Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Imran S/O Shahabuddin R/O F-28, ... on 21 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC)-02, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 1106/2016)
FIR No. 354/2013
Police Station Jamia Nagar
Charge sheet filed Under Section 307/326/506/341/34 IPC
Charge framed Under Section 307/341/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Imran s/o Shahabuddin r/o F-28, Naffes Road Batla
House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Salmaan s/o Shahabuddin r/o F-28, Naffes Road
Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
......Accused persons
Date of institution 03.06.2015
Arguments concluded on 21.01.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 21.01.2023
Decision Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by Inspector Sandeep Rathi (hereinafter referred as IO) against persons namely Imran and Salmaan (hereinafter referred as accused persons) on the complaint of Sh. Liyakat Ali (hereinafter referred as SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 1 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
complainant/injured) for committing offences under section 307/341/34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 10.07.2013, a PCR call vide DD No. 50B dated 10.07.2013 about the quarrel near C-331, Nai Basti was marked to SI Amit Bhati. SI Amit Bhati alongwith Ct. Rohtash reached at the spot and found that injured was already shifted to Holy Family Hospital, Jamia Nagar and no eye witness was found at the spot. Thereafter, IO SI Amit Bhati alongwith Ct. Rohtash went to Holy Family Hospital and found one injured namely Liyakat Ali s/o Zakir Hussain admitted vide MLC No. C13-0192016 in the hospital with the history of assault by 3-4 persons and he was declared fit for statement. SI Amit Bhati recorded the statement of injured Liyakat Ali, who stated that he was running a bike repair shop in the name of Lucy Auto Engineers at C-331, Nai Basti. Imran and Salmaan were also running their shop of auto parts near the shop of Liyakat Ali. Injured stated that on 08.07.2013, he purchased a bike part from the shop of accused persons, however, the said bike part was found defective. When injured went to replace the defective part to the shop of accused persons, they refused to return the same and an altercation took place between them and they threatened the injured. On 10.07.2013 at about 04:00 PM, injured was passing from the shop of accused persons, they called the injured and accused Salmaan stabbed injured with a knife on the head, hand and stomach. Accused Imran also inflicted injuries on the person of injured with an iron rod (sariya). Injured raised hue and cry. Public SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 2 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
persons gathered at the spot. Someone called at number 100. Tanvir friend of injured shifted him to Holy Family Hospital where police recorded his statement. On the basis of statement, FIR was registered under section 324/341/34 IPC. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured and seized the clothes of injured. He arrested accused Imran and Salmaan and recovered the iron rod used by the accused Imran during the commission of the offence. The knife used by accused Salmaan could not be recovered, however, the doctor opined that injuries suffered by the complainant could be inflicted by a knife. IO collected the opinion on the MLC of injured and replaced section 326 to section 324 IPC and added section 307/506 IPC in this case. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the IO.
CHARGE
3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 10.10.2017, charge for offences punishable under sections 341/307/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses.
MATERIAL/EYE WITNESSES
5. PW2 is Abdul Hanan, who deposed that he used to run a shop of pan till 2010 at Nayi Basti, Jamia Nagar. He deposed that in the month of SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 3 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
December 2010, he left Delhi and went to his native place i.e., Village Sakri, Post office/District Darbangha, Bihar. Since December 2010, he has been residing at his native place. He further deposed that in the present case, IO asked his name and address in the year 2010 as he was running the said shop. He further deposed that he does not know anything else about this case.
This witness was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. He has denied all the suggestions put to him by ld. Addl. PP for the State. He denied that on 10.07.2013 at about 04:00 PM, he was present at his shop and accused Salman and Imran apprehended Liyakat Ali and accused Salman attacked him with knife. He denied that accused Imran was carrying iron rod in his hand and attacked Liyakat Ali. He denied that both accused persons threatened the victim and caused injuries to him. He correctly identified accused Imran, however, stated that he was not present at the spot. He failed to identify accused Salman.
