Delhi District Court
State vs Imran @ Langra on 30 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE03
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
SESSIONS CASE NO. 9/14
CASE ID No. 02403R0170652009
FIR NO. 35/09
POLICE STATION: AMAR COLONY
UNDER SECTION: 307 IPC
STATE
Versus
IMRAN @ LANGRA
S/o Yameen
R/o Shop No. 16, Okhla Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.04.2009
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER: 24.03.2015
DATE OF DECISION: 30.03.2015
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution:
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 16.01.2009 at about 1.25 pm SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 1 of 20 the Duty Officer of PP Srinawaspuri, PS Amar Colony received a wireless message regarding a quarrel at Shop no. 16, Okhla Sabji Mandi.
The Duty Officer reduced the information in writing in rojnamcha as DD no. 12 and the copy of the same was handed over to ASI Ompal Singh who alongwith Ct. Gurnam reached at the spot where one Sh. Farukh was found in injured condition. On instructions from the IO, Ct. Gurnam and the father of injured namely Md. Ayub accompanied the injured to Trauma Center, AIIMS. The IO/ASI Ompal Singh inquired about the incident at the spot but no clue could be found. Thereafter, the IO also reached the hospital and collected the MLC no. 150271 pertaining to the injured, upon which the doctor declared him unfit for statement and the weapon used was opined as sharp. The IO examined and recorded the statement of eye witness Md. Ayub (father of injured).
In his statement the complainant, Md. Ayub stated that he is having a rehri (mobile stall) meant for selling tea and eggs in front of shop no. 116, Okhla Sabji Mandi for last about 6 years and that his son Mohd. Farukh aged about 18 years also helps him at the said stall. On 16.01.2009 at about 1.00 pm, accused Imran @ Langra who was already known to him, came to his stall and asked his son Farukh to make tea and omelette. His son Mohd. Farukh however demanded previous dues which SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 2 of 20 the accused was indebted and stated that he will provide tea and snacks only after the said payments. At this, Imran started quarreling with the injured, however, the complainant intervened and pacified them. The accused however left threatening to return back and to teach them a lesson. After 510 minutes, the accused again came back with a vegetable knife in his hand and directly stabbed the injured on the left side of his abdomen with the intention to kill him and thereafter fled from the spot.
2. On this complaint, FIR in the present case was registered. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. MM against accused Imran @ Langra. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. PC, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
3. On 01.07.2009, charge U/s 307 IPC was framed against accused Imran @ Langra by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution witnesses:
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 3 of 20 all. Before proceeding further, let me state in brief the statements made by the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution has examined Sh. Mohd. Aleem, one of the eye witnesses as PW 1. In his examination in chief, initially he supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 16.01.2009 at about 1 PM, he alongwith Kallu were having tea infront of rehri of Farukh. Accused Imran came there and ordered for tea and omelette. Farukh however demanded the previous dues which the accused did not give. On this issue, a scuffle took place between the injured and the accused. Father of the injured Sh. Mohd. Ayub intervened and separated them. The accused went back threatening to come back and teach him a lesson. After sometime, the accused again came back with a vegetable knife in his hand and stabbed Mohd. Farukh on left side of his abdomen. The witness tried to apprehend the accused however he succeeded in running.
In his cross examination, however, this witness put forth a different story altogether and stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. He neither noticed the knife in the hand of accused nor he saw him at the spot. He stated that whatever he has heard, SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 4 of 20 he had told the police. The witness however again voluntarily stated that the accused has now mended his ways and behaves properly in the sabzi mandi. He happens to be his neighbour and as he has repented about the incident in presence of the respected members in the sabzi mandi, so they have forgiven him.
6. PW 2 ASI Dharambir is the DO and proved on record the computerized print out of the FIR as Ex. PW 2/A and also proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW 2/B. Ld. Defence Counsel opted not to cross examine the witness though opportunity was given.
7. PW 3 W/Ct. Mamta deposed that she was posted at PHQ on 16.01.2009 when she received an information from phone no. 9818135537 about a quarrel at shop no. 116, Okhla Sabzi Mandi which she entered in the PCR form Ex. PW 3/A. Ld. Defence Counsel did not avail the opportunity to cross examine the witness though the same was given.
SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 5 of 20
8. PW 4 Mohd. Ayub is the complainant in the case and father of the injured. In his examination in chief, he supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 16.01.2009, he and his son Farukh were present at their stall at about 1 PM and one Aleem and Kallu were having tea at his stall, when accused Imran came there. On the issue of payment towards the previous dues, a scuffle took place between Farukh and accused Imran. The witness intervened and separated them. The accused left the place, however with a threat to his son that he would come back and teach him a lesson. After about 510 minutes, he came back with a vegetable cutting knife in his hand and stabbed his son Farukh on the left side of his abdomen. Someone informed the police and police took his son to the Trauma Centre. He also accompanied his son to the hospital. After 2 days of the incident, the accused was apprehended at his instance near Modi Mill flyover. The witness also identified his signatures on the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW 4/B & Ex. PW 4/C. He also identified the vegetable knife with wooden handle as Ex. P 1.
In his cross examination, although the witness sticked to his statement but at the same time, he stated that "the accused has now mended his ways and he is married having young children to look after. SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 6 of 20 He behaves properly in the sabzi mandi. As the accused has repented about the incident in the presence of respected members in the sabzi mandi, so we have forgiven him."
9. PW 5 Mohd. Farukh is the injured himself. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that on 16.01.2009 at about 1 PM, Aleem and Kallu were having tea at his stall when accused Imran came there and asked for tea and omelette. The witness however demanded the previous dues which the accused refused and rather started quarreling with him. His father intervened and separated them. The accused went away, threatening to come back and teach him a lesson. After about 510 minutes, the accused again came there with a vegetable cutting knife in his hand and stabbed him on the left side of stomach. He also identified his blood stained vests and shirt as Ex. P 2 & Ex. P 3 respectively. He also identified the knife as Ex. P 1. He stated that he had to take Rs. 200/ to Rs. 250/ from the accused Imran who was not having regular work.
In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused as the shop of the accused was getting more customers or that he had quarreled with someone else who caused SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 7 of 20 injuries to him.
10. PW 6 is Ct. Budh Ram. He deposed that on 16.01.2009 upon receipt of DD No. 12 A, he accompanied the IO to the spot and as per the instructions of the IO, he took the injured Mohd. Farukh to Trauma Centre, AIIMS in TSR. He also took the rukka to police station and got the case registered. He further deposed that the accused Imran was arrested in his presence and in pursuance to his statement, he got recovered one knife from shop no. 96, Okhla Sabzi Mandi.
Ld. Defence Counsel failed to cross examine the witness although the opportunity was given.
11. PW 7 Ct. Malkhan Singh collected three sealed parcels from MHCM vide RC No. 19/21/09 as per the instructions of the IO and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini.
In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not visit the FSL for depositing the sealed parcels.
12. PW 8 Ct. Kajor Mal is the DD writer. He deposed that on SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 8 of 20 16.01.2009 at about 1.25 PM, he received information regarding quarrel at shop no. 16, Okhla Sabzi Mandi which he entered in roznamcha as DD No. 12 Ex. PW 8/A. Ld. Defence Counsel did not avail the opportunity to cross examine the witness though the same was given.
13. PW 9 Sh. Sabu Qureshi is one of the public witnesses being the owner of neighbouring shop. He denied to have made any phone call at number 100 using the mobile phone of Mohd. Ayub about the incident. However, he stated that Farukh's father was using sim card which was in his name. He had given the sim card to Farukh's father about 23 years back. It is stated that Farukh's father used the said mobile to call the police at 100 number. The witness was got declared hostile as he was not supporting the case of prosecution on material count.
In his cross examination by the Ld. A.P.P, he stated that he has provided his complete details including the ID proof to the concerned authority at the time when the sim card was purchased, however, he admitted that the incident took place near by his shop. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the police on 28.02.2009.
Ld. Defence Counsel opted not to cross examine the witness SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 9 of 20 though opportunity was given.
14. PW 10 Mohd. Kallu, is another eye witness to the incident, he did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he was running a vegetable shop in front of shop no. 146, Okhla Subzi Mandi and he was called in the police station for settling the quarrel between Farukh and Imran. He stated that he knew nothing else about the case. Accordingly, he was declared hostile at the request of Ld. Additional PP. In his lengthy cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, he sticked to the hostility towards the State and favoured the accused.
The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity for the same being given.
15. The prosecution has examined SI Om Pal Singh, IO of the case as PW 11. He proved on record the rukka Ex. PW 11/A prepared by him. He also proved the site plan Ex. PW 11/B. He further deposed that Ct. Budh Ram produced one pulanda containing the clothes of injured which he seized vide memo Ex. PW 6/A. He also proved on record the arrest and personal search memos of accused which are Ex. PW 4/B & SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 10 of 20 Ex. PW 4/C and also the disclosure statement made by him as Ex. PW 6/B. He further proved on record the pointing out memo Ex. PW 6/C and deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statement, accused got recovered a knife from near shop no. 96, Okhla Sabzi Mandi regarding which, he prepared sketch Ex. PW 11/C and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 4/D. He also took into possession the blood sample of the injured vide memo Ex. PW 6/D. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused or that he has been falsely implicated.
