Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Shamim & Anr. on 8 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
FIR No. 588/98
PS: Ashok Vihar
U/s 324/506/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) The date of commission : 09/09/1998
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Subhash Deen @ Bablu
S/o. Sh. Chalas
D) Name of the accused : 1. Mohd. Shamim
S/o. Sh. Mohd. Fayaz
2. Mohd. Slim @ Chhotley
S/o. Mohd. Nasrudin.
E) Offence complained of : U/s 324/506/34 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Convicted U/s.324/506 (II)/34 IPC
H) The date of such order : 08/08/2012
Date of Institution : 10/12/1998
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved.
Judgment announced on : 08/08/2012
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/21
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 09/09/1998 at around 9:30 pm at ground of Primary Block-3, Wazirpur, J.J. Colony both the accused in furthereance of their common intention caused simple hurt with sharp edge weapon on the person of Subhash Deen @ Bablu and also threatened him to kill and thereby they committed offences punishable under Section 324/506/34 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 324/506/34 IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
3. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused persons.
4. Vide order dated 19/05/1999 charge was framed against both the accused persons for trial of offences U/s. 324/506/34 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/215. In order to prove their case the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses, testimonies of whom are discussed below:-
PW-1 Subhash Deen @ Bablu is the injured/complainant. He deposed that on 09.09.1998 at 09:30 pm, after taking meals he went for a walk behind Municipal Corporation School, Block J III, Wazirpur in the school ground. He further deposed that he found two boys consuming liquor whom he identified in the court as Shamim and Chotey. He further deposed that both of them called him and abused him saying that he is police informer and has come to spy on them and that they will consume liquor with his money only. He further deposed that when he told that he is not having any money, accused Shamim caught hold of his hand and accused Chotey inflicted injuries on right side of his chest and right thigh with the help of broken bottle and also threatened him to kill due to which he received injuries. He further deposed that he reached police post where his statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded and was taken to the hospital. He further deposed that on 12.09.1998 police arrested the accused Shamim from bus stand No. 115, at his instance. He further deposed that on 15.09.1998 when he went to police post to inquire about status of his case, he found accused Chotey sitting there whom he identified as the one who inflicted injuries with the help of bottle upon him. He was cross examined by the accused wherein he denied the suggestion that he under the influence of alcohol and accompanied by 10/12 goons entered into fight with the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons.
PW-2 HC Shamim Haider proved the FIR as Ex. PW-2/A. State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/21 PW-3 Ct. Sharan Pal deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 09.09.1998 while he was on patrolling duty with HC Dharamveer Singh at J - 3, Wazirpur, the injured Subhash Deen met them near Primary school at about 09:35 pm and told them that he was beaten by two persons in the park. He also deposed that the injured told him that he was beaten by the boys as he used to give secret information about them. He deposed that HC Dharamveer Singh recorded his statement and he was sent with the injured to Hindu Rao hospital for medical examination. He further deposed that he came back at the spot with the MLC of the injured and sealed pullinda with the seal of the hospital which he handed over to HC Dharamveer Singh. He was sent by HC Dharamveer Singh to the police station along with the rukka for getting the case registered. He came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Dharamveer Singh. He later in his testimony has deposed about the searching of the accused persons and apprehending of accused Mohd. Shamim whom he correctly identified in the court, on 12.09.1998 from the bus stand at the instance of the injured. He proved personal search memo of the accused Mohd. Shamim as Ex. PW-3/A. PW-4 IO ASI Ram Diya deposed that on 15.09.1998 he arrested the accused Chotey Lal after he surrendered before the court, since IO HC Dharamveer Singh was on leave that day. He proved the personal search memo of accused Chotey Lal as Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that the accused was taken to the police post where he was identified by the injured Subhash Deen.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/21PW-5 IO ASI Dharamveer Singh deposed about finding the complainant in the injured condition on 09.09.1998 when he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Sharanpal. He deposed about the time and place of the incident as 09:30 pm near the gate of Government Primary school, block J - III, Wazirpur. He deposed about the steps taken during the course of investigation and proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-5/A, site plan as Ex. PW-5/B and seizure memo of the sealed packet as Ex. PW-5/C. He also proved the M.L.C as Ex. PW-5/D, an application for obtaining opinion as Ex. PW-5/E. PW-6 K.V. Singh, Medical Record Clerk, H.R. Hospital has proved the MLC No.13263/98 of patient Bablu S/o Chalas prepared by Dr. A.Z.M. Kamal as Ex. PW-5/D.
6. Vide order dated 02.12.2011 P.E. was closed and Statement of the accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which the accused persons pleaded innocence and accused Mohd. Shamim preferred not to lead D.E whereas accused Mohd. Salim lead D.E. Thereafter the matter was fixed for D.E
7. In Defence Evidence, accused Mohd. Salim examined Subhash as DW-1. He deposed that the incident is of year 1999 and at about 07:30 pm he saw some commotion near a Govt. School in J.J. Colony. He further deposed that the accused persons were surrounded by 10-12 persons. One of them was Bablu. Someone hit knife injury upon Bablu. He do not know as State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/21 to who did it. The accused persons also received injuries.