6. PW3 is Tanvir Alam, who deposed that on 10.07.2013 in the evening time, he was working in the shop of Lucky Auto situated at Okhla Nai Basti. He further deposed that Liyakat went to the shop of Imran to purchase spare parts of auto. He further deposed that he came to know from the persons, who were working with him that hot talk had happened between Liyakat and accused Imran. He further deposed that he does not know anything about this case and correctly identified accused Imran being his neighbour.
This witness was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State as SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 4 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
he has resiled from his statement and denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He denied that on 10.07.2013 at about 04:00 PM, Liyakat Ali was passing in front of shop of Imran and Salman and Liyakat was caught hold of by them. He denied that Salman wrongly restrained Liyakat Ali and gave a churri blow to Liyakat Ali, who sustained injuries on his head, hand and stomach. He denied that accused Imran was having iron rod in his hand and also attacked Liyakat Ali and he rushed to save him.
FORMAL WITNESSES
7. PW1 HC Pooran Singh was the duty officer on 10.07.2013 from 04:00 PM to 12 midnight. At about 07:10 PM, he received a rukka from Ct. Rohtash sent by SI Amit Bhatia for registration of FIR. He registered the FIR which is Ex. PW1/A and made his endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW1/B. He also issued certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW1/C.
8. PW4 Inspector Sandeep Rathi, prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
9. Complainant/injured Liyakat Ali has expired on 02.03.2017. Eye witnesses i.e., PW2 Abdul Hanan and PW3 Tanveer Ahmad could not identify the accused persons being the persons, who inflicted injuries on the person of injured Liyakat Ali. Remaining witnesses were formal witnesses and could not prove the case, prosecution evidence was closed as no useful purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses.
SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 5 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
10. After closure of PE, separate statement of accused persons under section 313 CrPC were recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons to which they have denied in toto and pleaded false implication in the present matter. They opted not to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard final arguments put forth by Sh. L. D. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and by Sh. K. K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel alongwith Ms. Uditi Bali, Sh. Rahul Khan and Sh. Jatin Singh, ld. counsels for accused persons.
FINDINGS
12. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable lacks of credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
13. In the instant case, as per the complaint, on 10.07.2013 at about 04:00 PM, when injured Liyakat Ali, was passing in front of shop of accused persons, accused Salman stopped him and inflicted injuries with a churri due to which injured sustained injuries on his head, hand and stomach. In the meantime, accused Imran also inflicted injuries SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 6 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
with iron rod.
14. When the complainant/injured was summoned to depose in the court, it was reported on the summons that injured Liyakat Ali was expired on 02.03.2017. Thereafter, two eye witnesses i.e., PW2 Abdul Hanan and PW3 Tanvir Alam were called, however, they have not supported the case of the prosecution during their deposition. They have been thoroughly cross examined at length but Ld. Addl. PP has failed to illicit anything material against the accused persons from PW2 and PW3. They have failed to identify the accused persons being the culprits involved in the incident and also denied the suggestion that injured Liyakat Ali suffered injuries at the hands of accused persons. Therefore, PW2 Abdul Hanan and PW3 Tanvir Alam have turned hostile and their depositions against the accused persons is of no avail.
15. Other witnesses were officials witnesses, who participated in the investigation, and therefore, they would have been also unable to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Accordingly, remaining witnesses were dropped.
CONCLUSION
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case and the fact that injured Liyakat Ali, who can prove the case against the accused persons, has already expired, and evidence brought on record, I am of the firm view that depositions of PW2 Abdul Hanan and PW3 Tanvir Ahmad, who were eye witnesses, are fatal to the case of the SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 7 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.
prosecution. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed in proving the allegations for committing offences under section 307/341/34 IPC against accused persons Imran and Salmaan beyond reasonable doubt. They are accordingly acquitted from all the allegations levelled against them. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2023.01.21 15:30:36 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 21.01.2023 Addl. Session Judge-FTC-02 (running in 8 pages) (South East), Saket Courts/Delhi SC No. 1106/16, FIR No. 354/13, PS Jamia Nagar Page No. 8 of 8 State Vs. Imran & Anr.