16. PW 12 ASI Dev Dutt is the MHCM of PS Amar Colony who deposed that on various dates i.e. 16.01.2009, 18.01.2009 & 22.02.2009, the IO of the case ASI Om Pal Singh deposited the case properties in sealed condition in the Malkhana regarding which, entries were made in register no. 19 at serial no. 286, 287 & 332 which are exhibited as Ex. PW 12/A, Ex. PW 12/B & Ex. PW 12/C respectively. He also deposed that as per the instructions of the IO, the exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL through Ct. Malkhan Singh vide RC No. 19/21/09.
SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 11 of 20
Despite opportunity being given, this witness was not cross examined by the defence.
17. PW 13 Dr. Inderjeet proved on record the MLC of the injured Farukh as Ex. PW 13/A prepared by Dr. Jyotin and also stated that the injuries were opined as grievous one. He also identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Jyotin on Ex. PW 13/A. Ld. Defence Counsel did not avail the opportunity to cross examine the witness though the same was given.
18. PW 14 is Dr. R.P. Singh, Specialist Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine, Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital, New Delhi had examined the MLC of injured Farukh and had also examined the weapon of offence i.e. knife and gave detailed opinion Ex. PW 14/A in which he opined that injury on the body of the victim is possible by the knife examined by him.
19. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr. PC wherein he denied the prosecution version SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 12 of 20 of the case and pleaded innocence. He denied the entire incriminating facts coming up against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the strength of statements of interested witnesses. However, he opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
20. I have heard the rival contentions raised on behalf of Sh. Irfan Ahmad, Ld. Additional PP for State and Ms. Sangeeta Mohanti, Ld. Counsel for accused at length and also carefully considered the material on record.
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the material witnesses i.e. PW 1 Mohd. Aleem, PW 10 Mohd. Kallu and PW 9 Sabu Qureshi have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He referred to the testimony of PW 10 Mohd. Kallu who has denied that he alongwith PW 1 Mohd. Aleem were present at the spot at the time of incident. He contended that PW 1 Mohd. Aleem had also not supported the case of the prosecution in his cross examination. Ld. Counsel further submitted that another material witness namely Sabu Qureshi also turned hostile and denied having informed the police about the incident by using the phone of the complainant.
SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 13 of 20
22. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that although PW 1 Mohd. Aleem and PW 4 Mohd. Ayub have supported the case of the prosecution in chief but in their cross examination, they stated that they have forgiven the accused as he has repented about the incident in the presence of respected members of sabzi mandi and have started behaving in a sober manner. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that since the complainant has forgiven the accused, so nothing survives now and the accused may be acquitted.
23. Per contra, Ld. Additional PP for State submitted that the injured PW 5 Mohd. Farukh is an intact witness and has fully supported the case of prosecution in his examination in chief as well as in his cross examination and has specifically stated that the accused Imran @ Langra stabbed him on the left side of his stomach. Ld. Additional PP for State further argued that the other two eye witnesses i.e. PW 4 Mohd. Ayub as well as PW 1 Mohd. Aleem have also fully supported the case of the prosecution in their examination in chief as well as in their cross examination, however, in the last para of their cross examination, both the witnesses stated that they have forgiven the accused as he has mended his ways and repented the incident in the presence of respected members of SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 14 of 20 the locality. He argued that the incident stands proved even by the deposition of PW 1 Mohd. Aleem & PW 4 Mohd. Ayub in addition to the statement of PW 5 and the forgiveness on the part of PW 1 & PW 4 will not come to the rescue of the accused. The Ld. Additional PP has also relied upon the testimony of PW 13 Dr. Inderjeet who proved on record the MLC prepared by Dr. Jyotin and deposed that injuries sustained by the injured were grievous in nature. Accordingly, the statement of injured and eye witnesses have been duly corroborated by the statement of Doctor. The Ld. Prosecutor summed up the arguments by submitting that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and sought conviction for the accused.
