Delhi District Court
State vs . Shakeel - Sc No. 49 Of 2012 1/9 on 12 February, 2015
ID No. 02406R00125172012
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 49/2012
Unique ID No. 02406R0125172012
FIR No. 357/2011
U/s 326/367/34/174A IPC
PS : Amar Colony
State
Vs
Shakeel
S/o Sh. Jameel,
R/o S53/297, Gandhi Camp,
S. N. Puri, New Delhi ..........Accused No. 1
Slam Babu
S/o Mohd. Suleman
r/o Nangla Choi Ka,
Sehswan, District Badayun (UP) ..........Accused No. 2
(proceedings arising out of the present FIR
have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court
vide order dated 15th January 2015
in Crl. M. C. No. 5505/2014)
Instituted on : 02nd July, 2012
Argued on : 05th February 2015
Decided on : 12th February 2015
J U D G E M E N T
1 Accused persons namely, Shakeel and Salam Babu have been sent up for trial for the offences punishable u/s 326/367 r/w 34 IPC by the SHO Police Station Amar Colony.
2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 21st September 2011, on receipt of Daily Diary No.36, ASI Om Pal Singh, who was posted at PP Sri Niwas Puri, alongwith Ct. Babu Lal had reached at S53/64, Gandhi Camp, Sri Niwas Puri, but the house was found locked. On inquiry, it was revealed that acid was thrown on a State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 1/9 ID No. 02406R00125172012 lady, who had already being removed to the hospital. Thereafter, on receipt of another DD No. 37, ASI Om Pal Singh alongwith Ct. Babu Lal had reached at Safdarjung hospital and had collected MLC No.MRD 89322 pertaining to injured Nasreen from the hospital, on which the attending doctor had mentioned 20% burn injuries and the same were opined as "grievous".
3 Thereafter, ASI Om Pal Singh had recorded statement of injured Nasreen, wherein it has been stated that complainant/injured was residing at S53/64, Gandhi Camp, Sri Niwas Puri and she was a housewife. At around 05:30 pm, Salam Babu, her brotherinlaw (devar), came to her house and asked her to go to Govind Puri for dressing her injury on her hand, but she had refused, but later on due to his persistent requests, she had agreed to his request for getting her injuries dressed and accompanied him for the same.
4 It was further stated that when she reached near Captain Gaur Marg, near S. N. Puri Depot and was climbing the stairs, then from the backside, Shakeel s/o Jameel also came alongwith Salam babu.
5 It was further stated that Salam Babu had brought acid in a container (dibba) and Shakeel had poured the same over her. The acid had fallen on her face, chest and arm, due to which her body was burnt. She had further stated that incident was committed by Salam Babu in connivance with Shakeel. 6 The present FIR was got registered on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the injured against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested, statements of the witnesses were recorded.
State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 2/9
ID No. 02406R00125172012 7 Since both the accused were earlier evading their arrest, NBWs as well as process u/s 82 & 83 CrPC were also got issued against them and they were declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, they were arrested and challan was filed against them for offences u/s 326/367/34/174A IPC before the Court of Learned MM on 22.05.2012.
8 Case was committed to the Court of sessions on 21.06.2012. 9 Charges for the offences punishable u/s 367 r/w 34, Section 326 r/w 34 PC and Section 174A IPC against accused persons were framed on 30.01.2013 to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10 To establish accusation against the accused persons, prosecution had examined ten witnesses.
11 HC Rambir (PW1) Duty Officer, had recorded FIR of this case (Ex.PW1/A) at 12:50am on the intervening night of 21/22.09.2011, on the basis of the rukka (asal tehrir ) received from the IO of the case. 12 Mohd. Usman (PW2), husband of complainant Nasreen, had stated that his brother Rizwan had telephonically informed him in the evening that somebody had thrown acid on his wife. He had further stated that police had obtained his signatures on a paper on which something was written, but he did not know what was written thereon, being illiterate. Police had not conducted any proceedings in his presence except that the clothes of Nasreen were handed over by his Babhi Shabnam to the police in his presence.
