Delhi District Court
State vs . Imran @ Maanu on 20 February, 2020
SC/282/17
State Vs. Imran @ Maanu
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/282/17
CNR No.DLET010057052017
State Versus Imran @ Maanu
S/o Sh. Shaukat
R/o H. no. 309, Gali no. 2, Near
Qureshian Masjid, Village Pasonda,
PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad,
UP.
FIR No.27/17
PS Gazipur
under Section 307 IPC
Date of institution of case : 09052017
Reserved for judgment on : 16012020
Date of passing of judgment : 20022020
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused Imran @ Maanu, who had intentionally caused injuries to one Afzal by giving knife blows on his FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.1 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu left side of stomach for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as the "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays that accused may be convicted for the offence charged against him.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays for the acquittal of the accused.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 22.01.2017 at about 10.15 am inside the Slaughter House, Murga Mandi, Gazipur, Delhi, accused Imran @ Maanu caused injuries on the person of Afzal.
FIR No.27/17PS Gazipur Page No.2 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
The present case has been committed for trial and the charge sheet was received by the Court on 09052017. Charge was framed against the accused on 11052017 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence charged against him.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses.
9. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded on 07022019.
10. In his defence, no witness has been examined by the accused.
11. It is pointed out that the entire case shall be scrutinized and analyzed keeping an eye on the settled provisions of law and FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.3 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu judicial precedents.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Shoaeb, who is the eye witness to the entire incident. In his testimony before the Court, he has stated that on 22.01.2017 at about 10.15 am, he and Afzal were present in the Murga Mandi, Delhi and were purchasing chicken there. He has further stated that accused Imran was also present there and Afzal was demanding money of committee from Imran. On this matter, Imran abused Afzal. He has further deposed that when Afzal objected by saying as to why Imran @ Maanu was abusing, Imran became infurious and gave knife injuries (which he was carrying for the purpose of cutting chicken) on the left side abdomen and on the left hand of Afzal. He has further stated that thereafter accused Imran @ Maanu ran away from the spot and Afzal was removed to Max Hospital, Kaushambi by his maternal FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.4 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu uncle Iqbal. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police.
13. The complete testimony of this witness shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
14. PW2 Afzal (Injured), who in his testimony has stated that on 22.01.2017 he had gone to Murga Mandi Slaughter House, Gazipur to take chicken pop as usual. He has further stated that he demanded Rs. 5000/ due money of committee from Imran @ Maanu. On this, accused Imran abused him by stating that he had disturbed his business at murga mandi and he would eliminate him. Thereafter accused Imran who was holding knife in his hand, stabbed on the person of Imran in his abdomen. He has further stated that accused Imran further gave knife blow on his hand. He has further stated that accused Imran further attempted to stab him but he managed to save himself. He sustained injuries due to knife blow given by accused Imran. He has further stated that accused Imran fled away with the knife from the spot. Accused Imran had stabbed in his abdomen with the intention to kill him. He has further stated that earlier accused FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.5 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu Imran had also threatened to teach him a lesson. He identified the pants with belt Ex. P1, T shirt Ex. P2, shirt Ex.P3 and muffler Ex.P 4 to be the same which he was wearing at the time of occurrence.
15. The complete testimony of this witness shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
16. PW3 Iqbal in his testimony before the Court, has stated that on 22.01.2017 he was present at Gazipur Murga Mandi and was busy in his work where he came to know that his brother was stabbed by accused Imran @ Maanu. He has further stated that he immediately reached inside slaughter house where crowd was assembled. He has further stated that his brother Afzal was sustained stab injuries and he along with his friend lifted his brother Afzal and removed him to Max hospital, Kaushambi and got him admitted there. He has further stated that accused Imran had inflicted stabbed injury to his brother Afzal with the intention to kill him. He has further stated that accused Imran had beaten his brother Afzal earlier also because his brother Afzal was running good business but he did not lodge an complaint about the FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.6 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu said threat.
17. The complete testimony of this witness shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
18. PW5 Nadeem in his testimony before the court, has stated that on 22.01.2017 at about 10.00 am, he received a call from elder brother of Afzal namely Iqbal on his mobile phone no. 9953941377 that he along with Afzal were in Max Hospital, Indirapuram and requested him to call at phone no. 100 to the police because their call at the said number could not be connected. He has further stated that he gave a phone call to the police to reach Murga Mandi, Gazipur as one Afzal had been stabbed. He has further stated that he was informed by 23 boys that Afzal was stabbed by Imran @ Maanu and after that he had also gone to the said hospital to see Afzal on the same day. He has further stated that he knew accused Imran @ Maanu as he was also working at some distance in Gazipur Murga Mandi.
