Delhi District Court
Ct Case No. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad vs . Saddam Etc. Page No. 1 Of 17 on 12 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ASJ-04:
NORTH-EAST DISTT.: KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
CT. CASE NO. 05/2018
CNR No. DLNE01-003067-2018
Sh. Sageer Ahmad
s/o Sh. Rehmat Ali
r/o B-22/8, Gali no. 20,
North Ghonda, Delhi-110053
Versus
1. Saddam s/o Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq
2. Nanha s/o Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq
3. Sajjad @ Mister s/o Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq
4. Hasina w/o Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq
All residents of:
H. No. Gali no. 16,
North Ghonda, Delhi-110053
Date of Institution : 24-07-2018
Date of Argument : 04-05-2023
Date of Judgment : 12-05-2023
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 01-11-2012, the complainant Sageer Ahmad filed a criminal complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused persons on the allegations that on 31/07/2012 at 9:30 pm, they forcibly entered into his house with iron rods in their hands and attacked his son Shahnawaz, who sustained serious injuries. The complainant had taken his son to PS Bhajanpura but they did not take any action against the Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 1 of 17 accused persons and asked him to take his son to GTB hospital. In GTB hospital, Shahnawaz was medically examined vide MLC no. A-3462/12. The police did not take any action against the accused persons and therefore, the complainant made a complaint dated 01-08-2012 to the senior officers of police. He again made a complaint dated 08-10-2012 to the senior officers of police. When no action was taken by the police on his complaint, the complainant filed the complaint alleging commission of offences u/s 452/308/34 IPC by the accused persons.
2. Vide order dated 26-03-2013, the application u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of complainant was dismissed and matter was fixed for recording complainant's evidence. In per- summoning evidence, the complainant got himself examined as CW-1, Sh. Shekhra Nand, Record Clerk from GTB Hospital as CW-2 and his son Shahnawaj as CW-3. Vide order dated 14/10/2014, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offence u/s 452/323/34 IPC by the Ld. MM. Compliance of Section 208 Cr.P.C. was done. Vide order dated 27-08-2015, the present case was committed to the court of sessions as trial of one cross FIR no. 234/12, PS Bhajanpura was already pending in the court of Sh. Sanjay Sharma-1, the then Ld. ASJ, NE, KKD Courts in order to avoid conflicting judgments. Thereafter, matter was fixed for recording of pre-charge evidence vide order dated 11-01-2016.
3. Since pre-charge evidence was supposed to be recorded by the Ld. MM as per Cr.P.C., the present case was remanded back to the court of Ld. CMM/ Ld. MM vide order dated 16/05/2016 with the direction to record pre-charge evidence.
4. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant got examined Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 2 of 17 himself as CW-1; CW-2 Shekhra Nand, record clerk form GTB Hospital; CW-3 Shahnawaj; CW-4 Alok Kumar Dwivedi who has proved the MLC and treatment record of injured Shahnawaj which are Ex. CW4/A and Ex. CW4/B respectively and CW-5 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram from GTB Hospital.
5. Thereafter, on a transfer application moved by the applicant before the then Ld. District Judge, North-East District, KKD, the present case was withdrawn from the court of Ld. MM and was transferred to the court of Sh. Lalit Kumar, Ld. ASJ (Ld. Predecessor of this court) by the order of the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD dated 20-07-2018.
6. After hearing arguments and on the basis of facts emerging from the record and upon finding that 'prima facie' case for the offence punishable u/s 452/308/34 IPC was made out. Vide order dated 29-08-2018, charge was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Sh. Alok Kumar Dwivedi was examined as PW1 and he has proved the medical record of injured patient which are Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/E. He has also proved the MLC of injured Shahnawaj as Ex. PW1/F. He further deposed that as per MLC no. A-3462/12 dated 31-07-2012 all the injuries were opined as simple by Dr. Himanshu, Sr. Neurosurgeon at point X on MLC Ex. PW1/F. The patient Shahnawaj was called by ENT Department to express the nature of injuries but the patient did not turn up as per record.
8. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he has no medical knowledge and neither aforesaid medical papers were prepared in his presence nor nature of injury was opined by the concerned doctor in his presence.
Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 3 of 17
9. PW2 Shah Nawaz is the injured as well as son of complainant, who deposed that on 31-07-2012 at about 9:30 pm, accused persons namely Saddam, Nanha, Shahzad and Smt. Hasina forcibly entered in their house bearing no. B-22/8, Subhash Mohallah, North Ghonda, Delhi and they were having iron rods in their hands. The accused persons attempted to kill them. He sustained injury on his head which was caused by accused Saddam with iron rods and blood oozed out from his head injury as a result of which, he became unconscious. He further deposed that no other family member had sustained injury in this incident. His father made call at 100 number but no PCR came at the spot. He was taken to PS Bhajanpura by his father and from there police officials had taken him to GTB Hospital for medical examination. He was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW1/C. X-ray was also done vide MLC Ex. PW1/A. Doctor had given stitches on the injury and he was discharged on the same night. He further deposed that he was again taken to hospital by his family members as he could not regain full consciousness. Accused Hasina had snatched a sum of Rs. 2000/- from his pocket during the incident and she had also snatched gold chain from his neck and she attacked him along with other co-accused persons. PW2 further deposed that accused persons had attacked him along with 2-3 unknown associates. He was caught hold by co-accused persons namely Shahzad and Nanha. Accused persons had also extended threats to him that "abhi mara nahi hai, maar kar chodhe ge". When PW2 raised alarm, accused persons ran away with their weapons extending threats to him.
10. PW2 had correctly identified accused Saddam, Nanha, and Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 4 of 17 Shahzad in the court and deposed that he can identify accused Hasina if she appears before him. He deposed that police had not taken action against accused persons on his oral complaint. Later on, his father Sh. Sageer Ahmad had moved a complaint to DCP, Seelampur and CP, Delhi. Someone had taken his photograph. PW2 had identified the photograph Ex. CW1/F available on judicial file which is depicting bandage on his head and his torn shirt. He further deposed that in the month of October 2012, his father made complaint before the concerned court to take legal action against four accused persons and in the said complaint, he had given his statement before Ld. MM as CW3.
11. During cross-examination, he deposed that name of his father is Sageer Ahmad and name of his brother is Aamir. He admitted that an FIR bearing no. 557/15 dated 13-07-2015 was registered at PS Gokalpuri, North-East, Delhi against him and no other person of his family has been named in the said FIR. He admitted that accused Hasina was wearing burqa. He deposed that no iron rod has been recovered till date. He volunteered that they had taken back the iron rod by which he was attacked. He further deposed that there are about 60-70 houses near his house in which number of people are residing and he has cordial relations with his neigbours. He has not made any neighbour as witness in this case.
12. PW-3 Sh. Sagir Ahmed deposed that on 31.07.2012, at about 9.30pm, he returned his home from the mosque after performing "namaz tarabi" and he saw accused persons namely Saddam, Shehzad, Nanhe and Smt. Hasina were inside their house and one other unknown associate was standing near main gate of their house, who had ran away from there as he entered in Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 5 of 17 the house. The four accused persons namely Saddam, Shehzad, Nanhe and Smt. Hasina were giving beatings to his son Shahnawaz. Three accused persons namely Saddam, Shehzad and Nanhe were having iron rods in their hands. Accused Shehzad had caused injury to his son Shahnawaz. Other co- accused persons namely Saddam and Nanhe had also caused injury to his son Shahnawaz. PW3 deposed that his son Shahnawaz sustained injury on his head and other parts of his body. All the accused persons had caused injury to his son with intention to kill. Blood had oozed out from the head injury of his son as well as from his nose and ear. When he raised alarm on seeing the incident, mohallah people from the neighbourhood came at the spot. The incident had taken place in the outer room (behthak) of their house. He had made call at 100 number, but neither PCR nor local police came at the spot. He took his injured son to PS and police officials had taken his injured son to GTB hospital and he also accompanied them. His son was medically examined and stitches were given to him. On the same night, his injured son was discharged. They had requested police to take action against accused persons but no case was registered on their complaint. It was told to him by his injured son after regaining consciousness at hospital that accused Hasina had snatched Rs. 2,000/- from pocket of his son and she had also snatched gold chain from the neck of his son weighing around 1 tola. When accused persons ran away from the spot, they had extended threat saying "abhi mara nahi hai, maar ke chodhe ge". On second day from the incident, PW3 had made written complaint to senior police officer by sending fax and receipt of the fax is Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B but no action was taken by Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 6 of 17 the senior police officer despite sending fax.
