Delhi High Court
Mohd. Arif vs State & Ors. on 13 August, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.B.No.1286/2013 in CRL.A. 788/2013
MOHD. ARIF ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State
with SI Prempal Singh, PS Jyoti Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
ORDER
% 13.08.2013
1. This is an application u/s 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for bail
and suspension of sentence.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.04.2013, the appellant has been
convicted for offence u/s 307/452/342 read with Section 34 IPC. It is the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the question for
consideration is whether the accused can be punished for offence u/s 307
IPC in the absence of a finding to the effect that there was common object
or common intention on any of the accused to kill complainant/injured or
the assault was made with the knowledge that the murder can also be
caused in that assault.
3. In their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C the question pertaining
to common intention was not put to the accused. However the ligature
with which it was alleged that the accused persons tied the inmates was not
even recovered. The brother of the complainant, namely Shekhu who was
allegedly beaten and was tied up along with PW1, PW15 and PW16 was
neither medically examined nor produced as a prosecution witness. The
sword, alleged to have been used in the incident was also not recovered.
The katta allegedly used in the incident was produced by the wife of the
complainant herself. There is no medical evidence that the complainant
has suffered a gun shot injury. Iron rod which is alleged to have been
used in the offence is not linked with the offence. PW15 and PW16 did
not support the prosecution case. It is only the wife of the complainant
who has supported the prosecution case and based on her testimony the
accused persons including the appellant have been convicted and
sentenced. Her testimony is fraught with omissions and improvements and
it is unsafe to rely upon her testimony. The appellant is in custody for the
last one year, as such pending the appeal, the sentence be suspended and
appellant be released on bail.
4. The application has been contested by the State and in the status
report it is submitted that as per the prosecution case, in the intervening
night of 24/25.11.2009 on 12.40 a.m, on receipt of information vide DD
No.19A regarding shooting of one person at Gali No.1, Kabir Nagar, ASI
Subhash Chand along with Ct. Satya Narayan reached the spot i.e. C-
2/15A, Gali No.2, Kabir Nagar where they came to know that injured has
been taken to GTB Hospital by his brother. After reaching GTB hospital
and collecting the MLC of injured Shehbaz, his statement was recorded.
FIR was got registered. During the course of investigation it was found
that accused Arif was having a sword in his hand with which he gave a
blow on the back of the victim.
5. It was further submitted that brother of the complainant Shekhu
could not be examined since he is not traceable and the complainant has
been murdered on 06.03.2011. Wife of the complainant has fully
supported the case of prosecution, as such there is no ground for releasing
the appellant on bail. Moreover, he is involved in another case bearing
FIR No.82/2011 u/s 302/34 IPC and 25/54/27/59 Arms Act.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record certified
copy of the order dated 26.09.2011 for showing that the appellant has been
discharged in case FIR No.82/2011 u/s 302/120-B IPC & 25/27 of Arms
Act, P.S. Welcome, Delhi. It was submitted that there is no other case
pending against the appellant.
7. The case of prosecution in brief is that on receipt of information
vide DD No.19A regarding shooting of one person at Gali No.1, Kabir
Nagar, police officials reached the spot where they came to know that
inured has been taken to GTB hospital by his brother. Thereupon the
police officials went to GTB hospital and recorded the statement of injured
Shehbaz wherein he stated that he along with his family is residing in a
rented house of Sayed Salman Zaidi and running a kabadi shop. On that
day at about 12.30 a.m, he returned to his house from Jafrabad and the
moment he reached the door of his house, [email protected]
[email protected] and Shehbaz who were known to him from earlier, came
out from his house and started beating him. Shehbaz who was having
katta in his hand fired which hit his left arm. Shehbaz hit on his head with
an iron rod. Chhota Pathan caught hold of him and told "Maro Sale ko.
Yeh bohot police ki mukhbari karta hai." Arif who was having sword in
his hand hit on his waist. His wife Shaheen, niece Gulista, Shagufta and
brother Shekhu were present in the house. The accused persons had tied
the hands of his brother Shekhu. When his wife tried to save him, they
pushed her and she fell down. When his nieces and wife raised alarm
Bachao Bachao, all the accused tried to run away. He tried to catch hold of
Shahnawaz. He managed to escape. Meanwhile his katta fell there.
Police was informed. He was brought to hospital by his brother.
8. As revealed from the record, the injured has been murdered while
his brother Shekhu is not traceable. The allegations are very serious in
nature. The infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant
will be required to be considered at the time of hearing the appeal. But for
the present there is no ground for releasing the appellant on bail or for
suspending the sentence, as such the application is dismissed.
SUNITA GUPTA, J
AUGUST 13, 2013
as
