Delhi District Court
State vs . Javed on 29 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS TANYA BAMNIYAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET
COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. JAVED
FIR No. 272/17
U/s : 323/341/506 (II) IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of Institution : 07.05.2018
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 26.02.2020
Date of judgment : 29.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 272/17
2.Date of the Commission : 19.07.2017
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Javed,
: S/o Isllamuddin,
: R/o A220/6, Savitri Nagar,
: New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Sh. Nawab Ali Saifi,
: S/o Sh. Manguwa Khan,
: R/o L1/1183, Gali No. 24,
: Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/506 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted U/s 323/341/506(II) IPC.
FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 1/6
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 19.07.2017 at about 12 noon near Sanatan Dharam Mandir Savitari Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused Javed parked his vehicle in front of the vehicle of the complainant Sh. Nawab Ali Saifi and refused to move it so as to restrain the complainant from proceeding in a direction he was entitled to proceed and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 341 IPC. Further it is alleged that on aforesaid date, time and place accused assaulted the complainant by slapping him and hitting him with fists and leg blows and stone which resulted in simple injuries to the complainant and thereby you committed offence punishable U/s 323 IPC. Further it is alleged that on 20.07.2017 at Police Station Malviya Nagar accused extended threats to kill the complainant if he did not withdraw the case causing alarm to the complainant and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 506 (II) IPC.
2. FIR No.272/17 was registered at police station Malviya Nagar on the basis of aforesaid allegations.
3. After completion of investigation charge sheet under sections 323/341/506 IPC was filed before the court on 07.05.2018.
4. On the basis of prima facie material available on the record charge for the offence punishable under section 341/323/506(II) IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 06.12.2018.
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 2/6
5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
a) PW1 was the complainant Sh. Nawab Ali Saifi who deposed about the incident. He exhibited his written statement/complaint as Ex. PW1/A and site plan as Ex. PW1/B
b) PW2 was Duty Officer (DO) namely SI Virender Singh who exhibited the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on the same as Ex. PW2/B.
c) PW3 was a scrap dealer namely Sh. Tajuddin whose shop is situated near the spot.
d) PW4 Sh. Jahir Ahmed and PW5 Sh. Juber Malik who were present at the spot on the day of incident.
e) PW6 was Investigating Officer (IO) namely SI Mahipal Singh. He exhibited the DD No. 27A as Ex. PW6/A.
f) PW7 was MRT AIIMS namely Sh. Rampatt who exhibited the MLC as Ex. PW7/A.
g) PW8 was the Dr. Pranab Kushwaha who prepared the MLC of injured namely Nawab Ali Saifi bearing no. 500035939/19 dated 19.07.2017.
6. Prosecution evidence was closed on 16.01.2020. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused (SA) under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C were recorded on17.02.2020. Accused did not seek to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
7. It was argued by ld APP for the State that there was no motive of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. Moreover the FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 3/6 accused persons have not putforth any defence and not explained their version in their statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. Thus it is prayed that both the accused persons be convicted for the offences levelled against them.
8. On the other hand it was argued by ld. counsel for the accused person that due to inconsistencies and loopholes in the case of the prosecution the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus it is prayed that accused person be acquitted for the offences alleged against him.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
9. To prove its case prosecution examined eight witnesses.
10. PW1 /complainant namely Nawab Ali Saifi deposed regarding the incident and correctly identified the accused in the Court and the place of incident and also proved the written complaint handed over by him to the IO.
11. Prosecution also examined PW3, PW4 and PW5 namely Rajuddin, Jahir Amed and Juber Malik respectively who are independent witnesses. All of them did not support the case of the prosecution. All of them did not identify the accused. PW4 deposed that he could not admit or deny the suggestion whether accused was in a scuffle with the complainant. PW5 also denied suggestion that the victim/ complainant sustained injury on his neck due to quarrel.
12. It is a settled law that identity of accused is the most crucial factor in the decision of the trial. One of the main pillars of the proof of the prosecution case stands on the identification of the accused which should be clear, cogent and trustworthy. Any discrepancy made in this regard makes the case of the prosecution unbelievable and unreliable.
FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 4/6
13. It is a settled law that once the identity of the accused becomes doubtful for connecting the accused with the crime, it would not at all be justifiable to fasten the accused with the crime alleged against him. Neither the witnesses identified the accused not corroborated the happening of any incident or assault. Thus there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime or crime scene.
14. Furthermore, it was stated by PW1 in his examination in chief that " thereafter I got down from my car and went to the Santro car and told him for moving the car but he denied the same and started abusing me in filthy language and told me that 'tuje jaada jaldi hai tuje jaldi bhej deta hu' and slapped me. In the meantime, he called 45 assailants and they came at the spot and started assaulting me by kicks, fists blows due to this I fell down on the road."
15. It is settled that before an offence of criminal intimidation can be made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause an alarm would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.
16. In the present case in hand PW1 did not specify the abusive language /filthy language used towards him. Moreover " 'tuje jaada jaldi hai tuje jaldi bhej deta hu" in no way can be said to be an intimidation to cause alarm to the complainant. Admittedly, there was a parking dispute between the complainant and the accused and thus possibility of falsely implicating the accused also cannot be ruled out. The accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 5/6 stated that no such incident as per the version of the complainant has taken place and it was only a dispute relating to the parking of the vehicle. Moreover the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. It is a settled law that the prosecution's case has to stand on its own leg and the benefit of non examination of the accused as a witness in his defence evidence cannot be given to the prosecution.
17. PW1 stated in his examination in chief that he sustained injuries on his nose, face, below the eyes and on whole body and also blood was oozing from his mouth and nose. Neither PW3 nor PW4 and PW5 corroborated the version of PW1 with regard to the injuries sustained by him and assault. Thus in view of the above discussion, considering that the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and no cogent evidence came on record from the side of the prosecution, the accused Javed is acquitted for the offences U/s 323/341/506 (II) IPC as the case could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. Fresh bail bonds U/s 437A Cr.PC furnished by accused. Same are perused and accepted.
Digitally signed19. File be consigned to Record Room. by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date:
BAMNIYAL 2020.03.02
17:09:32
+0530
Announced in the Court (Tanya Bamniyal)
on 29.02.2020 MM02(SD)/29.02.2020
Certified that this judgment contains 6 pages and each page bears my signatures. TANYA Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2020.03.02 17:09:37 +0530 (Tanya Bamniyal) MM02(SD)/29.02.2020 FIR No. 272/17 State Vs. Javed 6/6