Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs 1. Mohd Sharukh @ Aas Mohd. on 1 July, 2019

           IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR ,
    ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (SHAHDARA) , DELHI.

ID No. 480-2018
Sessions Case No.                      73/18
Assigned to Sessions on                20.09.2018
FIR No.                                154/2018
Police Station                         Jyoti Nagr
Under Section                          U/S 307/34 IPC
Charged Under Section                  U/S 307/34 IPC
State Vs                               1. Mohd Sharukh @ Aas Mohd.
                                          S/O Mahmood
                                          R/O 25 Foota Road,
                                          Ashok Vihar Loni Ghaziabad
                                          U.P

                                       2. Shahrukh
                                          S/O Sh Momin
                                          R/O H. No. 1402, Gali No.01,
                                          Kacha Balram Nagar,
                                          Loni Ghaziabad U.P.

Arguments heard on                     01.07.2019
Date of Judgment                       01.07.2019
Final Order                            Acquitted.

                              JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case are that 06.05.2018, at about 11.00 PM, complainant Asif, who was employed as Conductor on a bus, got down from the bus to have a water. He was standing and waiting for his bus, as the driver Nadeem had gone with the bus at Durga Puri Chowk to deboard the passenger. Meanwhile 3-4 boys including accused persons, who are driving auto have stabbed him with knife on his chest. Meanwhile, Nadeem, the driver of the bus came there and removed him to a private hospital.

2. After registration of FIR, on the above said statement, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency and the accused were arrested. During investigation the statement of the witnesses were recorded. IO collected the documents, prepared the challan for the alleged offence U/S 307/34 IPC and filed the charge sheet in the Court of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. The charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was committed U/S 209 Cr P C to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Delhi for the trial of offence U/S 307/34 IPC. The accused were also sent to face the trial. The case was marked to this Court for trial by th Ld District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi

3. After considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld Counsel for accused, prima facie case for the offence punishable under section U/S 307/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons . Accordingly, charge was framed for the offence U/S 307/34 IPC against the accused persons on 25.05.2019 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the record and the arguments advanced by them. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once S.C. No. 73/18 State Vs Mohd Shahrukh & Ors Page 2/6 this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55.

5. It is to be borne in mind that the most important aspect of any successful prosecution is clear establishment or proof of identity of the accused being the assailant who has committed the alleged offence. This aspect of identify becomes the most primordial when the accusation against the accused has been for the serious offence like the present one. It is also stated to be first and most important connecting link in the chain of events which are required to be proved by the prosecution before it could take its case towards the other connecting links for the purpose of proving the ingredients with which accused persons have been charged with.

6. Before adverting further to the facts of case I would like to discussed the ingredients of the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with. The accused persons have been charged with offences U/S 307/34 IPC.

7. To constitute an offence u/s 307 of IPC following ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.

(i) that the death of human being was attempted.

(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by,or in consequences of the act of the accused; and S.C. No. 73/18 State Vs Mohd Shahrukh & Ors Page 3/6

(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so immediately dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no exercise for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

8. In the present case from the perusal of testimony of injured (PW1) and one another public witness namely Nadeem a fact is proved on record beyond the reasonable doubt that PW1 ( Injured) Arif was stabbed on 06.05.2018 at about 11.50 to 12.00 mid night. This fact has also been proved from the MLC dated 07.05.2018 on record.

9. Now the question arises whether the accused persons facing trial have stabbed the knife injury to the complainant (PW 1) or not. On perusal of testimony of PW1 it has categorically come on record that these were not the accused persons who have stabbed injury to the injured / complainant. As PW 1 has deposed in his examination in chief that 4-5 persons boarded the bus at Loni Border Gol Chakkar Delhi out of those 4-5 one person has stabbed him which was the result of a quarrel between him and those 4- 5 persons. Those 4-5 persons have ran away after committing the offence. The witness has not identified the accused facing trial in the Court as these persons have given knife blow to him and also deposed that he has not given statement mark A/PW1. Both the accused person have been arrested on the basis of secret information. PW1 S.C. No. 73/18 State Vs Mohd Shahrukh & Ors Page 4/6 has also stated that the person who has caused injury to him has covered his face with handkerchief. The witness has also stated that he has not seen the assailant after commission of offence.

10. So far as the suggestion put to the witness by Addl PP that he has been won over by the accused person is concerned. Nothing has come on record to substantiate his suggestion. Moreover both the accused persons are in J/C since their arrest. So probability is not there to win over the witness by the accused persons. There is no evidence on record which suggest that any family member of both the accused persons have ever met the witness PW 1. So probability is also not there to win over the complainant (PW1).

11. So far as testimony of PW2 Nadeem is concerned, he has come after the commission of offence and had taken the injured to a Private hospital namely Lata in the area of Loni Delhi. This witness was not present at the spot at the time of incident.

12. I have perused the evidence on record. There is no other evidence on record which can connect the identity of the accused person with the commission of offence of present FIR. Ld Addl PP for the State has also unable to brought to my notice any other evidence which can connect the accused person with the alleged offence.

13. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case and they have fully succeeded to disprove the case of the prosecution.

14. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused are entitled to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted of the charges.

15. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of 6 months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.

16. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

JAGDISH Location: Shahdara District, ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Karkardooma Courts Date: 2019.07.04 10:51:34 +0530 COURT ON THIS 01.07.2019 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 SHAHDARA, KKD:DELHI S.C. No. 73/18 State Vs Mohd Shahrukh & Ors Page 6/6