SHAFIQUIDDIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15.2.2006. By virtue of the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the three accused persons, namely Shafiquddin (petitioner No. 1), Sarfaraz and Mohd. Suleman (petitioner No. 2) guilty of having committed offences under Sections 323/34, IPC. By the order on sentence dated 16.2.2006 the convicts were given benefit of probation.They were directed to be released on probation on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when they are called upon during the period of one year from the date of entering into the bond and in the meantime they were to keep peace and be of good behaviour.The present petition has been filed on behalf of the accused Shafiqudeen and Suleman.

(2.) The accused had been tried for the commission of offences under Sections 452,308 and 34, IPC.The prosecution case in brief as set out in the impugned order is as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the testimony of PW2 (Kallu) who is the father of the injured Abid and also the testimony of PW5 (Mohd. Abid), the injured are contradictory to each other as also the prosecution case. He pointed out that the two glaring contradictions are (a) with regard to the question as to with whom the accused Shafiquddeen had a quarrel - the father (Kallu) or the son Abid? (b) the place of occurrence; whether it was inside the house of the complainant (Abid) or in the Gali opposite Shish Mahal Masjid? The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that although the petitioners were charged, inter alia, under Section 452, the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to the accused with regard to the offence under this section. This is so stated in paragraph 19 after the discussion recorded in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment. It is clearly recorded in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment with regard to testimony of PW5 (Abid) that: