Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Akbar S/O Lat Sh. Juman on 14 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, LD. ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North- East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0460572007
Sessions Case No. 34/2009
Assigned to Sessions. 17.09.2007
Arguments heard on 10.02.2011
Date of order. 14.02.2011
FIR No. 611/2006
State Vs 1. Akbar s/o Lat Sh. Juman
r/o Z-1, House No.6, Timber
Market, Welcome, Seelampur,
Delhi.
2. Shaeed s/o Akbar,
r/o Z-1, House No.6, Timber
Market, Welcome, Seelampur,
Delhi.
3. Raju @ Riyazuddin s/o Akbar
r/o Z-1, House No.6, Timber
Market, Welcome, Seelampur,
Delhi.
4. Zahid s/o Akbar
r/o Z-1, House No.6, Timber
Market, Welcome, Seelampur,
Delhi.
Police Station Welcome.
Under Section 307/308/324/201/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station Welcome had filed a challan State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 1/11 vide FIR no. 611/2006 dated 21.08.2006 u/s 307/324/201/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed, Raju @ Riyazuddin and Zahid in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Trial Court after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 20.08.2006 at about 09:45 p.m. at Yusuf Hotel situated at premises No. L-92, Loha Market, Welcome, Delhi, accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed, Raju @ Riyazuddin and Zahid in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries on the persons of complainant Mohd. Yusuf, Yunus, Jabir, Ibrat Ali, Yasin and Talib by means of iron pipes and knives and caused injuries to them. On the complaint of Yusuf present case was registered and Accordingly accused persons were arrested.
3. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 11.10.2007 framed a charge against accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed and Raju @ Riyazuddin for the offences punishable u/s 307/34 IPC to which accused persons did State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 2/11 not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of preparation of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it came to notice that charges against accused Zahid had not been framed. It was pointed by Ld. counsel for accused persons and APP for state that since accused Zahid was P.O. and on later stage supplementary challan was filed against him, ld counsel for accused had no objection if charges are framed and evidence taken earlier in respect of other accused may be read against the accused Zahid. Ld. counsel for defence further states that framing of charge against accused Zahid was left inadvertently. Court had put question to accused Zahid whether he wants to cross examine any of the witnesses who have been cross examined on behalf of other accused persons. He denied and want to be remained with witnesses already cross examined. Accordingly, charge against accused Zahid for offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC was framed on 04.02.2011 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 11 witnesses namely PW1 HC Radhey Shyam - formal witness being Duty Officer, State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 3/11 PW2 Ibrat Ali - injured/hostile witness, PW3 Yusuf Ali - complainant/injured/ hostile witness, PW4Md. Yunus - injured/hostile witness, PW5 Javed - injured/hostile witness, PW6 HC Sanjay Kumar - companion of Investigating Officer, PW7 Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar - material witness being Investigating Officer, PW8 Dr. M. Das
- doctor who examined the injured persons, PW9 Ct. Devender Kumar - who took rukka for registration of FIR, PW10 HC Amar Singh - formal witness being Duty Officer and PW11 Yaseen - injured/hostile witness.
6. PW1 HC Radhey Shyam. This is a formal witness being Duty Officer. He recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement regarding registration of case on rukka Ex.PW1/B.
7. PW2 Ibrat Ali, PW3 Yusuf Ali, PW4 Md. Yunus, PW5 Javed and PW11 Yaseen are injured and none of the injured identify the accused persons in the court and were declared hostile witnesses by Ld. APP and even in their cross examination by Ld. APP for state these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution at any point. State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 4/11
8. PW6 HC Sanjay Kumar is a formal witness. He accompanied Investigating Officer to the spot. Accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed and Raju @ Riyazuddin were arrested in his presence and their personal search memos were also prepared.
9. PW7 Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar is the Investigating Officer in this case. He deposed that on 21.08.2006 on receipt of DD No.16A mark 'X' he along with Ct. Devender reached at the spot where they came to know that injured have been shifted to GTB Hospital by Home Guard Constable. He further deposed that he along with one constable reached at GTB Hospital and collected MLC of injured persons and recorded statement of Md. Yusuf Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he prepared a rukka Ex.PW1/B on the basis of said statement, this witness sent rukka through Ct. Devender for registration of FIR at Police Station Welcome. He further deposed that he along with complainant, Md. Yusuf reached at the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A at his instance and he seized blood stained clothes of injured persons vide Ex.PW7/B, PW7/C and PW7/D and recorded State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 5/11 statement of injured persons. He further deposed that on 29.08.2006 he arrested accused persons namely Akbar, Shahid and Raju @ Riyazuddin vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A, PW6/B and PW6/C and conducted personal search of accused persons. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of all the accused persons vide Ex.PW7/E, PW7/F and PW7/G and accused Akbar got recovered one iron pipe from workshop of his house and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G-1. He further deposed that on the disclosure statement of accused Raju @ Riyazuddin and Shaeed nothing was recovered. He further deposed that accused Zahid was declared P.O. as he could not be arrested.