13 Nasreen (PW3) complainant/victim had deposed that one month prior to the incident, she had fallen and had suffered injuries on her right hand. She State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 3/9 ID No. 02406R00125172012 had further deposed that on the day of incident she was present at her house and accused Salam Babu, her brotherinlaw, had asked her for purchasing clothes for him but she had refused the same. Then he started flattering her by saying that he would get her medically treated for her hand injuries at Govindpuri. She had further deposed that though she did not want to go with him but on his insistence, she had agreed to accompany him. On the way of bus stand, from their house, when they reached at "nala" (drain) near SN Puri Depot, accused Salam Babu made a a telephonic call to someone and called that person at the bus stop near Syndicate Bus Stand near Subzi Mandi, Okhla and thereafter, he disappeared and when she was on the staircase then, accused Salam Babu and his companion Shakeel had suddenly come in front of her. Salam Babu was having a polythene in which he had kept one 'dabba' (container). He had given the said dabba to his companion Shakeel, and had asked him to throw the acid upon her and accordingly, the said person (Shakeel) had taken dabba from Salam Babu and threw the material contained therein i.e. acid upon her face, due to which her face, left ear, left eye were affected and she had lost her right ear & right eye and her face was completely disfigured permanently. She had correctly identified both the accused persons, but had stated that accused Shakeel, whom she had identified in the Court during her statement was not the same person who had accompanied the accused Salam Babu and had thrown acid upon her. She had also proved her statement made to the police as Ex.PW3/A, bearing her RTI at pointA. 14 She had further deposed that someone had informed her husband, who came directly in the hospital.
State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 4/9
ID No. 02406R00125172012 15 The witness had been declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State, who had also sought permission to cross examine the witness under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, which was allowed.
16 In her cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she had deposed that accused Shakeel is son of her brotherinlaw (jeth) and he had not done anything wrong with her. However, she had admitted that she had mentioned the name of Shakeel in her statement (Ex.PW3/A) before the police. She had however denied the suggestion that she had mentioned "Shakeel" as Shakeel s/o Jameel in her statement to the police. She further denied the suggestion that she had been won over by accused Shakeel and hence deliberately she was not disclosing the role of accused Shakeel. She had further denied the suggestion put to her by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused Shakeel s/o Jameel, in connivance with accused Salam Babu, had thrown the acid upon her or that she had stated those facts before the police in her statement (Ex.PW3/A) or that she had deposed falsely in order to save accused Shakeel.
17 Ct. Dharamvir Singh (PW4) had received sealed pullanda of this case alongwith sample seal 'OPS' and had deposited the exhibits at FSL, Rohini on 30.04.2012 vide acknowledgment (Ex.PW4/B) alongwith Road Certificate No. 53/21/12.
18 SI Om Pal Singh (PW5) is the IO of the case. During the course of investigation he had recorded the statement (Ex.PW3/A) of the injured and got the FIR of the present case registered. He had summoned the crime team at the spot and had collected the MLC Result and other exhibits. He had also seized the clothes State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 5/9 ID No. 02406R00125172012 of the injured, which were stated o have been handed over to him by the Doctor concerned vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He had proved the site plan of the place of incident as Ex.PW5/D. He had also proved his reports on the NBWs of both the accused persons as Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G & Ex.PW5/H. He had also proved his reports on the processes u/s 82 & 83 Cr.PC issued against both the accused persons as Ex.PW5/J, Ex.PW5/K, Ex.PW5/L & Ex.PW5/M and had further deposed that the accused persons were declared PO vide order dated 25.01.2012 after recording his statement Ex.PW5/N & Ex.PW5/P. He has proved the order dated 25.01.2012 as Ex.PW5/Q. 19 SI Devender Kumar (PW6) had conducted investigation in this case after transfer of ASI Om Pal Singh w.e.f 28.02.2012. He had arrested the accused persons and had recorded their disclosure statements as well as prepared the pointing out memos Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/H. He had also obtained the FSL Result dated 20th June 2012 and same was Ex.PW6/J. 20 ASI Raj Singh (PW7) photographer of mobile crime team, had taken photographers of the place of occurrence and had proved the same as Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B and their negatives as Ex. PW7/C1 and Ex. PW7/C2). He had further stated that one tin container and one chunni of red colour were lying at the spot.
