Delhi District CourtState vs Sarf Raj And Etc on 31 January, 20081


     IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI: METROPOLITAN
                  MAGISTRATE NEW DELHI

STATE    VERSUS         SARF RAJ AND ETC

                        FIR NO. 111/1994
                        P.S. S.N. Puri
                        U.S. 323/506/34IPC & 25 ofArms Act.

JUDGMENT1.Sr. No. of the Case              : 249/2

2.Name of complainant              :Mohd. Naseem

3.Date of incident                 :10.2.1994

4.Name of the accused              :(1)Abbas Ahmad Khan son of
                                   Late Shri Israr Ahmad R/o Village
                                   Jalalpur, P.S. Naraina, District
                                   Bulandshar, UP.
                                   (2) Sarafraj son of Mohd. Asgar
                                   Ali R/o 65, Jamia Nagar, Okhla
                                   New Delhi at Present Student XIth
                                   class Sr. Sec. School, Jamia
                                   Nagar, New Delhi
                                   (3) Mohd Asad Nizami Son of
                                   Sayeed Ahmad Nizami R/o MIG
                                   1761, T.R.I.L.D.A Colony,
                                   Lucknow UP.
                                   (Proclaimed Offender)

5.Offence complained of            :U/S. 323/506/34IPC & 25 ofArms Act.

6.Plea of accused                  : Pleaded not guilty

7.Date on which the judgment
 has been reserved           :31.1.2008

8.Final Order                      : Acquitted.

9.Date of such Order               : 31.1.2008



BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:1.      Genesis of the prosecution case is that on 10.9.1994 at

1.10 PM at Opposite SRK Hostel of Jamia University on road,2Accused Mohd. Abbas and Sarfraz in furtherance of common

intention alongwith co accused Mohd. Asad Nijami (since PO)

gave simple injuries by fist and leg blows to complainant

Mohd. Nasim alongwith Mohd Ajam and Hasan. Further all the

accused    criminally intimidated the complainant by saying

that they would finish the Afgan boys from JMI and Accused

Sarfraz was also having an open buttandar knife in his hand.2.    It is case of prosecution that on 10.2.1994 SI Ram Lal

and Inspector Ram Kishan were present at Ansari Auditorium

Jamia Milia where they received information that a crowd

had gathered near the college. They reached there and

found that some boys were beating one Mohd. Nasim who

was tried to save and the crowd was scattered by police

officials. In the meanwhile, Proctor JMIU N.U Khan came over

who handed over a buttandar knife lying there on the floor to

police officials. Complainant Mohd Naseem narrated the

incident and stated that on 8.2.1994 Mohd. Ajam was having

a altercation with Mohd. Arshad Khan, Mohd. Nijam and

accused Sarafraj in canteen of University and the matter was

brought to the notice of Proctor and these all afore stated

three boys were issued show cause notice. Complainant

further states that at about 1.10 PM, Mohd. Ajam, Hassan,

Taimur alongwith him were standing near building canteen,

the afore stated three accused barged over and started

beating Hasan and Ajam stating that they would beat all3Afganis. Complainant alongwith his friends tried to escape

near Main Road but accused persons followed them. Further

complainant was again surrounded by Sarfaraj and Mohd.

Arshad who gave him fist and leg blows and started beating

him indiscreminatly. A huge crowd of student gathered but

nobody came to his rescue.3.    A case was registered. The weapon of offence i.e knife

was taken into possession. As per prosecution case, accused

persons could not be arrested due to law an order problem

and put in column No. 2.           After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused

persons for the offences punishable under the said sections.

The court took cognizance of offence and summoned the

accused. All accused persons were summoned.4.    It is pertinent to mention here that during trial, accused

Azad Nizami did not appear to face trial and had absconded

and as such vide order dated 10.1.2002 he was declared

proclaimed offender.5.    On hearing arguments and appraisal of material on

record, court framed charge U/S 323/506/34IPCr/wSection

25of Arms Act against accused Mohd Abbas and Sarfraz to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.46.    The Prosecution in order to substantiate its case has

examined only PW1 N.U Khan, Proctor of JMI University. This

witness failed to depose anything about this case. He has

completely resiled from his earlier version given to the police.

This witness was cross examined at length. He denied that his

statement was ever recorded by police. He also denied that

any quarrel ever took place at Ansari Auditorium between

Mohd. Naseem Afgani and others. This witness also denied

that he ever handed over any knife to the police or that the

same was seized.    This witness has not supported the case of

prosecution.7.    Material witnesses of the case are Mohd. Naseem and

Mohd Azam who have not been examined by prosecution

and as per repeated reports over process qua Mohd.

Naseem, he was not residing at the given addresses and thus

were not traceable. Process of another material witness

Mohd. Azam received with the report that he was residing as

a tenant and has left the address long back and his present

whereabouts were not known.8.    Keeping in view the fact that PW1 Shri N.U. Khan has

turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution

and that other material witness Mohd. Naseem and Mohd.

Ajam remained unserved, the remaining witnesses in list filed

by prosecution are formal in character and their statements5pertain only to the steps taken during the course of

investigation.   Case is of the year 1994. Ld. APP seeks one

more opportunity but keeping in view the afore said facts this

court did not feel it just to allow the request of Ld. APP and

request was declined. Since nothing incriminatory against the

accused has surfaced during trial, accused Mohd. Abbas and

Sarfraj, their statement U/S 313Cr.P.Cis dispensed with.



In view of the above facts & circumstances, prosecution has

not been able to prove the charges against the accused

Mohd. Abbas and Sarfraj and has           been unsuccessful to

connect the crime with accused, the accused Mohd. Abbas

and Sarfraj stand acquitted. Their bail bonds cancelled and

surety discharged. File be consigned to record room. However

case shall be revived as and when accused Mohd. Asad

Nijami arrested or produced before the court.

  Announced in the open
  Court on 31.1.2008
                                 (RAVINDER BEDI)
                           METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
                               NEW DELHI