Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohammad Farooq & Ors. on 31 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Mohammad Farooq & Ors.
FIR No.526/04
U/s : 324/341/427/506 (part I) IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 08.11.2004
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 31.10.2014
Date of judgment : 31.10.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 526/04 2.Date of the Commission : 08.06.2004 of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Mohammad Farooq S/o Sh. Gulam
: Mohammad Bhatt.
: 2. Mohammad Salim S/o Sh. Gulam
: Mohammad Bhatt.
: 3. Smt. Samim Bano W/o Salim Bhatt
: 4. Smt. Sahana Begum W/o Sh.
: Munawwar
: 5. Gulam Mohammad S/o Sh. Abdul
: Aziz Bhatt (abated)
: All resident of H. No. 268F, Kumhar
: Basti, Hauz Rani, New Delhi.
FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 1/10
4.Name of the complainant : Mohammad Ali S/o Sh. Faiyaz Ali
: R/o H. No. 268F, Kumhar Basti, Hauz
: Rani, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : u/s 324/341/427/506 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 08.06.04 at 12.20pm at Taxi Stand, Hauz Rani Village, Kumhar Basti near Press Enclave Road, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused persons namely Mohammad Farooq, Gulam Mohammad (abated vide order dated27.02.2013), Mohammad Saleem Bhatt, Smt. Sahana Begum and Smt. Shamim Bano in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Mohammad Ali in the direction where he was lawfully entitled to proceed and voluntarily caused hurt on the person of complainant by means of Ustara (knife) and threatened to kill the complainant and committed mischief by damaging the scooter and mobile phone of the complainant by pelting stones over the same and thereby all accused persons committed offences punishable offence u/s 324/341/427/506/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 526/04 under section 324/341/427/506/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 2/10
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 08.11.2004.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 324/341/427/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Mohammad Farooq, Gulam Mohammad (abated vide order dated 27.02.2013), Mohammad Saleem Bhatt, Smt. Sahana Begum and Smt. Shamim Bano and read out to the said accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 04.07.2007.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Mohammad Ali being the complainant was examined on 09.04.2008 and deposed that on 07.06.2004 in the night, he was repairing the terrace and had installed the mercury bulb on the terrace and at about 2.00am on the said night his neighbour Farruk said to him to switch off the light. At this he said that his some work is incomplete let him finish the same. He further deposed that at this Gulam Mohammad also came there and they both dare him to come down if he was son of his father. He further deposed that he switched off the light and went down stair and they both started abusing him and the neighbours also gathered at the spot and pacified the matter. He further deposed that on 08.06.2004 at about 12 in the noon he was going to Saket, Press Enclave Taxi stand and on the way Gulam Mohammad stopped him and said that he was showing badmashi last and that he would teach him a lesson. By that time, accused Farruk also came there and started abusing him in between accused Farruk took out an Ustra FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 3/10 (knife) from the pocket of his shirt and stabbed him on his right shoulder due to which his shoulder started bleeding. By that time, Salim also came there and they all started beating him with leg and fist. He further deposed that again accused Farruk stabbed him with Ustra third time, he defended the same with his hands and received cut wounds/injuries on his right shoulder, chest and the hand. He further deposed that the wounds on his right shoulder and the chest were stitched by the doctor as the wound of shoulder was about 3 to 4 inch and the wound of the chest was about 11/2 inch and the wound on his hand was not that much wide and deep. He further deposed that having sustained injuries, he ran towards his home as his scooter bearing no. DEQ-0784 was parked in the street near his home. He further deposed that accused Kalo and Shamim damaged his scooter and phone with the bricks and accused persons mercilessly beaten him and he somehow escaped from the spot and went to PS Malviya Nagar from where police took him to AIIMS Hospital where he was hospitalized. He further deposed that police recorded his statement to this effect vide memo Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. He further identified the accused Farruk, Gulam Mohammad, Salim, Kalo @ Shana Begum and Shamim Begum present in the court. The said scooter and mobile phone were seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. Accused Farruk was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/C and D respectively. He further deposed that he obtained his scooter on superdari vide Superdginama is Ex PW-1/E.