Delhi District Court
State vs Khalil Ahmed on 15 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 3/10
State Vs Khalil Ahmed
S/o Sh Mohd. Asgar
R/o E3, Old Jasola Village,
New Delhi.
Permanent Address: R/o Village Bachera,
PO Behas, PS Pilhuwa,
District Gaziabad, UP.
FIR No: 222/06
P.S. Sarita Vihar
U/s. 308/34 IPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.09.2010 (Initial date
of Institution 25.02.2009)
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15.10.2011
DATE OF DECISION : 15.10.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. On receiving information vide DD no. 28A at around 10.12 p.m. on the night of 30.04.2006, SI Puran Singh alongwith Ct. Mohan Lal reached the spot and at spot recorded the statement of one Ravi Kumar State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-1) who alleged that at around 9.45 p.m. today when he was sitting at his clinic one boy came and stated that his mother is ill and requested him to go with him. Thereafter, he alongwith that boy went towards Janta flats and there he found three other boys and on signal by that boy, all three boys started running towards his scooter. They further took out the keys of scooter and when he try to escape, he was obstructed and beaten with bricks, fists and legs. He further stated that out of these boys he recognized Khalil Ahmed to whom he know well because he used to come to his shop. Pursuant to his statement rukka was prepared and an FIR was registered u/s. 323/341/34 IPC. Later on, during investigation as the injury was inflicted on head section 308 IPC was also added and accused Khalil Ahmed was arrested but other three accused were not found and chargesheet was filed before court.
2. On committal, charges were framed against the accused u/s. 308/341/34 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution for substantiating charge examined ten prosecution witnesses. Injured Ravi Kumar is examined as PW2. Others are police officials and doctors. Summary details of the deposition of PWs are as follows.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-2) Deposition of PW2 Ravi Kumar (Injured):
4. PW2 Ravi Kumar deposed that on 30.04.2006, he was present at his clinic and at about 9.45 a.m., one person came and stated that his mother is ill. Thereafter, he went alongwith him on his scooter and when reached near Pocket C, three persons sitting on pulia including accused Khalil met and the persons who was sitting on his scooter took out his key and gave signal to three boys and on seeing them he left his scooter and tried to run away and accused Khalil was having iron rod in his hand and caused injuries on his head by iron rod and other three also caused injuries with stones and on this he became unconscious and after sometime regained conscious and came back to his clinic and informed this fact on telephone to his friend Harbir and thereafter he went alongwith him to the house of Khalil and further informer PCR at 100 number. He further deposed that PCR came there and took him too police station and thereafter to AIIMS where he was medically examined. He further deposed that thereafter police recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 30.04.2006 accused Khalil was also taken to police station by police station and thereafter on 24.05.2006 he was arrested. He further deposed that as a result of the said injury there is a blockage in the veins of brain and if he does not take treatment for seven days he half left portion started cold and numb.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-3)
5. In cross examination, he deposed that he is a registered medical practitioner and obtained certificate of RMP from Bihar. He further deposed that he had applied for RMP certificate through medical house from Delhi but he does not know where that medical house is situated. He denied suggestion that he is not RMP. He further deposed that he knew accused Khalil for last 12 years as his house is situated at 150 km from his clinic and the person who came to take him is of height of 5.6" feet, but he had not given the particulars of said persons in his statement before the police. He denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied that person on his scooter. He further deposed that he was not sure whether he was taking him to C Pocket. He further deposed that he knew accused Khalil was his neighbour and used to borrow money from him. He further denied the suggestion that he had taken new motorcycle of accused to Bulandshar and a quarrel took place prior of one week of incident, therefore, he falsely implicated the accused Khalil in this case. He further deposed that three boys who were with accused Khalil were not resident of Jasola. He further deposed that iron rod which was used by accused persons was 1.25 cm in length and thickness of that rod was about 4 cm. He further deposed that it is incorrect that accused had not used any iron rod. He further deposed that he cannot tell in how much time how he was able to regained his conscious. He State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-4) also could not tell when he reached his clinic and do not remember the phone number on which he called his friends and remained at the clinic for 15 minutes till the PCR came and taken by PCR to police station and thereafter to AIIMS.
Deposition of doctors
6. PW7 Dr. Surjeet Kumar, Sr. Resident deposed on behalf of Dr. Gauri Shankar who prepared the MLC of injured Ravi Kumar with alleged history of assault and injury was opined to be simple by blunt object.
7. PW4 Dr. Alok Mittal had identified the xray report prepared by Dr. Sanchita Saha Deposition of police officials:
8. PW1 ASI Sumer Singh deposed that he recorded FIR at around 2.35 a.m. on 01.05.2006. PW3 HC Giriraj deposed that he recived an information at around 10.00/11.00 p.m. that a person was lying unconscious at pocket C, Jasola village and there he found one persons unconscious and took him to AIIMS hospital. PW6 HC Rambir State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-5) deposed that he received at around 9.45 pm. a call from Dr. Nagar resident of Janta Clinic, Jasola Gaon, wherein he stated that Habibullaha had beaten him but he could not produced the PCR form as it was destroyed but the copy of the letter dated 07.10.2009 is Ex. PW6/A.