He was cross examined by Ld. APP wherein he deposed that he know the accused persons since childhood being friend and neighbour. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on spot and that is why he could not tell correct time and date of incident.
8. D.E. was closed vide order dated 02/06/20122and thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
10. It is submitted by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the police did not bother to make any public person to witness the incident despite there being presence of public persons at the spot.
11. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has submitted by that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/21 accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
12. After going through the material on record and having heard the arguments advanced, I am of the I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused persons.
13. In order to prove the culpability of the accused u/s 324 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(i)That the accused voluntarily caused hurt to another person;
(ii)That such a hurt was in exception to cases provided under Section 334 I.P.C ;
(iii)That such hurt was caused
(a) by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death; or
(b) by means of fire or any heated substance; or
(c) by means of any poison or any corrosive substance; or
(d) by means of any explosive substance; or
(e) by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or receive into the blood; or
(f) by means of any animal.
Criminal intimidation has been defined by section 503 IPC. In order to prove the culpability of the accused persons U/s. 503 IPC, the State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/21 prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
1. Threatening a person with any injury:
(i) to his person, reputation, or property; or
(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. Threatening a person with any injury:
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
14. Before coming to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel on merits, I may observe that considering the aspect of faulty investigations the Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of State of U. P. vs Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456, observed that:
"...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot free........."
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ram Bihari Yadav v.State of Bihar 1998 AIR (SC) 1850 in para 13 has held "........... the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/21 the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
16. Also our own Hon'ble High Court in 2000, I AD (Delhi) 67 Manoj @ Manu Vs. State of Delhi has also categorically ruled that:
"Criminal justice should not be made casualty of wrong committed by the Investigation Officer."
17. The defence arguments that the broken bottle which was allegedly used by the accused persons to assault the the complainant/victim was neither recovered in the investigation nor proved in the court is not tenable. The non recovery of the weapon of offence. is no ground to acquit the accused persons. The law is well settled that just because the weapon has not been recovered the same is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the PWs especially the injured. It can only be used for corroboration of the statement of witnesses.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/2118. As far as the evidentiary value of the injured witness is concerned, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has this to say in the case of State of Gujrat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and Others 1990 CrLJ 2531 "For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that :
(1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
(2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence.
(5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation.
(6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version.State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 10/21
Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story."
19. Reliance can be placed upon Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (SC) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3548 wherein it was held:
It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 308 (SC) relied on.
20. Now in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the testimony of the injured witness of the offence stands on a very higher footing unless and until impeached by some clinching evidence. I have perused the evidences of the witnesses and I find that the same are quite consistent, truthful and credit worthy. The complainant has deposed about the manner in which the incident occurred. PW-1 is the complainant and the best witness to describe the manner in which the offence is committed by the accused persons. Complainant being the injured, he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprits does not go scot free and there is no reason that they would frame innocent persons sparing his real assailants.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 11/2121. PW-1 Subhash Deen @ Bablu has fully supported the prosecution version. Both the accused persons were identified in the court by the PWs. PW-1 Subhash Deen @ Bablu not only identified the accused persons but also described the roles played by them. He has categorically deposed in his testimony that accused Shamim caught hold of his hand and accused Chotey inflicted injuries on right side of his chest and right thigh with the help of broken bottle and also threatened him to kill due to which he received injuries. Not only this, the oral testimony of the complainant/injured is further corroborated by the medical evidence i.e the MLC of complainant/injured Ex.PW-5/D. From the MLC it stands unambiguously established that PW-1 received injuries. Complainant deposed that during assault he suffered injury on his thigh and on his chest. This find support from the MLC Ex. PW-5/D. The MLC shows the history of assault from sharp object. No doubt Dr. A.Z.M Kamal who prepared the MLC was not examined by the prosecution. However, his absence was due to the reason that he was no longer working at H.R. Hospital. Nonetheless, PW-6 K.V Singh who was the Medical Record Clerk, H.R. hospital duly identified the signature as well as handwriting of Dr. A.Z.M Kamal on the said MLCs. In my opinion the testimony of PW-6 K.V. Singh is self sufficient for proving the MLC and the prosecution case did not suffer at all on account of non examination of Dr. A.Z.M Kamal. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW-6 K.V. Singh being an independent witness. Further PW-6 was not cross examined by the accused persons. The time of incident being approx. 09:30 p.m and injured persons being taken immediately to hospital clearly shows the injuries being causa causans of the incident.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 12/2122. Section 324 provides "Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a 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."
Section 319 IPC, defines the term hurt. Under section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. The injured has suffered simple hurt which is punishable under section 323 IPC. When the hurt is caused by any sharp object, section 324 is attracted. In the present case also, the injury is caused by sharp object, therefore, it is proved that the accused committed an offfence punishable u/s 324 IPC.