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he was doing the work of a carpenter and the incident was of the year 2004 and he was not sure about the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely regarding FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 4/10 putting the support for water tank or that he put on a mercury bulb at 2.00am in the night. He further deposed that at that time he was doing work and accused Farooq raised a quarrel and his family members also joined him. He further deposed that he had not received any injury during quarrel as after giving filthy abuses they had become quite and further threatened that they would see him in the morning. He further deposed that in the morning at about 11/12am he was going to his work place, he was restrained by accused Farooq and his father Gulam Mohammad and other accused persons also joined him at that place and started beating him. He further deposed that he does not remember when he reached the PS and made a call on 100 number. He further does not remember the date for medical where he was given stitches by doctor. He further deposed that the accused Shamim had forcibly taken the mobile from him and had broken the same by bricks. He admitted that there was no blood stain marks on mobile. He denied the suggestion that the accused Shamim Bano was a pardanashin lady being Mohammadan. He voluntarily stated that she was not using parda. He denied the suggestion that no neighbourers were present at the time of quarrel and nobody had seen the incident. He voluntarily stated that they had seen the incident but they refused to be a witness to avoid the enmity. He further deposed that the distance between the place where the quarrel started and his house where the scooter was parked is about 25 square yards. He denied the suggestion that from the place where the quarrel took place the scooter was not visible or that mobile does not belong to him and he can produce the bill of the same or that same had been broken by the accused persons. He further deposed that no quarrel took place prior to that quarrel and now after the incident the hostility has increased. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 5/10
8. PW-2 Bhagwan Dass being the public witness was examined on 07.06.2011 and deposed that in his presence nothing had happened and police had come to him and asked his name and address which he gave to them.
9. On resiling from his earlier statement, this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that he had not given any statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that on 08.06.2004, accused Farook and Mohammad Ali while quarreling reached at Axis Bank or that in the meanwhile, Gulam Mohammad, Saleem came along with other ladies. He further denied the suggestion that on 08.06.2004, Mohammad Ali was wrongfully restrained by accused Gulam Mohammad or that caused injury on the person of Mohammad Ali. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons present in the court gave beatings to the complainant. He further deposed that he cannot identify any person as nothing had happened in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused persons.
10. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
11. PW-3 Zameel Khan being the public witness was examined on 30.03.2012 and deposed that he was running a crockery shop at Press Enclave Road and many years back, in the morning, he was sitting at his shop and accused Mohammad Ali and his Bua present in the court were coming while arguing with each other in a loud noise and thereafter, they intervened in between and compromised the matter and thereafter accused persons went to their home. He further deposed that he does not know what happened thereafter.
12. On resiling from his earlier statement, this witness was cross FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 6/10 examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he denied the suggestion that the incident happened on 08.06.2004 at about 12 noon. He admitted that there was a shop of puncture wala nearby his shop. He denied the suggestion that a quarrel took place between Zahid and Mohammad Ali at the shop of Jahid Puncture Wala and the ladies from the house of both the accused also joined the said quarrel. He denied the suggestion that Mohammad Ali was beaten by the accused persons present in the court in front of his shop or that Mohammad Ali was hit by the ladies by using bricks and blood was oozing from the head of Mohammad Ali over the shoulder and chest. He admitted that he had rescued Nanhe @ Mohammad Ali and sent him to his home and further admitted that no member from the house of Mohammad Ali was present at the spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by IO on the same day and his statement was recorded by the police only at one point of time i.e. on the day of incident (confronted with the Ex. Mark A where supplementary statement of the witness was recorded by the IO). The statement from point X to X in the Ex. Mark A was shown and read over to this witness and the witness denied the same to be recorded.
13. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-4 Dr. Piyush Ranjan was examined on 28.08.2012 and deposed that he was working at AIIMS hospital from June 2010. The detailed report of MLC bearing no. 64281/04 prepared by Dr. Vineet Gupta is Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that as per the MLC, the result is simple in nature. He was unable to identify the signature of Dr. Vineet Gupta as he had never worked with him.
15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 7/10 wherein he admitted that the above said MLC was not prepared in his presence. He further deposed that as per the MLC, it was not mentioned whether the patient was admitted in the hospital and as to when the patient was discharged from the hospital. He voluntarily stated that the date and time of arrival of patient as per MLC was 08.06.2014 at 14:41 hrs. His further cross examination was deferred.
16. PW-5 Retired SI V.P. Singh was examined on 22.07.2013 and deposed that on 25.06.04, he was posted as SI at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day, he had received case file of the present case from MHC(M), PS Malviya Nagar as further investigation of the present case was marked to him on the directions of SHO concerned. He further deposed that on 04.07.2004, accused Gulam Mohd. Bhatt (since expired), Mohd. Salim Bhatt (since exempted and his identity was not disputed), Sahina Begum and Saira Bano (both present in the court, correctly identified by the witness) came at PS on the directions of Hon'ble Sessions Court as they were on anticipatory bail. Thereafter, all above four accused persons were formally arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/A, PW5/B, PW5/C and PW5/D, bearing his signatures at pt. X. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed before the court.
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he stated that he had not recorded the statement of any witnesses of the present case. At this stage, statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C of Bhagwan Dass and Zameer dated 29.08.04 were shown to him and he stated that he had recorded both the statements during the course of investigation and he had not given reply on the question put to him earlier regarding recording of the statement of witnesses due to lapse of time. Earlier to the recording of his statement dated 29.08.04, his predecessor Sh. Onkar Singh had also FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 8/10 recorded the statements of the same witnesses. He denied the suggestion that the subsequent statements recorded on 29.08.04 were with a view to ensure implication of the accused persons by exaggerating the statements. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
18. PW-6 HC Veer Sain who is a formal witness was examined on 11.09.2014 and proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-6/A and his endorsement on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-6/B (OSR).
19. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
20. Apart from these six witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite repeated opportunities given. Hence, PE was ordered to be closed on 30.09.2014. The statement of accused persons under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 31.10.2014 in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and do not want to lead defence evidence.
21. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused person and Ld. APP for state. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
22. Prosecution has examined only six witnesses in the present matter. PW-1 Mohammad Ali, PW-2 Bhagwan Dass and PW-3 Zameel Khan being material witnesses were examined by the prosecution but they have not supported the version of the prosecution and their testimonies do not inspire any confidence. Apart from these three witnesses, PW-4 Dr. Piyush Ranjan was examined and his further cross examination was deferred but his testimony cannot be read in evidence on account of FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 9/10 incomplete cross examination. Further, prosecution has examined formal witnesses i.e. PW-5 SI V.P. Singh who prepared challan and filed before the court and PW-6 HC Veen Sain being duty officer. Thereafter, summons upon PW Ct. Ram Ratan and PW IO/SI Onkar Singh being material witnesses received back unexecuted with the report that they were not traceable. Hence, no purpose would have been served in examining remaining witnesses. Thus, there is nothing on record to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 324/341/427/506/34 IPC.
23. Hence, no grounds are found to hold the accused persons guilty of the offences as charged. The accused persons namely Mohammad Farooq, Mohammad Saleem Bhatt, Smt. Sahana Begum and Smt. Shamim Bano are hereby acquitted of the offences charged u/s 324/341/427/506/34 IPC.
Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court (CHETNA SINGH) on 31.10.2014 MM-02(SD)/31.10.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/31.10.2014 FIR No. 526/04 State Vs Mohammad Farooq & Ors. Pages 10/10