Delhi District Court
State vs Israr Ahmad & Ors. Date Of Institution : ... on 25 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT,
NEW DELHI
State vs Israr Ahmad & Ors. Date of Institution : 24.05.2004
FIR No. 341/2003 Judgment Reserved on 16.02.2012
PS Sarita Vihar Date of Judgment : 25.02.2012
U/s 323, 448, 506/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 82/02
b) Date of offence : 21.11.2002
c) Name of the complainant : Bundo Begum w/o Late Mohammad
: Saddiq r/o C-202, Abul Fazal Enclave,
: Shahin Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi.
d) Name & address of the : 1. Israr Ahmad s/o Sh. Abdul Wahab accused persons : r/o H. No. 95/17, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, : New Delhi, 2. Izhar Ahmad s/o Sh.
: Abdul Wahab r/o H. No. 95/17, Zakir
: Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi & 3. Ikrar
: Ahmad s/o Sh. Abdul Wahab r/o H.
: No. 95/17, Zakir Nagar, Okhla,
: New Delhi,
e) The offence complained of : U/s 323, 448, 506/34 IPC.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order : Acquitted
h) Date of order : 25.02.2012
1
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The complainant Bundo Begum has alleged in her complaint that on 21.11.2002 the accused persons namely Israr Ahmad, Izhar Ahmad and Ikrar Ahmad in furtherance of common intention committed house trespass by entering in the plot of complainant Smt. Bundo Begum and beating the complainant, her daughter in law and her son Mohammad Iqbal and also advanced threat to kill them. As prima facie the accused had committed offence U/s 323, 448, 506/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons on 24.05.2004.
2. On appearance separate charge under section 323, 448, 506/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons on 18.05.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3. In its evidence the prosecution examined only three witnesses, PW-1 Smt. Bundo Begum who stated that she did not know anything about the case. Questions were put by the Ld. APP as the witness was not supporting the prosecution case. She admitted that it was correct that on 03.11.02 she had made a complaint at ACP office, Kalkaji. The contents of whole complaint Ex. PW-1/A were read over to the witness to which she denied ever making a statement before the police. She also denied that the accused persons namely Israr Ahmad, Izhar Ahmad and Ikrar Ahmad committed house trespass by entering the house no. F-45, Abul Fazal Enclave, beating her, her daughter in law and her 2 son in law namely Mohammad Iqbal. She further denied that she was deposing falsely and not identifying the accused persons deliberately or knowingly or that she has been won over by the accused persons or that she had compromised with the accused persons.
4. PW-2 Mahmood also stated that he did not know anything about the case. He denied making any statement to the police. Questions were put by the Ld. APP as witness was not supporting the prosecution case. According to him Israr Khan did not try to grab their plot along with 10-15 people nor did he extend threat to anyone. He further denied that he was deposing falsely or that he was won over by the accused persons. On pointing out towards the accused persons namely Israr Ahmad and Ikrar Ahmad, witness refused to identify them.
5. PW-3 Arshad similarly feigned knowledge about the case. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP and the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to the witness to which he denied having so made to the police. He denied that he had given statement to the police on 22.07.03. He did not know whether the Mehmood is having plot of 29 gaj or not. He did not know who had tried to occupy the place in illegal manner. On pointing out towards the accused persons namely Israr Ahmad, Izhar Ahmad and Ikrar Ahmad, witness said that they were known to him as they were his neighbourer.
6. Thereafter, no public/prosecution witness was produced by the prosecution. As all the above said public witness were not 3 supporting the prosecution case and PW-2 Mohammad Iqbal has remained untraceable. Therefore, no purpose would be served for calling further witnesses who are police witnesses or formal witnesses. Therefore, Prosecution evidence was closed and Statement of accused was dispensed with vide order dated 16.02.12.
7. As prosecution has failed to bring any incriminating evidence against the accused on record. I find no ground to hold the accused guilty of the offences as charged. The accused is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 323, 448, 506/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court.
On 25th February, 2012 Colette Rashmi Kujur Metropolitan Magistrate -06, South East District, Saket 4