19. The complete testimony of this witness shall be discussed FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.7 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu in the later part of the judgment.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
20. Dr. Ritu Sabharwal, Attending Consultant (Emergency), Max Hospital, Vaishali, UP has been examined as PW9 and she has stated that on 22.01.2017 one patient namely Afzal aged about 21 years was brought to emergency ward at about 10.45 am by one Mohd Iqbal with alleged history of stab by a sharp object by someone at Ghazipur Murga Mandi at 10.30 am. She has further stated that the patient was having severe pain and bleeding in the left lower abdomen. She examined the patient and prepared the MLC Ex. PW 9/A and further referred the patient to surgery for further treatment and management.
21. Dr. Sunil Dhar (PW12), Associate Director and Head of Surgery, Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP has stated that patient Afzal was examined by him and his surgery was also done by him. He has further stated that on 22.02.2017 he has opined the nature FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.8 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu of injury as 'grievous plus danger'. He has further stated that the patient was admitted in the Max Hospital on 22.01.2017 and was discharged on 31.01.2017. He has proved the discharge summary as Ex. PW12/A.
22. Dr. Sumit (PW11) has stated that on 11.04.2017 patient Afzal was brought to the casualty of LBS hospital by SI Sonu Singh and his blood sample was collected by Dr. Uman Ahmed (JR) vide MLC no. 004979. He has proved the MLC Ex. PW11/A which is in the handwriting of Dr. Umar who has since left the services of the hospital.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
23. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove 1. PW4 W/HC Raj Bala FIR Ex. PW-4/A, certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/B, DD no. 12A dated 22.01.2017 Ex.PW-4/C, DD no. 8A dated 22.01.2017 Ex. PW-4/D.
2. PW6 HC Raj Kumar Seizure memo of sealed parcel given by doctor Ex. FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.9 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu PW-6/A.
3. PW7 ASI Habib Mohd PCR form Ex.PW7/A
4. PW-8 HC Jitender Arrest Memo Ex.PW-8/A, Personal Search Memo Ex. PW-8/B, Disclosure statement Ex. PW-8/C, Pointing out memo of place of incident Ex. PW- 8/D.
5. PW13 ASI Rajender Bhati Entry no. 170 dated 22.01.2017 Ex. PW-13/A, (MHCM) entry no. 536 dated 11.04.2017 Ex. PW-13/B.
6. PW14 SI Ummed Singh Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for CPCR DD no. 22JAN171080114 dated 22.01.2017 Ex. PW-14/A, Copy of application Ex. PW-14/B, copy of DD no. 12A Ex. PW-14/C.
7. PW-15 SI Sonu Singh Rukka Ex. PW-15/A, Site plan Ex. PW-15/B, Seizure memo of blood sample of injured Ex. PW- 15/C, FSL result Ex. PX, DD no. 11B regarding taking the accused out of PS for investigation Ex. PY, DD no. 35A regarding going to Hon'ble High Court on the day of surrender of accused and in search of the weapon of offence Ex.PZ.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
24. For the prosecution side their star witness PW2 Afzal who himself is an injured person has clearly deposed that on 22.01.2017 he had gone to Murga Mandi slaughter house, Gazipur to take chicken pop as usual. There he demanded Rs. 5000/ from accused Imran @ Manu as installment of the 'committee'. On this accused Imran reacted by abusing him and told him that he had FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.10 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu disturbed his business there. He also told him to be eliminated. On this accused Imran who was holding a knife in his hand gave stab blow on the abdomen of the injured. He also gave stab blows on the hands of injured. He further attempted to give more blows but he managed to save himself. Accused Imran then ran away from the spot along with knife.
25. In the cross, it is elicited that he had not told the doctor as to who had caused injuries to him.
26. PW2 Afzal has further stated in the cross that he was taken to hospital by his brother Iqbal. It is further elicited that beside him, 40 to 50 employees used to work on the place where he was employed but he could not say that all of them were present or not.
27. In the cross, it is further elicited that he did not say to the police that he was stabbed at his hands as well and that the accused had attempted to attack with knife third time. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW2/DA where it was not so recorded. It is further elicited that one Imran was running the said committee which was a FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.11 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu "chit fund committee" but he does not remember the total members of the 'committee'. He has denied the suggestion that he was not stabbed at the said date, time and place by the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that he was not working at the said place and under Meharban. He has also denied the suggestion that due to enmity at the place of work with other people, he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
28. In support of the prosecution case another star witness PW1 Shoaib has come in the witness box who has stated that on 22.01.2017 at about 10.15 am he along with injured were present at the market and they were purchasing chicken there. He further stated that Afzal was demanding money of 'committee' from Imran on which accused Imran abused Afzal whereupon Afzal objected to that abusing. Imran became infuriated and gave knife injuries on the left side abdomen of Afzal, which he was carrying for the purpose of cutting chickens. He gave further knife blows on the person of Afzal due to which Afzal has sustained injuries on his left hand. Thereafter, FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.12 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu accused Imran @ Manu ran away from the spot. Police had recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A.
