Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

307/392/397/186/353/333/34 IPC & 27/25 Arms Act.

4. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of ld. CMM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as some of the Sections involved in the present matter are exclusively triable by it.

5. Vide order dated 20.11.2013 passed by ld. predecessor, charge under Section 392/34 IPC; 186/34 IPC; 333/34 IPC; 353/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC was framed against the present accused to which he pleaded not guilty. Later on vide order dated 04.01.2016, said charge was amended as 392/34 read with Se. 397 IPC; 186/34 IPC; 333/34 IPC; 353/34 IPC; 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act and to the said charge also, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

22. Now court shall consider the evidence qua offences punishable under Sec. 186/34 IPC; 333/34 IPC; 353/34 IPC. To prove the said offences prosecution took help of PW-4 HC Sandeep, the complainant/victim; PW-5 Sanjay Sharma; PW-6 Sunil; PW-8 Sohan Lal; PW-9 Dilsher @ Saleem, and PW-7 Shyam Verma, public witnesses. It is undisputed fact that out of them, PW-5 Sanjay Sharma; PW-6 Sunil; PW-8 Sohan Lal; PW-9 Dilsher @ Saleem either failed to identify the accused as culprit for the said offence or did not say anything against the accused, however, did not disprove the incident of robbery and firing. Though, PW-4 HC Sandeep and PW-7 Shyam Verma deposed about the incident and deposed the accused as culprit who committed the said offence. But it is to be kept in mind that to prove these said offences, complaint under Sec. 195 CrPC is mandatory to prosecute the offences under Sec. 186; 333 and 353 IPC.

34. Section 325 IPC prescribed as - Whoever, except in the case provided for any Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished xxxx and as such, with the above observations, in view of the over all circumstances, this court is of the view that the present case does not fall within the ambit of Sec. 307 IPC, rather it covers the provisions of Section 325 IPC. As such, accused Mohd. Mobin is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC or 333 IPC but is held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 325 IPC and as such, is convicted accordingly.

SC No.: 529/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Mobin @ Mohd. Mukarram Page No.: 23 of 24

43. Sum up of the above discussion is that this court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the present accused namely Mohd. Mobin @ Mukarram S/o Mohd Akhtar for the offences punishable under Sec. 392/34 IPC read with Sec. 397 IPC; 186/34 IPC; 353/34 IPC and 307 IPC/333 IPC and as such, said accused namely Mohd. Mobin S/o Mohd. Akhtar is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 392/34 IPC read with Sec. 397 IPC; 186/34 IPC; 353/34 IPC and 307 IPC/333 IPC. However, prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of doubts against said accused namely Mohd. Mobin Kumar for the offence punishable under Sections 385/34 IPC; 325 IPC and 27 Arms Act & 25 Arms Act. Accordingly said accused is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 385/34 IPC; 325 IPC and 27 Arms Act & 25 Arms Act and is convicted accordingly.