Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Imran on 30 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) /
NORTH EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI
S.C. No: 392/2018
CNR No. DLNE01-005046-2018
STATE Versus 1. IMRAN
S/o Sh. Mohd. Usman
R/o D-142, Gali No. 8,
Dilshad Masjid, Old Mustafabad,
Delhi.
2. SHAHDAB @ SUNNY
S/o Sh. Mohd. Usman
R/o D-142, Gali No. 8,
Dilshad Masjid, Old Mustafabad,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 208/14
PS. : Khajuri Khas
U/s. : 452/323/313/34 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 08.10.2018
Date Of Allocation : 27.11.2018
Judgment Reserved On : 30.11.2019
Judgment Announced On : 30.11.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. The present case was registered on the statement of Smt. Farha (PW-1) W/o Sh. Vakeel, wherein she alleged that she was having pregnancy of eight month. On 23.01.2014, she had fallen ill, due to which she remained admitted in Kasturba Hospital till 29.01.2014. After that, she was not having any problem in respect of her pregnancy. On 25.02.2014 at about 6:00 pm, she was present alongwith her nanad namely Arshi and mother-in-law namely Kaushar at her home. In the meantime, Imran and Sunny, who were running a mobile shop in Gali No. 3, Old Mustafabad, came to her house alongwith 1-2 other persons SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 1 of 12 and asked about her husband namely Vakeel. She told them that her husband was not present in the house, on which, Imran and Sunny told 'usko bahar nikalo, uski badmashi dekh lenge' and they started abusing her. When her mother-in-law refused, they started scuffling with her and her mother-in-law. During said process, Imran hit leg blow on her stomach, due to which she sustained injury and her condition became worst. Someone called at 100 number. PCR van arrived and took her to GTB hospital, where she was got medically examined. On 26.02.2014, she gave birth to a male child. On 01.03.2014, said child died in the hospital. Her aforesaid statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded by police in the hospital. On the basis of said statement, FIR No. 208/14 under Sec. 323/452/313/34 IPC was registered at PS Khajuri Khas. During investigation of the case, IO/SI Navin Rathi collected MLC No. C-666/14 (Ex. PX-3) dt. 25.02.2013, in which concerned doctor opined that "the child was born before time approximate 34-36 weeks and by lower segment cesarean section in view of transverse lie and placenta previa with continued bleeding and as per pediatrician's death notes, baby died due to prematurity / LBW / anemia and shock". Both the accused persons namely Imran and Shahadab @ Sunni were arrested. After conducting formal proceedings and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against both these accused persons to face trial for the alleged offences.
2. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Sec. 313 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 2 of 12
3. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, charges under Sections 452/323/313/34 IPC were framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses i.e. PW-1 ASI Pradeep Kumar (Duty Officer); PW-2 Smt. Farha Naz (Complainant); PW-3 Smt. Kaushar (mother-in-law of complainant); PW-4 Sh. Vakeel Ahmed (husband of complainant); PW-5 Sh. Shakeel Ahmad (father-in-law of complainant) and PW-6 Ms. Aarshi Parveen (sister-in-law of complainant).
5. Before proceeding further, it may be noted here that the accused persons made joint statements during trial on 28.11.2019 and 30.11.2019 that they were not disputing the contents of PM report and both the MLCs of complainant and her deceased child, as also the factum of recording of statement u/s. 164 CrPC of complainant by learned Link MM and its contents. In view of their said statements, the said documents were exhibited as Ex. PX-1 to PX-4 respectively and the relevant witnesses were dropped by learned Addl. PP.
6. PW-1 ASI Pradeep Kumar is Duty Officer. He deposed that on 01.03.2014, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Khajuri Khas since 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. On that day, at about 1:05 pm, SI Navin Rathi gave him rukka of this case, on the basis of which, he got typed FIR No. 208/14 u/s 323/452/313/34 IPC through computer operator. After registration of the FIR, copy of said FIR and original rukka were handed over to SI Navin Rathi, to whom investigation was entrusted. Copy of said FIR is Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 also made kayami DD No. 18A and endorsement (Ex.PW1/B) regarding the same on the rukka. In his cross- SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 3 of 12 examination, he deposed that he did not recollect whether he had issued certificate u/s. 65-B Indian Evidence Act or not.