24. As narrated above, this is a case of direct evidence in the sense that victim of the alleged offence namely Mohd. Farukh survived to describe the same and the incident was also witnessed by two more persons namely PW 1 Mohd. Aleem & PW 4 Mohd. Ayub. The oral testimony of the victim and the eye witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of MLC of the injured Ex. PW 13/A as per which the injured Mohd. Farukh was found to have suffered a stab wound in epigastrium region of abdomen of size 2.5 x 1 cm deep. The injury has SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 15 of 20 been opined as grievous. The weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of the accused which has been produced on record as Ex. P 1 and identified by both the injured PW 5 Mohd. Farukh and PW 4 Mohd. Ayub. PW 14 Dr. R.P. Singh from the Department of Forensic Medicine who has examined the weapon of offence and the MLC of the injured Farukh has specifically opined that the injury present on the body of the victim was possible by the knife examined by him. He was never controverted on this aspect.
25. The injured PW 5 Mohd. Farukh specifically deposed that on the date of incident while PW 1 Mohd. Aleem and PW 10 Mohd. Kallu were having tea at his stall, the accused Imran arrived and asked for tea and omelette, the injured however refused to serve him anything until the previous dues were cleared by him. On this, the accused started quarreling with him, his father intervened and separated them. The accused went back extending threat to come back and teach him a lesson. As per the injured, within a period of 510 minutes, the accused came back with a vegetable cutting knife in his hand and directly stabbed him on the left side of his abdomen. The witness has identified the accused in the court and stated that he knew the accused for the last about 2 ½ years SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 16 of 20 as he used to come to his stall. The witness has also identified the weapon of offence Ex. P 1 and also his blood stained vests and shirt which are produced on record as Ex. P 2 and P 3. Nothing material has come up even in his detailed cross examination which could help the accused.
26. This version of the injured is fully supported and corroborated by the testimony of his father PW 4 Mohd. Ayub. The testimony of the above said two witnesses is also supported by another independent witness PW 1 Mohd. Aleem as far as his examination in chief is concerned. In his examination in chief which was recorded on 25.04.2011, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution deposing exactly on the lines of the deposition of the injured and his father. He even stated that after the stabbing incident, he even tried to apprehend the accused, however, he somehow succeeded in running away from his grip. This witness however in his cross examination later on conducted on 06.02.2015, however stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and he has narrated to the police what he had heard. However, even in his cross examination he subsequently stated that the accused has now mended his ways and behaves properly in the sabzi mandi. He SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 17 of 20 happens to be his neighbor and has repented about the incident in the presence of the respected members in the sabzi mandi, so they have forgiven him.
27. In my considered view the testimony of every witness has to be read in its entirety and not in piecemeal in the sense that the last paragraph of cross examination which was recorded after about a period of about more than 3 ½ years cannot be read in isolation to such an extent that the remaining testimony which is absolutely consistent as regards PW 4 & PW 5 having witnessed the stabbing be discarded. The voluntary submission of the witness that they have forgiven the accused also explains the hostile statement made by the witness after a period of 3 ½ years. Both the witnesses PW 1 Mohd. Aleem and PW 4 Mohd. Ayub have stated in the end of their testimony that as the accused has repented about the incident, they have forgiven him. In my considered view, PW 1 Mohd. Aleem has also supported the testimony of PW 4 & PW 5 in all material aspects. Even the testimony of PW 9 Sh. Sabu Qureshi who has denied to have informed the police about the incident at 100 number has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he admitted that the phone call was made from the said mobile phone in which the sim SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 18 of 20 card in his name was being used. The testimony of the injured PW 4 and his father PW 5 have remained consistent and unshattered. There is no reason coming up on record for the injured Mohd. Farukh to falsely implicate the accused Imran and shield the real culprit who caused such a serious injury to PW 5 in the presence of the other two witnesses. The testimony of the abovesaid witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of MLC Ex. PW 13/A which consistently establish the manner in which the injured Mohd. Farukh sustained the injuries. No dispute has been raised on behalf of the defence to the production of the blood stained clothes of the injured, the weapon of the offence produced in court and even to the MLC's produced. Even the site of injury being the abdominal area is never disputed. The defence has not even cross examined the Doctors PW 13 Dr. Inderjeet and the forensic expert PW 14 Dr. R.P. Singh on this aspect.
28. Thence, in view of the above discussion, it stands established that the accused Imran @ Langra on the date of incident caused stab injury in the abdominal region of injured Mohd. Farukh. The subsequent repentance of the accused as stated by PW 1 & PW 4 does not come to the rescue of the accused. There is nothing coming up on SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 19 of 20 record to show any possibility of false implication.
29. In view of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC. He be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SUDESH KUMAR)
ON 30.03.2015 ASJ03, S.E., SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC NO. 9/14 Page No. 20 of 20