MOHD HAMMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the complainant i.e., son of deceased Mohd. Isa. The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2010, in sessions case no.24/2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi & South East District, New Delhi whereby the respondents 2 to 5, namely, Kanchid @ Raja, Rashid @ Chairman, Matloob Ahmed @ Pradhan and Maenuddin @ Maen have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Section 364/302/201/120B IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2002, the appellant i.e., the complainant Mohd Hammad s/o Mohd. Isa went to police station Hazrat Nizamuddin and gave information that his father Mohd. Isa was missing. The said information was recorded in the police station by the Duty Officer vide D.D. No.6A dated 16.08.2002 Ex.PW5/B. As per the information given by him, it was recorded in the aforesaid DD that on 26.07.2002 his father Mohd. Isa had gone to Ahmedabad to attend a marriage. On 03.08.2002 he had come to his in-laws house at Basti Nizamuddin, New Delhi. He had seen his father in the house of his in-laws. He had further stated that on 03.08.2002 at about 11.20 A.M., his father had gone to his native village with one person namely Shakil s/o Qudratullah, r/o village Kuraina, PS Hafizpur, District Ghaziabad, UP. On 12.08.2002, when he called up at his native village, he came to know that his father had yet not reached there and Shakil had reached the village. On enquiry made by him from Shakil, he did not disclose anything. He has given description of his father in the said DD report. The said missing report was handed over to SI Baldar Singh who made his endorsement Ex.PW7/A and got FIR No.476/2002 registered under Section 365 IPC. Later on, by way of supplementary statement, complainant Mohd. Hammad stated that due to inadvertence, he had given the date 3.8.2002 but actually his father had left Delhi on 2.8.2002. Thereafter, hue and cry notices were published in the newspaper. Even the photographs of Mohd. Isa were sent to missing persons? squad and were broadcast on TV. Further the case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a secret information received on 29.01.2003, respondent no. 2 i.e., accused Kanchid @ Raja was apprehended by the police near Surya Sofital Hotel. After interrogation, he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. As per investigation, Kanchid @ Raja i.e., the respondent no.2 led the police to Alwar on 30.01.2003 where he pointed out towards the place of alleged occurrence. On inquiry from PS Sadar, Alwar, the Delhi Police officials came to know that on 03.08.2002, a case FIR No.225/2002, under Section 302/201 IPC was registered at PS Sadar, Alwar. Ultimately, the said FIR was got transferred to Delhi. During the course of investigation, the photographs of the deceased taken by Rajasthan police were shown to the appellant i.e., Mohd Hammad who had identified the same as that of his father. On the basis of disclosure statement of the respondent no.2 Kanchid @ Raja, the other respondents, namely, Rashid @ Chairman i.e. respondent no.4, Matloob Ahmed @ Pradhan i.e. respondent no.5 and Maenuddin @ Maen i.e. respondent no.3 were arrested and their respective disclosure statements were also recorded. The co-accused Tayyab could not be arrested and was declared as a proclaimed offender by the concerned court. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the sessions on 13.06.2003. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, charge was framed against the respondents for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302/364/201/120B IPC wherein they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in all had examined 38 witnesses including police officials and witnesses relating to medical evidence.

(3.) The incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons i.e., respondents 2 to 5 and their statements under 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they had denied the same and stated that they are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case. The respondent no.4 Rashid had led defence evidence wherein he had examined Dharambir Singh as DW-1.