Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/92/2011 on 2 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH EAST DELHI, SAKET
State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors.
FIR No. 101/2011
PS Jamia Nagar
U/s 326/341/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 92/2/11
Date of Institution : 01.07.2011
Date of Commission of Offence : 08.03.2011
Name of the complainant : Mohd. Imran
S/o Mohd. Yunus
R/o A-5, Johri Farm,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Mohd. Ayub
s/o Raham Ali
r/o D-13/1, Okhla Vihar
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
A-2 Abdul Aziz
s/o Dildar Ali
r/o C-6, Okhla Vihar
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
A-3 Danish Khan
S/o Abdul Aziz
r/o C-6, Okhla Vihar
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 326/341/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors. U/s 326 /341/34 IPC
FIR No. 101/11 , PS Jamia Nagar
2
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 02.02.2013
Date of announcing of judgment : 02.02.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 326/341/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2011 at about 12.30 am near Masjid, Okhla Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the way of the complainant Mohd. Imran and caused injuries to him with the help of sharp weapon and hence committed an offence under Section 326/341/34 IPC.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 326/341/34 IPC was framed against them vide order dated 03.09.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Mohd. Imran who is the injured/ complainant as PW-1. However, this witness refused to State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors. U/s 326 /341/34 IPC FIR No. 101/11 , PS Jamia Nagar 3 deposed anything about the incident. Mohd. Imran deposed that on the day of incident, it was night time and some persons has assaulted him from back side and he could not see them. He deposed that he has nothing to say about the incident happened with him. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for State.
5. During cross examination by the Ld. APP, he denied his statement Ex. PW1/A made to the police. He denied that his brother in law Aziz and his uncle Ayub has assaulted him by restraining his way. He denied that his nephew Danish also reached the spot and assaulted him by sharp edged weapon. He denied that police had recorded his statement.
6. Witness identified the accused persons as his relatives only. The witness further stated that the accused persons were not involved in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons as they are his near relatives and due to this he is not disclosing the true facts before the Hon'ble Court.
7. As the complainant/eye witness/injured Mohd. Imran has turned hostile, denying the entire prosecution story and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors. U/s 326 /341/34 IPC FIR No. 101/11 , PS Jamia Nagar 4 and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. Thus, the PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded wherein the accused persons pleaded innocence. However, the accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld APP for state and by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record. The main witness i.e the complainant has denied the entire prosecution story and complately absolved the accused persons of all the allegations against them. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused persons have not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted.
9. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Ayub, Abdul Aziz and Danish Khan are acquitted under Section 326/341/34 IPC.
10.As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused as well as the surety shall remain bound by the personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) on 02.02.2013 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 SOUTH EAST/SAKET COURT/NEW DELHI State v. Mohd. Ayub & Ors. U/s 326 /341/34 IPC FIR No. 101/11 , PS Jamia Nagar