13. PW3 further deposed that on 08.10.2012, he again made written complaint to Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police to take action against the accused persons vide Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D. Thereafter, he contacted his advocate to file complaint case against the accused persons and the complaint petition dated 30.10.2012 is Ex. PW3/A and affidavit Ex. PW3/B. Application u/Sec. 156 CrPC. is Ex. PW3/C, affidavit is Ex. PW3/D, and list of witnesses annexed with complaint is Ex. PW3/E. PW3 had appeared as a witness before the ld. MM in the complaint case where his statement as well as statement of his son was recorded. Ld. MM had taken action against accused persons on his complaint. PW3 had correctly identified accused Saddam, Nanha, and Shehzad in the court. He submitted that he can also identify co-accused Smt. Hasina, if produced. (accused Smt. Hasina was not present on that day and her identity was not disputed by her ld. counsel).
14. During cross-examination, PW3 deposed that all four accused persons were known to him being residents of their mohallah. He had requested police to lodge FIR against the accused persons but they did not take any action and advised him to take injured with the police to GTB hospital for medical examination. He admitted that one FIR bearing no. 234/12 u/sec. 308 IPC is pending before this court. He had not preserved any blood stained clothes and blood during the course of incident. Attention of PW3 was drawn to the complaint Ex. CW1/B, Ex. CW1/C and Ex. PW3/A with the assistance of the counsel for the complainant who has read over all three complaints and witness stated that all the complaints do not mention fact that shirt of his Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 7 of 17 injured son was torn by the accused persons.
Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
15. Statements of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts appearing from the evidence were put to them which were all denied by the accused persons stating that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Defence evidence
16. In their defence evidence, the accused persons examined Sajjad as DW-1 who deposed that on 31-07-2012 at about 8- 8:30 pm, accused Shahnawaj and Sarfaraj beat his brother Ishtiyak when he was going for Namaz. Both accused Shahnawaj and Sarfaraz caught hold him on the way and beat him and after escaping from the spot, Ishtiyak reached home. When Ishtiyak entered into the house, both the accused persons entered into his house and they started beating Ishtiyak. When Ishtiyak raised alarm, DW-1, his brother Saddam and mother Hasina Khatoon stepped down to the ground floor to save Ishtiyak. They saw that Shahnawaz, Sarfaraz and few other persons accompanying them were beating Ishtiyak with iron rod and dandas. When they tried to save Ishtiyak, they started beating them. DW-1, Ishtiyak and Saddam got head injuries in the incident and his mother also sustained injuries. He deposed that they became unconscious partly after receiving injuries. He made a call at 100 number and PCR van reached there and they were taken to GTB Hospital where they received treatment. Doctors treated them and stitches were applied to DW-1, Ishtiyak and Saddam on heads. He further deposed that they reached GTB hospital at about 10:30 pm on 31-07-2012 and he along with his mother returned home from hospital at about 12 Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 8 of 17 midnight and Ishtiyak and Saddam were discharged at about 2:30/ 3 pm. Police registered the FIR about the incident and MLCs were prepared at GTB Hospital. Police recorded his statement at hospital. DW-1 tendered documents i.e. certified copy of FIR as Ex. DW1/1, copy of chargesheet as Ex. DW1/2, list of witnesses as Ex. DW1/3, statement of Ishtiyak as Ex. DW1/4, statement of Saddam Hussain as Ex. DW1/5, statement of Sajjad as Ex. DW1/6, statement of IO/ SI Vinod Kumar as Ex. DW1/7, MLC of Sajjad as Ex. DW1/8, MLC of Ishtiyak as Ex. DW1/9, MLC of Saddam as Ex. DW1/10 in case FIR no. 234/12 dated 31-07-2012, PS Bhajanpura registered against accused Shahnawaj and Sarfaraj.