7. PW-2 Smt. Farha Naz is complainant. She deposed that she got married with Vakeel Ahmed (PW-4) in the month of May 2013. Her husband was self employed. On 25.02.2014, she was present at her house. She heard that someone had picked up a quarrel with her husband. On hearing this news, she started feeling uneasy and started bleeding. At that time, she was having a pregnancy of 8 months. Her mother-in-law Smt Kausar Jahan (PW-3) was also present at the house at that time but no one else was present there. Her mother- in-law started taking her to the hospital. She was not in a position to walk and she sat down on the way. On seeing her condition, someone informed the PCR. Local police came at the spot and took her to GTB hospital, where she was medically treated. On the next day, she was operated upon and a male child was born to her. The male child was not in a fit condition as before the operation, the child in womb had suffered damages due to excessive bleeding. After about three days, the said child died in the hospital. Police obtained her signature on some papers. She identified her signature on statement Ex.PW2/A. However, she did not identify any of the persons, having committed the alleged offences with her.
8. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that she had told to the police that when she was having pregnancy of about 8 months, she became ill on 23.01.2014 and she remained admitted in Kasturba Hospital till 29.01.2014 for her treatment and that thereafter, she had no problem SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 4 of 12 with respect to her pregnancy and it was a normal case. However, she voluntarily stated that she was advised bed rest by the doctor. She also admitted that besides herself and her mother-in-law, her nanad Arshi was also present in the house on 25.02.2014 at about 6:00 pm and also that on that day at about 6:00 pm, 4-5 persons came to her house and started enquiring regarding her husband from her. She could not say as to whether or not, Imran and Nanhe were amongst those 4-5 persons as she did not know any of them. She was confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW2/A in this regard. She denied the suggestion that on her refusal, accused told her to take out her husband and said 'uski badmashi dekh lenge' and also started abusing her. She was also confronted with portion B to B of statement Ex.PW2/A in this regard. She denied suggestion that Imran and Nanhe started scuffling with her or during this, Imran hit his leg on her abdomen, due to which she sustained injury. This fact was also confronted with portion C to C of statement Ex.PW2/A. She also denied the suggestion that due to the beatings given to her by accused Imran and Nanhe, her son died which was born to her on 26.02.2014. She admitted that her statement u/s. 164 CrPC was recorded by the Magistrate. Photocopy thereof is Ex.PW2/B. She also admitted that on 11.11.2017, the police again equired from her in the present case but her statement was not recorded. She had come to know that Imran had been arrested in this case. She admitted that during the period after 01.03.2014 to 11.11.2017, she had been residing for about one year at her Nani's house situated at Chandpur, Bijnore, UP. When she came back to Delhi alongwith her husband, police enquired from her about this case on SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 5 of 12 11.11.2017. She denied the suggestion that she had compromised the matter with accused persons or due to that, she was deposing falsely in order to save them.