23. Section 506 provides: "Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 13/21 by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. "
24. Criminal intimidation has been defined by section 503 IPC. It provides as "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
Explanation. - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
25. In the decision in Habibullah's case, 1961 MPLJ 1190, it has been pointed out that the most important ingredient of the offence of criminal intimidation is that there should be an intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do and in the words used there should be a clear indication as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as a reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 14/2126. It is clear that the gist of the offence, as defined in section 503, is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened, and it is equally clear that before it can have any effect upon his mind it must be either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him in some way. In this particular case during the assault the accused persons also threatened the complainant to kill him. This utterance coupled with assault were sufficient to cause alarm in the mind of the complainant and therefore the offence under section 506 II IPC is also made out.
27. In the instant case the chain of events has been consistent and complete. The accused persons were not arrested on the spot as they fled away and were arrested by police officials who were on patrolling. PW-5 ASI Dharamvir Singh has proved the investigation of the case, arrest of the accused and other formalities. The time of assault, his examination at Hindu Rao hospital, registration of FIR and the arrest of the accused persons are absolutely consistent and leave no scope of any manipulation whatsoever. The injuries received by the complainant as reflected in MLC no. 13263/98 i.e Ex. PW-5/D cannot be self inflicted.
28. In my view an injured witness is least likely, unless injuries are self inflicted, to shield or screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. A conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of an injured State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 15/21 person unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration to satisfy the judicial conscience. In the present case, there is nothing in the testimony of injured Subhash Deen @ Bablu, which may impel the court to ask for corroboration.
29. As held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a criminal case, the testimony of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, by itself is a sufficient and sound basis, in fact the best basis, for convicting accused person because, injuries guarantee the presence of such witnesses on the place of incident and once that is ensured, the limited question which remains is whether they are credible or not. It is only where the testimony of such witnesses is found incredible and untrustworthy vis-a-vis the core of the prosecution case that it should be discarded. This norm of appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses is based on the trite that injuries only guarantee their presence but, do not ensure their truthfulness and no Court ever convicts accused persons unless the evidence of witnesses is truthful and inspires confidence, on the material aspects of the prosecution case.
30. Further, a witness cannot be expected to narrate the incident like a parrot. Some improvements/contradictions may creep in due to fading of memory with lapse of time. These minor contradictions should not be given undue importance unless they are so glaring so as to destroy the confidence in the witness. In the instant case I do not find any infirmity in the testimony State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 16/21 of the injured that her testimony should be looked with suspicion.
31. As far as the defence that no public person was made a witness is concerned, the answer lies in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988 SC Cr R 559 9 : AIR 1988 SC
696) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 17/21
32. Further, The Indian Evidence Act does not specify any particular number of witnesses required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) FIR No. 130/99 16/22 CRIMES 63 (SC) . The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.
33. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by each other and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. Further the complainant testified in detail as to what role was played by which accused. There being no history of any previous animosity between the accused persons and the victim, there is no reason for the victim to have falsely implicated the accused.
34. The accused persons in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C gave evasive answers and did not come out with explanations as to the State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 18/21 reasons of their false implications as claimed by them. No motive has been put forward by them which is implicit in the testimony of the complainant /injured that he was beaten by accused persons as he gives information about them to the police.
35. Accused Mohd. Saleem did examine DW Subhash in his defence but same was not sufficient enough to create any in roads in the story of the prosecution. He gave general statements and was not even able to recollect the year of incident correctly, leave apart the date and month. There is a possibility that he was referring to some other incident . Even otherwise the defense witness just gave evasive statement as "someone hit knife injury upon Bablu" and that "accused persons also received injuries". There is no evidence either in the form of M.L.C or oral that the accused persons also received injuries.
36. Now adjudicating upon whether all the accused persons had common intention to rob the complainant and that if Sec34I.P.C can be attracted to fix their liability.
In Virender Pal @ Neelu v. State (Delhi)(D.B.) 2011 CriLJ 3082Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed :
" Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence. It simply states that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. The constructive liability under this Section would arise if following two State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 19/21 conditions are fulfilled :- (i) there must be a common intention to commit a criminal act and (ii) there must be participation of all the persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention . Common intention requires a prior concert or pre-planning. Common intention to commit a crime should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop at the instant when such crime is committed.
48. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence of common intention . In most cases it has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused persons and other relevant circumstances of the case. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence. In other words, intention has to be gathered from the acts of the accused persons and the attendant relevant circumstances enwombing the act. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which he could be convicted."
37. Since both the accused persons had actively participated in the commission of the offence it can be safely concluded that both the accused persons assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill him.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 20/2138. In view of the above discussion, observations and evidence on record, in my opinion the prosecution has successfully proved its case. Therefore I hold accused persons guilty of offence u/s 324/506 (II)/34 IPC.
39. Now let the matter be listed for arguments on sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on August 08th, 2012.
State V/s Mohd. Shamim & Anr. FIR No. 588/98 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 21/21