Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Asif & Ors. on 1 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. VIPUL SANDWAR
JUDGMENT
FIR NO. : 710/2015, U/s 324/34 IPC
PS : SEELAMPUR
A. CIS No. of the Case : 1822/2017
B. Date of Institution : 25.01.2017
C. Date of Commission of : 19.09.2015
Offence
D. Name of the complainant : Mohd. Suhel S/o Mohd. Salim,
R/o C-1/22, New Seelampur,
Delhi
E. Name of the Accused, his : (1) Mohd. Asif S/o Mohd.
Parentage & Addresses Salauddin,
(2) Mohd. Salauddin S/o Mohd.
Sakru, and (3) Mohd. Shahzad
S/o Salauddin, all R/o R/o C-
1/22, 1st Floor, C-Block, New
Seelampur, Delhi.
F. Ld. APP for the State : Ms. Shivani Joshi
G. Offence complained of : U/s 324/34 IPC
H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
I. Order reserved on : 03.02.2023
J. Date of Order : 01.03.2023
K. Final Order : Acquitted
State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 1 / 9
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1. The present complaint was registered on the complaint of complainant Suhail wherein he has stated that on 19.09.2015 at about 08:45 pm his neighbours Asif @ Kallu, Shahzad and their father Salauddin owing to a verbal altercation with him during the day time, caught and beat him to take revenge. Accused Kallu @ Asif attacked with a knife on his waist. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.
2. FIR was registered and has been investigated by the officials of Police Station Seelampur and IO/SI Brajvir Singh filed the charge sheet against the accused upon which cognizance was taken on 25.01.2017 by the learned Predecessor of this Court.
3. Accused appeared before the Court and copy of charge- sheet along with other documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was supplied to him.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 15.03.2019 for the offence punishable Under Section 324/34 of the IPC against accused persons by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to which, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The Prosecution has examined one witness in support of its case, who has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The examination of remaining witnesses being State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 2 / 9 formal in nature were dropped.
6. In nutshell, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is as follows :-
(i) PW1 Suhail complainant has deposed that a scuffle took place involving him on 19.03.2015, however, he did not remember the names or faces of the persons involved. Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of this Court put questions in the nature of cross-examination, however, nothing material came out. PW1 even denied the suggestions that the accused persons on 19.09.2015 at about 08:45 pm had beaten him. He also denied his MLC or the fact that he had been won over by the accused persons. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons despite giving an opportunity.
7. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 03.02.2023. As nothing incriminating had come against the accused persons, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC was dispensed with. Also no occasion for accused to lead DE arose.
8. Final arguments heard. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
9. Section 324 IPC has been defined as follows:
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 3 / 9 shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
10. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution is required to prove to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC are as under :
(1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) The hurt shall not be covered as mentioned in section 334 IPC.
(3) the hurt must have been caused by any instruments for shooting, stabbing, cutting or by instrument which can be used as weapon of offence likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of poison, or any coercive substance, or by means of any exclusive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to human body to inhale / swallow / receive in blood, or by means of any animal."
11. In Mathai v. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 695 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 87 at page 263, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Some hurts which are not like those hurts which are mentioned in the first seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from a slight hurt, may State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 4 / 9 nevertheless be more serious. Thus a wound may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim, although it does not fall within any of the first seven clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly."
12. Now this Court proceeds to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the Prosecution.
13. In the present case, only one PW i.e. complainant has deposed who has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. He has not been mentioned correct date of incident or identified the accused persons. Nothing material could be brought out in his testimony that could be in support of the prosecution even after questions in the nature of cross-examination were put to him by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of this Court.
14. In view of the above discussion, nothing has been proved by the prosecution. Causing hurt by the accused is an indispensable ingredients for proving the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The complainant while deposing as PW1 has even denied his MLC. He has not identified the accused persons in the Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused persons has caused hurt to the complainant PW1.
15. The rule that the prosecution must prove its case beyond State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 5 / 9 reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
16. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 6 / 9 criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
17. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says: 'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
18. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 7 / 9 one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
19. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489 Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that:
"the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
20. The prosecution has not produced any witness to prove its allegations. The only witness that was examined by the prosecution has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to link the accused persons to the commission of the crime.
21. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused therefore, accused Mohd. Asif, Mohd. Salauddin and Mohd. Shahzad are found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, they stands acquitted in the present case.
State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 8 / 922. Accused persons are directed furnish bail bonds and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each, u/s 437A Cr.P.C and directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
Digitally signed by VIPULVIPUL SANDWAR SANDWAR Date:
2023.03.01 16:47:49 +0530 Announced in the open (VIPUL SANDWAR) Court on 01st March, 2023 MM-02/NE/KKD COURTS State vs. Mohd. Asif & Ors FIR No.710/15 PS Seelampur Page No. 9 / 9