9. She further deposed that she could not say as to whether the accused persons are the same who were amongst the assailants on that day. She denied the suggestion that she was not deliberately identifying the accused persons or that she had mentioned the names of accused Imran and Nanhe in her statement made to the police as she was very much familiar with their identity. Defence counsel did not cross-examine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
10. PW-3 Smt. Kausar is mother-in-law of complaint/PW-2. She deposed that in the year 2014, her son Vakeel Ahmed (PW-4), her daughter-in- law Farha (PW-2), her daughter Arshi, her husband and her other sons namely Faheem and Saif were residing together during those days. She did not remember the exact date of incident, however, it was month of February. On that day in the evening, she, her daughter Arshi and her daughter-in-law were present in the aforesaid house. Some boy came from outside to her home and informed them that a quarrel had occurred with her son Vakeel Ahmed. Thereafter, 4-5 persons came to her house and asked from her as to where her husband i.e. father of Vakeel was and she replied that her husband had gone to the market. Thereafter, her daughter-in-law Farha started feeling uneasiness as she was having pregnancy of 8 months at that time. She was carrying her daughter-in-law Farha to some hospital and due to non-availability of any rickshaw, etc., they SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 6 of 12 were walking on foot due to which, her daughter-in-law started bleeding on the way and she sat down by the side of the road. Seeing this, a crowd gathered there and someone from the crowd informed PCR. PCR came and took her and her daughter-in-law Farha to GTB hospital, where her daughter-in-law was admitted and was medically treated. On the next day, her daughter-in-law gave birth to a male baby through an operation and said child was kept in incubator but the said child died in the hospital on third day. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that police never enquired from her about this case and never recorded her statement. She denied the suggestion that police enquired from her about this case or recorded her statement on 05.01.2017. She admitted that this incident happened on 25.02.2014 and that she had told to the police that one Imran and Sunny were also involved in that incident amongst 4-5 persons who had come at her home on that day. She denied the suggestion that on that day, the persons who had come to her house, had enquired from her about her son Vakeel and on reply of the same by her daughter-in-law Farha to the effect that Vakeel was not present at the house, accused Imran abused and exhorted to take out Vakeel and said 'aaj uski badmashi dekhte hain'. She denied the suggestion that accused Imran and Sunny started a scuffle with her daughter-in-law Farha and accused Imran hit his leg upon the abdomen of her daughter-in-law, due to which she became ill. She was confronted with portion A to A of statement mark PW3/PX.
11. She also denied the suggestion that the pregnancy of her daughter- in-law was damaged due to leg blow given by accused Imran upon her abdomen SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 7 of 12 or that both the accused persons are the same persons who alongwith their associates, had come to her house on that day or had committed the present crime. She stated that since she did not know the accused persons, she cannot identify them as to whether they are Imran and Sunny. She denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as she had compromised the matter with the accused persons. Defence counsel did not cross-examine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
12. PW-4 Sh. Vakeel Ahmed is husband of the complainant/PW-2. He deposed that the incident had happened in the year 2014, he did not remember the exact date of incident, however, it was winter season. At that time, he had hot talk with accused Imran for getting repair his mobile phone as Imran was running a mobile repair shop in Gali No.3, Dayalpur, Old Mustafabad, Delhi. Some persons came there and matter was pacified. They both went for their respective work. During those days, his wife was having pregnancy of eight months and somebody informed him on telephone that his wife had been admitted in GTB hospital. He went to GTB hospital. On the next day, his wife delivered a male child through operation. Said child was kept in incubator, where the child died on third day. Thereafter, he went to mortuary of GTB hospital, where he had identified the dead body of his child, vide identification memo as Ex.PW4/A. After postmortem on 03.03.2014, the dead body of his child was handed over to them for its last rites. The carbon copy of handing over memo of the dead body is Ex.PW4/B.
