Delhi District Court
Fir No. 194/15, Ps : Hauz Qazi State vs . Mirza Ibrahim Beg on 10 May, 2019
FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Mirza Ibhrahim Beg
FIR No. 194/2015
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s 323/506/509 IPC
CNR No. DLCT02 0055262015
Date of Institution : 17.08.2015
Date of reserving of order : 22.04.2019
Date of Judgment : 10.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 295831/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Rizwana
3. Date of incident : 02.07.2015
4. Name of accused person :
Mirza Ibrahim Beg S/o Late. Ayub Beg
R/o H. No. 4469, 3rd Floor, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed : S. 323/506/509 IPC
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : S. 323/506/509 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted Page 1 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mirza Ibrahim Beg, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 323/506/509 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2015, at about 11:30 a.m., at 4469, 3 rd floor Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Hauz Qazi, Ms. Rizwana, the complainant was coming down stairs from her flat. The accused had kept some bricks in the stair case. He told the complainant that she could not use the stair case. When the complainant continued coming down stairs, the accused had hit her with a brick. When the complainant again tried to go up stairs, the accused started abusing her. Thereafter, she went in her floor on 3 rd floor. The accused also reached there and started beating the door of the house of the complainant. He also started using abusive language. PCR call was made. The police arrived at the spot. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offences Page 2 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg punishable under Section 323/506/509, Indian Penal Code.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 323/506/509 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined 08 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 W Ct. Chitra is the police official who had joined the investigation of this case with IO / SI Ali Sher. She has deposed that on 02.07.2015, she alongwith IO had reached at the spot i.e., at H. No. 4469, 3 rd Floor, Gali Shehtara, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. Complainant Rizwana was there. The IO had recorded the statement of the complainant. On the directions of the IO, she had taken the complainant to JPN Hospital where MLC of the complainant was prepared. She had collected MLC of the Page 3 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg complainant from the hospital authority and returned at the police station. MLC was handed over to the IO. The complainant had gone to her house on a rickshaw after dropping her in front of PS. The IO had recorded her statement in this regard.
6. PW2 Ms. Rizwana is the complainant in the present matter. She has deposed that on 02.07.2015 at about 11:00 a.m., she was coming from her aforesaid house at 3rd Floor towards the ground floor by the stairs.
Accused Mirza Ibrahim Beg was also residing in the same building in the basement area. On the ground floor stairs, the accused had put several bricks to stop her way. When she had reached nearby the aforesaid place, the accused shouted loudly upon her. He had threatened her for dire consequences. The accused had given a brick blow upon her right leg due to which she sustained injuries. The accused had threatened her saying, "Aaj Tumarhi Tange Tor dunga, jis se ki tum niche nahi uttar pao ge". The accused had also abused her and also shown her another brick and threatened that he would break her head. She somehow managed to reach at her aforesaid third floor of the house. The accused had also followed her and reached Page 4 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg at 3rd Floor. She had bolted her room. The accused had knocked the door several times. The accused had again abused her saying, " Tera Sar Phor Dunga, Teri Tange Tor dunga aur tujhe jinda dafna doonga". She had called at number 100. After some time police official had reached at her house. The IO had recorded her statement in this regard, which is Ex. PW2/A. She was taken to the hospital where her MLC was prepared. In the night hours she alongwith the IO and one lady police official had returned to her house where the IO had prepared site plan of the spot at her instance, which is Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, she went to the house of her mother as she had sustained injuries on her right leg and it was impossible to reach at 3rd Floor.
7. PW3 HC Hakim Singh is the police official who was with the IO. He has deposed that on 02.07.2015, after receiving a call of quarrel vide DD No. 18A PS Hauz Qazi, he alngwith SI Ali Sher reached at Gali Shehtara, H. No. 4469. There they met with one lady. She had made a complaint against Mirza Ibrahim Beg. Lady Ct. Chitra was also with them. She took the complainant for medical examination. The IO had prepared the Tehrir and handed Page 5 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg over to him for registration of FIR at the PS. He took the Tehrir and went to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned at the spot and handed over the Tehrir to the IO. The IO had recorded his statement. Thereafter he was discharged.
8. PW4 W SI Devender Kaur is the DO. She has deposed that on 02.07.2015, at 03:10 p.m, Ct. Hakim had brought a rukka sent by ASI Ali Sher for registration of FIR. After receiving the rukka she had registered the FIR No. 194/2015 PS Hauz Qazi, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A (OSR). After registration of FIR, she had handed over the same to Ct. Hakim Singh to be given to ASI Ali Sher.
