun Begum and Smt. Jumma Begum (correctly identified) vide arrest memos Ex. PW15/A FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 16 of 22 to PW15/C and thereafter they were released on bail.
13. In the present case, the Ld. defence counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials who conducted the investigation, therefore, their testimonies cannot be believed. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that the contradictions in the testimonies of police official witnesses as well as the other witnesses are minor which do not go to the root of the case. I have also found that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this context, a reliance is placed upon the judgement reported as State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. There is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses, testimonies of police officials cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as to the other person. Thus, it would not be a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect the testimonies of police officials without good grounds. The statements made by the police officials as witnesses should be given same FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 17 of 22 weight as statements made by other witnesses. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgements of Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311 and Ritesh Kumar Vs. State of Goa, 2006 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 61 (Bom).
14. Ld. Defence counsel argued that no public person was joined in the investigation, therefore, in the absence of public witnesses during investigation, the investigation conducted by the police cannot be believed as trustworthy. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that generally public persons do not come forward to join investigation in such criminal cases. I am of the view that as far as public witnesses joining the investigation are concerned, the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers apart from the eyewitness is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for nonjoining of independent public witnesses. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgements reported as State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 18 of 22 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC 194.
15. The court has the power to examine the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In Raman Saikia Vs. State of Assam (1997) 2 Crimes 555 (Gau.), it was held that section 313 is an important section and salutary provision which should not be slurred over. In the present case, the accused persons, in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., have merely denied all the incriminating evidence. Whereas, the Prosecution has satisfactorily proved the case of assault by the accused persons.
16. So far as the legal position u/s 34 IPC is concerned whether the accused persons had common intention and participated in the commission of the offence, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083, it was held that to apply section 34, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention, and
(ii) participation of accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 19 of 22 crime is proved and common intention is absent, section 34 cannot be invoked. In State of Orissa Vs. Arjun Das, AIR 1999 SC 3229, it was held that the burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual participation of more than one person for commission of criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention at a prior concert. In Hari Om Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1993) 1 Crimes 294 (SC), it was held that in order to bring a case under section 34 it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. In Ramashish Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (8) SCC 555, it was held that it requires a prearranged plan and presupposes prior concert therefore there must be prior meeting of mind. It can also be developed at the spur of moment but there must be pre arrangement or premeditated concert. Therefore, in the present case, it has been proved on record by the prosecution that there was prearrangement and premeditated concert of the accused persons and they had shared the common intention with each other for causing injuries to PW1 and PW5.
17. The wording of section 308 IPC is the same as that of section 307 IPC except that section 308 IPC deals with an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Therefore, offence punishable u/s 308 FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 20 of 22 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, then he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable u/s 308 IPC. In Sunil Kumar Vs. NCT of Delhi (1998) 8 SCC 557 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that offence punishable u/s 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, it has come in evidence that as per MLC Ex. PW14/A, PW5 Sheikh Rahul was having fresh injuries i.e. 5 x 0.5 cms CLW on parietooccipital lobe and swelling on the left elbow. MLC Ex. PW14/A has been proved by the doctor. The testimonies of PWs cannot be disbelieved and it cannot be said that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the act of the accused persons was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable u/s 308 IPC. FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 21 of 22
18. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold all accused persons namely Azad Khan, Sheikh Dila Khan, Smt. Jumma Begum, Smt. Kharum Begum and Smt. Rabia guilty and convict them u/s 308/34 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 28022013 FIR No. 33/09; State Vs. Azad Khan Etc. Page 22 of 22