29. This witness was cross examined at length and it was elicited that he is an employee under one Meharban and used to work on daily basis. Said Meharban was having eight tables in that slaughter house for carrying out the work. Afzal was also employee of Meharban and there were about 20 to 25 employees working for Meharban at that place of work. It is further elicited that it is a crowded place which is occupied by buyers and seller of chicken. It is further elicited that he is nephew of injured Afzal and Imran has no relation with Afzal. It is further elicited that beside the work place of Meharban there is the 'thiya' of Mohd Sharif which is on the back side of the work place of Meharban. In the cross he has further stated that he had known accused Imran one month prior to the incident and he has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the incident. He has further stated in the cross that there was a monthly 'committee' run by Imran which was drawn on every week but he did not know who all FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.13 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu were the members of the said 'committee'. He was also member of that committee and he used to deposit Rs. 1000/ per week in the said 'committee'. He has denied the suggestion that he was not a member of any 'chit fund committee' with accused Imran or that he was not present at the time of incident or that he has been made as eye witness of the incident which he has not seen or that accused had not stabbed Afzal in his presence or that he was deposing as he has been told by the people at his house and also by the police or that the injured is of small virtues and he had a fall somewhere and they attributed his injuries to the accused.
30. Another star witness PW3 Iqbal has come in the witness box and stated that on 22.01.20147 he was present at Gazipur Murga Mandi and was busy in his work, where he came to know that his brother was stabbed by accused Imran @ Manu. He had seen that Afzal was having stab injuries and he has removed him to Max Hospital, Kaushambi. He has also stated that accused Imran had beaten his brother Afzal earlier also because his brother was running FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.14 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu good business but he did not lodge any complaint.
31. In the cross, he has stated that his brother was found lying in injured condition at a distance of 2030 steps from the place where he was busy in his work. He has further elicited that he did not know the name of the person who had informed him about the incident. He did not tell the name of accused to the doctor nor the doctor asked him about the name of the assailant.
32. One more star witness PW5 Nadeem has come in the witness box and has stated that on 22.01.2017 at about 10.00 am, he received a call from one Iqbal who is the elder brother of Afzal, who informed him that they are in the Max Hospital. He has stated that he was informed by 23 boys that Afzal was stabbed by Imran @ Manu and after that he had also gone to the said hospital to see Afzal on the same day. He knew accused Imarn @ Maanu as he was working at some distance at Gazipur Murga Mandi.
33. From the evidence it is clearly evinced that the statement of injured PW2 Afzal is unambiguously supported and corroborated FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.15 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu by the testimony of PW1 Shoaib who is an eye witness to the entire scene of occurrence. Both of them have clearly narrated the incident in unison. There is absolutely no diversion as to the manner in which they have deposed disclosing the happening at the place of occurrence. Both of them establishes the presence of accused and injured at the place of occurrence. Both of them have clearly stated that accused Imran @ Manu had given a stab blow in the abdomen of the injured. Accused also gave other blows but were given on the hands of injured.
34. The third witness PW3 Iqbal who is not an eye witness but he was also present near the place of occurrence and he had also stated that accused Imran had inflicted stab injury to his brother Afzal. He was the one who had removed the injured to the Max Hospital. Therefore, his evidence is also admissible under the law in order to further corroborate the testimonies of the injured and the eye witnesses.
35. As far as the identification of the accused is concerned, FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.16 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu all the three prime witnesses of the prosecution including the police official PW8 HC Jitender and PW15 SI Sonu Singh have clearly identified the accused Imran @ Manu to be the perpetrator of the crime. Since accused was clearly known to the public/material witnesses being a member of a 'committee' and working under one Meharban at Gazipur Murga Mandi. He is not a person who is unknown to either injured or prime witnesses that there could have been any doubt about the identification of the accused and to allay any false implication of the accused.
36. On the basis of judicial precedents, it is culled out that the intention required to bring a case within the meaning of Section 307 of IPC, some relevant factors are important which are as follows;
(i) nature/ type of weapon used. (ii) the place and part of body where injuries were inflicted. (iii) nature of injuries caused.
(iv) opportunity available to the accused.
(v) with what force the weapon of offence was used. FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.17 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu
(vi) number of blows given.
37. PW9 Dr. Ritu Sabharwal has proved the MLC Ex. PW 9/A. She has deposed that patient Afzal was having severe pain and bleeding from left lower abdomen and she had examined the patient herself. The MLC shows incised wound of 56 cm on left lower abdomen just above left liliaccrest. From the MLC, it is absolutely clear that one single blow is given on the abdomen of the injured.