10.PW8 Dr. M. Das appeared on behalf of doctors namely Dr. Bharat, Dr. Amit, Dr. Prashant Nigam and Dr. Anil respectively as they have been left the services of the hospital and he proved the MLC Ex.PW8/A, PW8/B, PW8/C, PW8/D and PW8/E of injured persons, who were examined by them. He identify the handwriting and signatures of all the doctors on the aforesaid MLCs as they have worked under his supervision during their service in the hospital. He also proved MLC of injured Talib Ex.PW8/G which was prepared by State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 6/11 him. This injured was not traceable. He deposed that all the injured persons were having simple injuries in nature except injured Yunus who was having grievous injury as per record opined by Neurosurgeons.
11.PW9 Ct. Devender Kumar is a formal witness. He accompanied Investigating Officer to the spot and he took rukka to Police Station for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR handed over copy of FIR and rukka in original to Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer seized the blood stain of injured person and prepared pullanda of the same in his presence.
12.PW10 HC Amar Singh is a formal witness. He deposed that on 22.11.2008 HC Naresh Kumar informed him telephonically about the arrest of accused Zahid s/o Akbar u/s 41.1 sub clause ( c ) Cr.P.C. and in this regard he got recorded DD No. 27A Ex.PW10/A.
13.After prosecution witness statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the accused persons denied all circumstances and evidence were put to them and claimed to be State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 7/11 innocent and have been implicated falsely. On question on leading any evidence in their defence, all the accused persons refused. ARGUMENTS:
14.Ld. APP for state submitted during the course of his arguments and states that this case relates to offence under section 307/308/324/201/34 IPC, with their common intention all the accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of injured persons and caused injuries to them by using iron pipe and knives. Ld. counsel for state further states that since recovery in the present case are affected and all the officials witnesses have support the case of prosecution.
Hence, he prayed to convict the accused persons under the section for which they have been charged.
15.On other hand Ld. defence counsel, Sh. P.L. Behl for accused persons argued that since no injured witness has supported the case of prosecution on any point of time and all the material witnesses are hostile and even PW3 Yusuf Ali who is the complainant in the present case has refused to identify the accused persons, even other injured State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 8/11 persons did not identify the accused persons in the court who had given them beatings. In cross examination none of injured identify the accused persons. All of injured persons refused to identify the accused persons. On this ground, Ld. Counsel for accused persons prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons from the charges.
16.Argument heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it reveals that PW2 Ibrat Ali, PW3 Yusuf Ali, PW4 Md. Yunus, PW5 Javed and PW11 Yaseen are injured persons and are totally hostile witnesses.
17.On the point of major contradictions the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as 'Jaskaran Singh Vs State 1997 SCC (Crl) 651' has also observed that:
" When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness" .
22.Since all the material witnesses are hostile and does not support to the case of prosecution at any point of time. Even PW3 Yusuf Ali who is injured and complainant in the present case did not support to the prosecution. Since PW3 complainant who in his examination and State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 9/11 in his cross examination by Ld.APP for the state and in his cross examination by defence counsel denied that the accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed, Raju @ Riyazuddin and Zahid had caused any injury to him.
23.It is correct that evidence of hostile witness cannot be washed out in toto but in the present case PW2 Ibrat Ali, PW3 Yusuf Ali, PW4 Md. Yunus, PW5 Javed and PW11 Yaseen in their cross examination by Ld. APP did not support the case of prosecution and status of other material witnesses is also same. Especially PW3 who is complainant in the case cannot be said to be truthful witness.
24.Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments and perusal of record, case of prosecution does not inspire the confidence of this court to convict the accused persons. I am of the firm opinion that prosecution have been failed to prove the charges under section 307/308/324/201/34 IPC against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt. Further I do not find any merit in the arguments of Ld. APP for state to convict the accused persons 307/308/324/201/34 IPC. Accordingly, I acquit all the accused persons namely Akbar, State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 10/11 Shaeed, Raju @ Riyazuddin and Zahid by giving them benefit of doubt. In terms of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi accused persons namely Akbar, Shaeed, Raju @ Riyazuddin and Zahid are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14.02.2011 (RAMESH KUMAR-II) ASJ-01/ North - East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Akbar and others SC No.34/2009 FIR No.611/2006 11/11