CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered)

Page 1 of 13

$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.LP. 827/2018

SMT. GULZAR BEGUM ....Appellant

Through:

Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ...Respondent

Through:

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State

with SI Rajender Singh,

PS Malviya Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

CRL.M.A. 49520/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 49521/2019 (Delay in filing)

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with

Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of 326 days delay in filing the

appeal. Learned counsel for the state has no objection if the delay is

condoned.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal

is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

2019:DHC:1758

CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered)

Page 2 of 13

CRL. L. P. 827/2018

1.

In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead), represented through Legal

Representatives vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in

2018(14)SCALE32, the victim is no longer required to apply for leave

to appeal against the order of acquittal. Consequently, the present

criminal leave petition is allowed. Registry is directed to register the

present leave petition as appeal. Leave petition is disposed of.

CRL.A. /2019 (To be numbered)

1.

No leave petition has been preferred by the state against the impugned

order. On the request of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is

set down for final hearing and disposal.

2.

This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed by

the learned Metropolitian Magistrate-02, South District, Saket Courts

Complex, New Delhi in case FIR No. 1001/2014 registered at Police

Station– Malviya Nagar, filed on behalf of the victim whereby the

accused Danish (‘respondentno. 2 herein’) was acquitted of the

charges punishable under Section 323/341/506(II)/509 of the Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’).

3.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as

under: -

“(i)

2019:DHC:1758

CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered)

Page 3 of 13

(ii)

(iii) Based on her statement recorded by

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

4.

To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has

examined 6 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed

against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because

he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife on

16.07.2014 and chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

5.

After hearing the respective counsel and on appreciation of entire

evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the

accused for the charged offences.

6.

Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2017 is based on

conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial court has failed to

2019:DHC:1758

CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered)

Page 4 of 13

acknowledge the testimony of PW-1 Gulzar Begum, PW-2 Noorul

Ain, PW-5 Ms. Zaheen in the correct perspective and has given undue

weightage to the minor discrepancies which have occurred in the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to which all the

testimonies are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no

major omissions and contradictions in the aforesaid testimonies.

Counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the trial court