Final Arguments
17. This court has heard the Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Sanjay Sharma as well as Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. I. K. Khare and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that all the accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case. The present complaint case is counter blast to FIR no. 234/12, PS Bhajanpura registered against son of the complainant and one Sarfaraz. It is submitted that the present complaint case is filed at belated stage. The alleged date of incident is 31-07-2012 at 9:30 pm whereas the complaint was filed on 01-08-2012. On the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of complainant, the police has filed status report stating therein that no offence has occurred as per the allegations levelled. It is further submitted that the testimony of complainant and his witnesses is not trustworthy as they have made contradictory statements and there is material improvements in their version. It is argued that Dr. Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 9 of 17 Hemant and Dr. Mohd. Parvez, who had conducted the MLC of Shahnawaz, have not been examined as witnesses in the present case to prove the MLC Ex. CW4/A. CW-1 Sageer Ahmad in his statement dated 30-11-2016 had made material improvements in the said statement as he deposed that accused Hasina had snatched Rs. 2,000/- and gold chain from his son. However, the said fact is not mentioned in his original complaint.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that testimony of witnesses got examined on behalf of complainant is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 452/308/34 IPC. There is no major contradiction in the version of complainant's witnesses.
Findings of the Court
19. Before examination of the evidence, oral and documentary, it would be appropriate to have a glance at relevant authorities of superior courts, which, in the opinion of this court, have bearing on the facts of the present case :
20. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence is that:
"....... The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused....."
21. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence which are reproduced as under:
"The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 10 of 17 general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved."
22. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof."
23. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 11 of 17 guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real.
It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether."
24. Giving a word of caution about the appreciation of testimony of single witness, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, AIR 614, 1957 SCR 981, has observed that:-
"when faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories namely, (i) Wholly reliable, (ii) Wholly unreliable, (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is said therein that there may not be any difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness in the first two categories. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. Where the single witness is found to be in the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial before acting upon the testimony of the single witness."
25. It is pertinent to note that one cross FIR no. 234/12, PS Bhajanpura has already been registered on the same date wherein the complainant's son and one Sarfaraz, both are accused. As per the version of PW2 Shahnawaz and PW3 Sageer Ahmad, the time of incident when the accused persons entered in the place of incident i.e. their house situated at B-22/8, Subhash Mohalla, Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 12 of 17 North Ghonda is 9:30 pm on 31-07-2012. However, from the testimony of PCR officials and investigating police official got examined by the prosecution in case FIR no. 234/12, PS Bhajanpura namely PW4 HC Malkhan, PW7 Ct. Suresh, PW8 HC Babu Ram, PW11 SI Salimuddin and PW14 SI Vijay Kumar, it is gathered that accused namely Sehzad, Saddam and Hasina have already been taken to GTB Hospital for the purpose of their medical examination at around 8 pm and time mentioned in the MLC of accused Saddam herein and injured therein is 10:40 pm. The MLC of accused Sehzad herein and injured therein states time as 10:50 pm and time mentioned in the MLC of accused Hasina is 11:10 pm. The time mentioned in the MLC of accused Nanha herein and injured Ishtiaq therein is 10:55 pm. Thus, the record suggests that at the time of incident i.e. 9:30 pm stated by the complainant's witnesses in the present case, all the accused persons were being treated at GTB Hospital and, it is highly improbable that they could have entered the house of complainant at the time stated in the complaint.
26. As regards the argument advanced by ld. Defence counsel to the effect that Dr. Hemant and Dr. Mohd. Parvez, who had conducted the MLC of Shahnawaz, have not been examined as witnesses in the present case to prove the MLC Ex. CW4/A, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has got examined Sh. Alok Kumar Dwivedi (PW1) to prove the MLC of injured Shahnawaj as Ex. PW1/F, who has identified the signatures of Dr. Parvez and Dr. Himanshu in official capacity.
27. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Laddan Vs. State 2014 (1) JCC 404 that:
"MLC is an authentic record of injuries which is prepared in Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 13 of 17 regular course of business by the doctor and can be relied upon by the Courts, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the Court and record is proved by any of the doctor. Any person who alleges why the record of injuries maintained by the hospital was not authentic and was tampered with has to be prove, how tampering was done. It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither is the doctor expected to keep the hospital informed about his whereabouts. Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor, who identifies the writing and signature of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identifies the signature of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted unless the tampering in the MLC be proved by the person alleging the tampering"
Thus, the contention regarding non-examination of doctors involved in preparation of MLC of injured is liable to be rejected.
28. It is further noted that as per the testimony of PW3 Sageer Ahmad dated 13-02-2019, he had stated that he had raised alarm on seeing the incident and mohalla people from neighbourhood came at the spot. However, from the record, it is apparent that nobody from the neighbourhood of complainant has been examined as witness on behalf of complainant in the present case. No cogent explanation is offered in this regard.
29. In Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 14 of 17 common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
30. No plausible explanation was offered as to why no independent public witness was joined in the investigation of the present case despite the fact that public persons were available at the spot. The testimony of complainant's witnesses is full of inconsistencies and full of material improvements without any explanation.
31. PW3 Sageer Ahmad has also stated in his examination dated 13-02-2019 that he had made call at 100 number on the date of incident. However, he has not stated the phone number from which he had made the phone call nor he has made any effort to get the record pertaining to 100 number call summoned.
32. This court also find force in the contention raised on behalf of accused persons that there is material improvements in the version of complainant. It is noted that in his testimony dated 13-02-2019, PW3 Sageer Ahmad had also stated that accused Hasina had snatched Rs. 2,000 from the pocket of his son and she had also snatched gold chain from the neck of his son weighing about one tola. However, the said fact is not find mention anywhere in the original complaint Ex. PW3/A filed on behalf of complainant. No plausible explanation in this regard is offered Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 15 of 17 during the course of arguments. In order to prove the injury caused to the injured Shahnawaz, the complainant has got examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Alok Kumar Dwivedi. As per his version, as per MLC, the nature of injury was opined as simple by Dr. Himanshu, Sr. Neurosurgery on MLC Ex. PW1/F. The patient was called by ENT Department to express nature of injury but the patient did not turn up as per the record. PW2 Shahnawaz and PW3 Sageer Ahmad were examined after recording of testimony of PW1 Alok Kumar Dwivedi. However, they did not offer any explanation as to why the injured Shahnawaz did not get himself medically examined at the ENT department of GTB Hospital.
33. The record also reflects lackadaisical approach of the complainant in obtaining opinion regarding nature of injury sustained by his son with the assistance of court. It is observed that during the pendency of trial, an application was moved on behalf of complainant for collecting result on the MLC of injured, who is the son of complainant. Notice of the said application was sent to SHO concerned to report thereupon. Thereafter, a report was filed by the IO deputed by the SHO concerned on 16-01-2018. Vide order dated 16-01-2018, the IO was directed to obtain final opinion regarding nature of injury on the MLC and documents furnished by the complainant. Since the complainant was not cooperating as he defaulted in appearing before the doctor, who was assigned the task of giving opinion, opinion on the MLC could not be obtained as reflected from the order dated 13-02-2018.
DECISION OF THE COURT
34. It is well settled that it is the duty of the complainant to Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 16 of 17 prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the complainant becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The complainant has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, all accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charge punishable u/s 452/308/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed by ON 12-05-2023 PANKAJ PANKAJ ARORA Location: Karkardooma Court, Delhi ARORA Date: 2023.05.15 16:07:09 +0530 (PANKAJ ARORA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/ KARKARDOOMA/ 12-05-2023. Ct Case no. 05/18 Sageer Ahmad Vs. Saddam Etc. Page No. 17 of 17