13. PW-5 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed is father-in-law of the complainant. He SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 8 of 12 had simply identified the dead body of his grand son, vide identification memo (Ex.PW5/A). He deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body of child was handed over to them for its last rites, vide receipt Ex.PW4/B. Defence counsel did not cross-examine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW-6 Ms. Aarshi Parveen is sister-in-law of the complainant. She also did not support the case of prosecution at all. Rather, she deposed entirely contrary to the prosecution story by deposing that while she was present inside her house on 25.02.2014, she had heard the noise of quarrel going on outside the house and later on, she came to know that said quarrel took place between between her brother Vakeel and some persons, whose names were not disclosed to her by any of the neighbourers. She herself did not go outside the house when the quarrel was going on. In her cross-examination by Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that police neither made any enquiry from her nor recorded her statement concerning this case during investigation. She categorically denied the suggestion that accused Imran and Sunny had visited their house at 6:00 pm on that day. She volunteered that she did not even know any of these two accused persons and she had seen them for the first time in the court. She also denied all the relevant suggestions put to her on the lines of prosecution story in toto despite being confronted with her statement (Mark PW6/PX) u/s. 161 CrPC dt. 05.01.2017. She, however, admitted that police had taken her bhabhi to hospital but volunteered that police had taken her from outside the house. She also admitted that her bhabhi had delivered a male child in the hospital on 26.02.2014 and also that said child had died on 01.03.2014. SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 9 of 12 However, she denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as she had compromised the matter with the accused persons. Defence counsel did not cross-examine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
15. It is worth to mention here that PW-2 Smt. Farha Naz (complainant), PW-3 Smt. Kaushar (mother-in-law of complainant) and PW-6 Ms. Aarshi (nanad of the complainant) were the only material witnesses in the present case. However, all these witnesses did not support the prosecution case during trial. PW-2 even denied making any statement (Ex.PW2/A) to the police. She did not support the incident as per the story of prosecution at all during the course of trial.
16. PW-1 ASI Pradeep Kumar is the Duty Officer who has proved the copy FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
17. PW-4 Sh. Vakeel Ahmad and PW-5 Sh. Shakeel Ahmed are the witnesses of identification of the dead body of child, having proved identification memos as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW5/A and carbon copy of handing over memo of the dead body as Ex.PW4/B.
18. As the material witnesses of this case did not support the prosecution case in any manner and IO being only police witness, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses. The witness(es) who could connect these two accused with the offences, have not supported the prosecution. This was a major blow to the case of the prosecution. As no purpose was going to be served by examining remaining witness i.e. IO, the prosecution evidence was closed.
SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 10 of 12
19. As the material and key witnesses failed to connect the accused persons with the crime in question and nothing incriminating has come on record against them, their statements under Sec. 313 CrPC was, therefore, dispensed with.
20. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that PW-2 Smt. Farha Naz (complainant), PW-3 Smt. Kaushar (mother-in-law of complainant) and PW-6 Ms. Aarshi (nanad of the complainant) were the only star witnesses examined by prosecution during trial in order to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons. Apart from them, the prosecution also examined Sh. Vakeel Ahmed as PW4, who is husband of PW2 and had identified the dead body of his child as well as Sh. Shakeel Ahmed as PW6, who is father-in-law of PW-2 and was undisputedly not present at the time of alleged incident. Unfortunately, all the aforesaid key witnesses failed to identify any of these accused persons during trial to be amongst the assailants. They did not support the prosecution story to any extent on material facts. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 denied to have made the police statements relied by the prosecution, during the course of investigation. Not only this, the entire testimonies of all these three witnesses are totally silent that accused Imran had given leg blow on the abdomen of PW-2 or caused injuries to her as well as to her mother-in-law i.e. PW-3, as alleged by the prosecution.
21. All the aforesaid witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied all the relevant suggestions put to them by learned Additional PP on the lines of prosecution story. As per the case of prosecution, all these witnesses SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 11 of 12 alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story but none of them supported its case during the course of trial. There is no iota of evidence available on record to show that any of the accused persons had caused injuries to complainant at any point of time as alleged. In other words, the prosecution has failed to lead clinching evidence, which may conclusively connect either of these accused persons with the commission of offences charged against them. Thus, it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge for the offences punishable U/s 452/323/313/34 IPC against both the accused persons beyond pales of reasonable doubt. Consequently, both the accused persons namely Imran and Shahdab @ Sunny are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, as per the rules. Digitally signed
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT by VIDYA
ON THE 30th day of November, 2019. PRAKASH
VIDYA Date:
PRAKASH 2019.11.30
17:08:19
+0530
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
Addl. Sessions Judge/
NE/KKD/Delhi/30.11.2019
SC No. 392/2018 State Vs. Imran & Anr. Page 12 of 12