38. As far as the weapon of offence is concerned, PW15 SI Sonu Singh has clearly stated that on interrogation accused led them to back side of slaughter house where he had allegedly thrown the weapon of offence but the same could not be recovered. Again on 23.02.2017 he made a search for weapon of offence but could not be recovered.
39. In the present case, in the absence of the weapon of offence it cannot be found out that as to how big the knife was and how deep it could penetrate the abdomen of the injured. Moreover, from the evidence it is clear that there was a single incised wound FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.18 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu seen on the abdomen of the injured which was duly recorded in MLC Ex. PW9/A. It is not a case where the accused had given multiple blows on the vital part of the body or that he was bent upon killing the injured which is clearly takes the case out of the purview of Section 307 IPC but bring the case within the ambit of Section 325 IPC.
40. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 325 IPC are as follows : (1) Accused voluntarily caused hurt;
(2) Hurt was grievous within the meaning of sec.320, I.P.C.
41. From the nature of injury depicted in the MLC Ex. PW 9/A it cannot be said that the said injury was self inflicted one in any manner which could show if the same was made with a view to falsely implicate the accused. The nature of injury recorded in MLC Ex. PW 9/A is grievous plus dangerous. Furthermore, FSL report Ex. PX also corroborates the fact that blood on the wearing cloth of the injured at the time of incident matches with his blood. FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.19 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu
42. Keeping in view the offence, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve that the accused had not given knife blow injury to the accused with some sharp object. The prosecution case is clearly supported and corroborated by the testimony of star witnesses along with the medical evidence placed on record and the police witnesses deposed in the court. The nature of injury was clearly opined as 'grievous plus dangerous'.
43. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that since the public witnesses are relative of the injured so they are interested witnesses.
44. There is no force in the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the accused for the simple reason that the testimony of witnesses cannot be brushed aside simply on the premise that they are interested witnesses. Since their submission is clear, cogent and trustworthy their testimony can be relied upon. Moreover, no suggestion whatsoever is given to any public witness in order to claim that they were interested witnesses.
FIR No.27/17PS Gazipur Page No.20 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu
45. It is further stressed that since no proof of employment is submitted by the injured, therefore, his testimony is not reliable. The submission made by Ld. Counsel for the accused is unworthy of credence for the simple reason that if proof of employment is not given it cannot be said that the injured was not working there. Moreover, most of the workers were daily wagers and used to get daily wages. Learned counsel has further stressed that number of persons were working there and none of them has come forward to depose shows weakness in the prosecution case. This submission is of no help to the case of the accused as the material witnesses and eye witness have deposed against the accused. At the same time it is important to point out that accused himself has given suggestion that "injured was not stabbed at the said date, time and place by the accused". This suggestion itself shows that the injured was stabbed by someone. It is not the case of the accused that accused was not stabbed by anyone. Another defence is raised on behalf of accused is that the injured was hurt somewhere else. Injured in his FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.21 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu testimony stated that accused stabbed him in his abdomen and further gave knife blow on his hand. Statement of injured is corroborated by his MLC Ex. PW9/A which shows that injured sustained incised wound on left lower abdomen. As such the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that injured suffered injury somewhere else holds no water.
46. In Mathai Vs. State of Kerela, Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (CRI) no.2285/2004) the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pleased to observe as under :-
"Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. As noted above the evidence of doctor clearly shows that the hurt or the injury that was caused was covered under the expression 'grievous hurt' as defined under Section 320 IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a grievous hurt was caused. It is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous weapon. It would depend upon the facts of the case. At FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.22 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Section 324 and 326 expression "dangerous weapon" is used. In some other more serious offences the expression used is "deadly weapon" (e.g. Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case Section 325 or Section 326 would be applicable.".
47. Since in the present case the weapon of offence has not been recovered, it cannot be said that the weapon used in this case was dangerous one or not.
48. In Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722, it has been held that: "Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.23 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved and "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.24 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
49. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the accused is not entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
50. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved its case within the ambit of provisions of Section 325 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt against accused Imran @ Maanu. FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.25 of 26 under Section 307 IPC SC/282/17 State Vs. Imran @ Maanu CONCLUSION
51. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of all the star prosecution witnesses which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards accused Imran @ Maanu.
52. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against accused Imran @ Maanu for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
53. Accused Imran @ Maanu is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Digitally signed
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DEEPAK by DEEPAK JAGOTRA ON 20th FEBRUARY, 2020 JAGOTRA Date: 2020.02.20 14:39:06 +0530 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.27/17 PS Gazipur Page No.26 of 26 under Section 307 IPC