9. PW5 Ct. Fakruddin is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 14.07.2015, the IO had arrested accused Mirza Ibrahim Beg and also conducted his personal searched in his presence vide memos Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively. The accused was also released on the police bail in his presence. The IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
10. PW6 Retd. SI Ali Sher was the IO. He has deposed that on 02.07.2015, he received DD no. 18A for Page 6 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg necessary action. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Hakim Singh and W Ct. Chitra had reached at 3 rd floor of H. No. 4469, Gali Shehtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. One Rizwana Begum / complainant met them there. He had recorded her statement which is Ex. PW2/A. He had filled medical form of the complainant and he was sent to the JPN hospital alongwith WCt. Chitra. After about 01:30 hours, the complainant and W Ct.Chitra returned at the aforesaid spot and MLC of complainant was handed over to him. No final opinion was given by the doctor upon the MLC of the complainant. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW6/A. Ct. Hakim Singh had taken the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered. He returned at the spot with the rukka and copy of FIR. He had prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW2/B. He had recorded statements of relevant witnesses. He had searched the accused but could not succeed on that day. On 14.07.2015, he alongwith Ct. Fakruddin reached at H.No. 4469, Gali Sehtara Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. Accused Mirza Ibrahim Beg met him there. He had informed him the grounds of his arrest in this case and thereafter, he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW5/A Page 7 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg and Ex.PW5/B respectively. The accused was released on personal bond. He had recorded statements of relevant witnesses. On 14.07.2015, he deposited the MLC in the hospital for opinion of doctor. On 01.08.2015, final opinion upon the MLC was obtained. After necessary investigation of this case, challan was prepared.
11. PW7 Dr. Yashi Rawat is the doctor who had examined the complainant at JPN hospital. She has deposed that on 02.07.2015, at about 02:25 p.m. She had examined one patient namely Rizwana wife of Mirza Islam Beg and she had prepared detailed MLC in this regard which is Ex. PW7/A. After the preliminary examination the patient was referred to Ortho Emergency Department for further necessary action.
12. PW8 Dr. Shekhar Tank had given the opinion on MLC of Smt. Rizwana. He has proved his opinion on MLC Ex.PW7/A from point "X to X1". As per the MLC the nature of the injury was Simple.
13. All the witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. He would state Page 8 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg that he was falsely implicated. The complainant is wife of his younger brother. She made false allegations to implicate him. She wanted to create pressure to grab the property. There is a property dispute due to which false complaint was made.
14. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant has proved that the accused had caused her injury and that he had threatened her. She has also proved that the accused had used words intending to insult the modesty of a woman. Hence, all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 323/506/509 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be convicted.
16. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined any independent public witness to corroborate the allegations Page 9 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg made by the complainant. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials which are sufficient to create reasonable doubts on the investigation stated to be conducted by the IO. Even the testimony of the complainant is full of contradictions. The complainant had made false allegations against the accused to vacate the premises in question. The prosecution did not examine the husband or mother of the complainant which shows that a false complaint was made. The Record of the PCR would show that DD No. 18A was regarding disturbance by one person and his wife. After 10 minutes of the said PCR call, DD No. 20A was recorded wherein it was mentioned that a brother in law (Jeth) had hit a lady with stone. All these circumstances create reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
17. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
18. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
Page 10 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg
19. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 323/506/509 IPC. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to any person. Section 319 IPC defines hurt as under :
"319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
20. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation as under :
"503. Criminal intimidation.--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 intim idation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs State Of Karnataka & Anr. Criminal Appeal no. 141/ 2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6449 of 2014), decided on 20 January, 2015, has discussed the Page 11 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg ingredients of offence defined under Section 503 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
"15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section."
22. In Kanshi Ram Vs State, 86 (2000) DLT 609, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had discussed the law relating to Criminal intimidation. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under :
Page 12 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg "10. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Isran Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Isran Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko".Strangely enough, Isran Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is well settled that more threat is no offence. That being so the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under Section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the said evidence."
23. Section 509 IPC provides punishment for insulting the modesty of a women. The Section reads as under :
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment Page 13 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
24. In the present case, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused had voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant. He had also criminally intimidated the complainant and used the word which were intended to outrage the modesty of a women. The complainant is the only witness examined by the prosecution as eye witness of the alleged incident. The other witnesses had participated during the investigation. Therefore, it is to be decided whether the testimony of the complainant is able to prove all the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 323, 506 & 509 IPC.