9. PW8 Shri Giriraj Singh deposed that on 30.06.2006 he was posted as Head Constable and was standing with PCR at Kalindi Kunj and received information on wireless that one person is lying unconscious at Jasola village and thereafter reached the place and admitted him in AIIMS hospital.
10. PW9 HC Mohan Lal deposed that on receiving DD no. 20 A he reached Janta flats Sarita Vihar alongwith IO and met two persons, one was injured Ravi Singhal and Khalil and there he recorded the statement of injured Ravi and also arrested accused Khalil and further taken rukka to police station for registration of FIR. In cross examination he stated that he had not seen any public person at spot. He further deposed that place of occurrence is residential locality but do not know whether IO had tried to join any public witness in investigation. He further deposed that when they reached AIIMS injured was found admitted in hospital.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-6)
11. PW10 Retd. ASI Puran Singh deposed that on receiving DD no. 20A he went alongwith HC Mohan Lal and met injured Ravi Kumar and accused Khalil Ahmed at spot. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar and prepared rukka. He further deposed that thereafter he sent Ct. Mohan Lal for registration of FIR. He further deposed that thereafter injured Ravi Kumar was shifted to AIIMS hospital. He further deposed that MLC of the injured was collected and later on section 308 IPC was added and accused was again arrested u/s. 308 IPC and further prepared site plan at the instance of injured Ravi KUmar. He further deposed that he tried to search other coaccused but despite best efforts could not trace them. He further deposed that he had recorded the supplementary statement of injured Ravi Kumar on 18.02.2007 regarding clarification of the name of accused which was given to PCR inadvertently Habibullah instead of Khalil Ahmed. He further deposed that he collected the PCR form Ex. PW10/D.
12. In cross examination he deposed that name of the accused is not mentioned in DD no. 20A and denied suggestion that he had not made any efforts to search other accused persons and wrongly implicated the present accused. Also denied suggestion that one Habibullaha had caused injuries to injured PW2.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-7)
13. Accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.c. had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded that he is falsely implicated in the present case.
Material Exhibits:
14. Ex. PW5/A is the DD no. 20A dated 30.04.2006 pursuant to which IO Puran Singh and Ct. Mohan Lal reached at the spot. Ex. PW2/A is statement of the injured Ravi Kumar recorded by IO pursuant to which FIR Ex. PW1/A is registered. Ex. PW10/C is site plan of the place of occurrence. Ex.PW10/D is PCR form showing the information received. Ex.PW7/A is MLC of injured Ravi Kumar with alleged history of assault by bricks, further showing injuries to be simple caused by blunt object. Ex. PW4/A is xray report showing no bone injury.
15. Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that accused is falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW2 had named 4 assailants in his statement before the police but could not state the particulars of the other three assailants and also even could not depose the alleged motive of his beating. Ld. Counsel further submits that in statement before court, he improved and stated that the State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-8) injuries were caused to him by iron rod and stones whereas in statement before police he stated that the injuries caused were by bricks and fists and legs. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are no name of assailants in the MLC despite the fact that injured know the accused for last 12 years. Ld. Counsel further submits that as per investigation officer the statement of injured was recorded at spot but as per MLC at that time the injured was in the hospital therefore,the lodging of the FIR itself is dubious. Ld. Counsel further submits that in PCR call name of one Habibulla was mentioned as an assailant and it shows that prosecution had concealed the real assailants and falsely implicated the present accused.
16. Ld. Addl PP on the other hand submits that injured had name the accused in FIR as well as in his statement before the court and the contradiction in both the statements are minor in nature. Further, the medical evidence shows injuries on the head. Thus, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Arguments heard. Record perused.
18. According to prosecution, on receiving DD No. 20A, PW10 IO SI Puran Singh alongwith Ct. Mohan Lal PW9 reached the spot and recorded the statement of injured Ravi Kumar PW2 who in his State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-9) statement Ex. Pw2/A stated that at around 9.45 am, one boy came and told him that his mother is ill and requested him to take to his house. Thereafter, he took his scooter and the that boy accompanied him as a pillion rider on scooter and when they reached near Cpocket mod, three other boys also found sitting there and on being signalled by the boy who was sitting on scooter, they came towards him and further took out the keys of the scooter and he was beaten with bricks, fists and legs and one of the said boys is accused Khalil to whom he knew very well. Thereafter, he felt unconscious. This injured Ravi Kumar is examined as PW2 before the court.
19. In his statement before the court, he deposed that he found 3 boys sitting at the pulia and accused Khalil was having iron rod and he hit iron rod on his head and other boys injured him with the stones as a result of which he sustained injuries and became unconscious. This witness has improved over the use of iron rod in his deposition before the court whereas in his statement before the police, he had not stated about the use of iron rod further, there is no such iron rod was recovered in the present case. Even in the MLC Ex. PW7/A in alleged history he has not named any accused and also not stated about the use of iron rod and it is only alleged in said MLC that assault due to bricks.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-10)
20. PW2 had named in total 4 persons who assaulted him but neither before in his statement before police or before court, he had given any description of those boys. In his cross examination, he admitted that he knew the accused for the last 12 years and the house of the accused is situated at about 150 meters from his clinic. But in his entire statement before the police and before the court he had not alleged any motive why he was beaten by accused alongwith three other persons. In this scenario when he knows the accused for last 12 years, this important aspect of motive that why he was beaten by accused is conspicuously absent in the present case.
21. PW2 in his testimony submitted that after gaining the consciousness he came back to his clinic and thereafter called his friend Harbir and then both went to the house of Khalil. But there is no mention that his friend Harbir in his statement before police and further Harbir also not examined by the police in this regard.
22. As per DD no. 20A Ex.PW5/A an information was received regarding beating by one Habibullah and this is also written in Ex.PW10/D (PCR form). But there is no mention of any Habibullah in the testimony of PW2 neither it is clarified by the prosecution in his testimony how the name of Habibullah had appeared in the PCR form and the DD entry. Though as per the testimony of PW2 he or his friend Harbir had State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-11) informed the PCR. PW8 IO in his deposition stated that he had recorded the statements of accused on the fact that inadvertently named Habibullah instead of Khalil Ahmed. But this fact is not stated by injured PW2. This omission is material because as per PW2 he was beaten by 4 persons and named only accused Khalil Ahmed and even had not named other 3 persons nor disclosed their description. Further, it is also not believable that police could not find out the names and locations of those 3 persons from accused Khalil Ahmed. And this different name as of Habibulla as an assailant creates doubt and indicates that the actual facts of assault might be something else. This fact further assumes importance because as per testimony of PW9 & 10 they reached spot immediately and recorded statement of PW2 injured. But rukka shows it was prepared at 1.45 am i.e, after about 3 hours, therefore due deliberations before statement of injured not ruled out.
23. PW10 IO SI Puran Singh deposed that on receiving DD no. 20 A he went to spot alongwith Ct. Mohan Lal and there he met injured Ravi Kumar and recorded his statement and further also met Khalil Ahmed and prepared rukka on the basis of his statement and rukka was sent for registration of FIR. PW9 Ct. Mohan Lal also deposed on the same lines. Whereas as per rukka Ex. PW10/A, it was sent from the spot at 1.45 am. On the other hand the MLC Ex.PW7/A of injured Ravi State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-12) Kumar suggests that injured brought top hospital on 10.48 pm on 30.04.2006 which shows that when the police reached the spot he was already taken to hospital. PW3 HC Giri Raj Singh deposed that on receiving information he found a person in unconscious condition near C Pocket Jasola Vihar and took him to hospital and got admitted there. This PW HC Giri Raj stated that he took the deceased in unconscious condition from the spot whereas PW2 stated that he came to his clinic after the incident and also went to search accused Khalil Ahmed alongwith his brother and lateron was taken to hospital by PCR. These all are irreconcilable inconsistencies coming in the statement of prosecution witnesses which also created doubt that prosecution is not coming out with true story.
24. As per MLC Ex.PW7/A, the injuries suffered by PW2 Ravi Kumar is simple by blunt object and as per history of loss of consciousness it is alleged that he lost consciousness only for five minutes and came to hospital in conscious and oriented state and as per xray report Ex.PW4/A, there is no bony injury on the head. As per medical evidence PW2 suffered simple injury by blunt object whereas in his statement before the court he substantially improved and stated that he had received 26 inches stitches in the different portions of the head which do not match with the medical evidence on record neither he has brought some other medical document to substantiate his claim.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-13)
25. PW10 IO Puran Singh stated that at the instance of injured he prepared site plan Ex. PW10/C whereas PW2 had not stated the said fact in his deposition before the court. Further there is no seizure of any scooter or recovery of any iron rod in prosecution case.
26. On overall appreciation of evidence, PW2 unable to explain any motive for his beating by accused further he had not given any description of other assailants, also there is a doubt over a person who involved in the beating namely Habibulla and he improved in his version by stating that the iron rod was used in his beating. And even in MLC he had not named any assailants and these embellishments and exaggerations made the testimony of this witness unreliable and further the investigation in the present case is pathetic . There is a apparent doubt over the preparation of rukka or consequent registration of FIR in the manner suggested by the prosecution because as per PW10 and 9, the rukka was prepared on the basis of statement of injured at spot where at that time, the injured was already admitted in hospital. All these improvements, inconsistencies, embellishments and deficiencies had blurred the prosecution case and benefit definitely in that case would go to accused.
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-14)
27. In view of above overall discussion, prosecution unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused Khalil Ahmed acquitted of all charges. Accused is further directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ and one surety in the like amount in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in Open Court
On 15th October, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03: SE: NEW DELHI
State Vs. Khalil Ahmed, SC No. 3/10,( pg-15)