21 Ct. Vijay (PW8) had recorded DD no. 36 (Ex. PW5/A) at 09:15 pm on 21.09.2011. He had also recorded DD no. 37 (Ex. PW5/B) to the effect that ,"Nasreen wife of Usmaan aged 35 years r/o S50/64, JJ Camp, Sri Niwas Puri was got admitted in hospital, in 20% burn condition by her husband." State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 6/9
ID No. 02406R00125172012 22 ASI Kailash (PW9) Reader to the ACP, Lajpat Nagar, had deposed that on 23.05.2012 the than ACP, Har Charan Verma had granted sanction u/s 174A IPC in respect of accused Shakeel (Ex.PW9/A) and sanction u/s 195 Cr. P. C of accused Salam Babu (Ex.PW9/B).
23 HC Satya Prakash (PW10) had joined investigation with IO/SI Devender. He had proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A) and personal search memo (Ex.PW6/B) regarding accused Shakeel. He had further stated that accused Shakeel had led them to place of occurrence near "nala" (drain) at Captain Gaur Marg and had also made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/C). He had also proved the pointing out memo (Ex.PW6/C & Ex.PW6D) were prepared by the IO.
24 On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they had denied the entire incriminating evidence put to them in toto.
25 Accused persons had also examined three Defence Witnesses in their defence namely Islam (DW1), Shakeel (DW2) and Sh. Akhtar Hussain (DW3). 26 I have heard Sh. WasiUrRahman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh. Ravinder Bhatti, Ld. Counsel for accused Shakeel and have gone through the entire material available on record.
27 As already stated above, out of the two accused persons, the proceedings arising out of the present FIR have already been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 15th January 2015 in Crl. M.C. No.5505/2014 in respect of accused Salam Babu, hence, the matter had been adjourned for today by my Ld. Predecessor for hearing final arguments regarding accused Mohd. Shakeel only. State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 7/9
ID No. 02406R00125172012 28 In the instant case, PW3 Smt. Nasreen, the victim is the only star witness examined by the prosecution against accused Shakeel to prove the charges for the offences punishable u/s 367/326/34 IPC that accused Shakeel alongwith accused Salam Babu (proceedings already quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15th January, 2015), had in furtherance of their common intention had abducted the complainant/victim PW1 so that she may be subjected to grevious hurt and that both of them had further caused grevious hurt to her by pouring acid over her person on 21.09.2011 at around 05:30pm at adjoining stairs at Captain Gaur Marg near Sri Niwas Puri Depot, New Delhi.
29 However, perusal of the entire testimony of PW3 Smt. Nasreen reveals that she had not attributed any role qua accused Shakeel and had even gone to the extent of stating that accused Shakeel was not the same person, who had accompanied the accused Salam Babu and had thrown acid upon her. This witness had also been declared hostile on this point by the ld. Addl PP for the State and had been cross examined at length u/s 154 of Indian Evidence Act and despite acid cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State nothing material and incriminating could have been churned out against accused Shakeel.
30 PW1 had categorically and emphatically deposed that she knew accused Shakeel who is son of her brotherinlaw (jeth) i.e. son of elder brother of her husband and he had not done anything wrong with her. She had admitted that she had mentioned the name of Shakeel in her statement Ex.PW3/A (Asal tehrir) but had explained the same by saying that when Salam Babu had made a telephonic call to someone and had called that person at the spot, he was calling that person as Shakeel, State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 8/9 ID No. 02406R00125172012 therefore, she had stated the name of the coassailant as Shakeel. She had further deposed that she had never stated before the police in her said statement that the name of the assailant was Shakeel S/o Jameel, who in connivance with coaccused Salam Babu had thrown acid upon her.
31 So far as testimony of PW2 Mohd. Usman s/o Suleman, who also happened to be the husband of victim is concerned, neither he himself was a victim nor even an eyewitness in this case. Rather his deposition was also based on hearsay evidence, but he himself had also not supported the case of the prosecution despite having been subjected to crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP on the ground that the had resilied from his previous statements made to the IO.
32 In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the accused Sakeel beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is honourably acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under section 367/326/34 IPC.
33 Since Shakeel was not the culprit, as per the complainant, the charge for the offence u/s 174 (A) IPC does not sustain and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same.
34 Case property, if any, be destroyed, after expiry of the period of revision/appeal, if any.
35 File be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
announced in the
open court on (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
12th February, 2015 Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
SouthEast, New Delhi
State Vs. Shakeel - SC No. 49 of 2012 9/9