25. The complainant in her examination as PW2 has stated that the accused had criminally intimidating her at the time of hitting her by the brick saying, "Aaj Tumahri Tange Tor Dunga...." However, in her statement to the IO which is Ex. PW2/A, no such allegation is made that at that time the accused had said any words. It is a material improvement without any explanation.
26. The complainant in her examination as PW2 has stated that after arrival of the IO, she was taken to the hospital where MLC was prepared. Thereafter, in the night Page 14 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg hours, she alongwith IO and one lady police official had returned to her house where IO had prepared the site plan at her instance. However, PW1 Wct. Chitra who had taken the complainant to the hospital, has deposed that after medical examination of the witness, she had returned to the PS alongwith the complainant and after dropping her at the PS, the complainant had gone to her house in the same rickshaw in which they had come from the hospital. The witness has also stated that she had handed over the MLC to the IO at the police station. Thus, there is a material contradiction in the statements of PW1 and PW2 regarding the fact whether they had come to the PS or at the house of the complainant from the hospital.
27. The complainant in her examination has stated that she had made a call to PCR and after some time police officials reached at her house. In her crossexamination, she has admitted that the mobile number 9873164769 belonged to her and that she might have made a call to PCR from the said mobile number. There is copy of DD No.18A dated 02.07.2015, PS : Hauz Qazi filed by the prosecution with the challan. This DD entry has not been proved by the prosecution during evidence. However, this Page 15 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg document being a document filed the prosecution can be read against it. Perusal of DD No.18A would show that at about 11 :35 a.m., PCR call was made by using mobile phone number 9873164769. The address mentioned in the said DD entry also of the house of the complainant and the accused. The PCR call was made by the caller stating that one person and his wife was disturbing the caller (Mujhe Ek Aadmi aur uski begum paresan kar rahi hai). PW6 IO Retd. SI Ali Sher has also stated that he had left for the spot after receiving DD No.18A on that day. The IO has not deposed in his testimony that he was assigned DD No.20A also. There is nothing on record to show as to who was the caller who had made call on the basis of which DD No.20A was recorded. No mobile number or land line number is mentioned in the copy of DD No.20A. None of the witness has even mentioned about DD No.20A of the said day. Therefore, the contents of DD No.20A can not be read in evidence as they have remained not proved. Perusal of the copy of DD No.18A would show that the call was regarding disturbance by one person and his wife. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused has raised reasonable doubts on the statement of the Page 16 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg complainant made to the police on the relevant day and on her evidence recorded in the Court.
28. It has come on record that the complainant and the accused are relatives. It has also come in the cross examination of the complainant that she had made other criminal complaints also against the accused which are pending adjudication in the Court of law. Thus, it is shown by the defence that there is previous enmity between the parties.
29. I am aware of the legal position provided under Section 134, the Indian Evidence Act. Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2003 SC 854 has held that the Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, into three categories namely (i) wholly unreliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be Page 17 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court as to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness.
30. In the present the testimony of the complainant falls under third category as mentioned by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned Judgment. I am of the opinion that some corroboration must have been brought by the prosecution to support the averments made by the complainant as there was previous enmity between the parties. However, no evidence corroborating the testimony of the complainant has been brought on record. The complainant in her examination as PW2 has stated that the incident had taken place at about 11 a.m., when the accused had abused her and caused injuries on her right leg by throwing a brick upon her. In her crossexamination, she has stated that her husband runs a shop on the ground floor of the said property. However, she has also stated that at the time of incident in question her husband was not at home and he was at his Page 18 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019 FIR No. 194/15, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Mirza Ibrahim Beg shop at Ajmeri Gate. She has also stated that her husband had come to the hospital to visit her and thereafter they both had come home together. However, statement of her husband is not shown to be recorded by the IO to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. It would not be safe, in the given circumstances, to rely on the sole testimony of the complainant to convict the accused.
31. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that reasonable doubts have been raised on the case of the prosecution. The accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. He is therefore acquitted.
32. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C, with one surety, photographs and ID proofs. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2019.05.10
16:20:59
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar)
th
this 10 Day of May 2019 MM08 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 19 of 19 MM08/Central/THC/10.05.2019