Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Salam(All In J/C) on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nipun Awasthi, DHJS
CNR No. DLWT01-007047-2021
SC No. 524/2021
State Vs. Mohd. Salam & Ors.
FIR No. 174/2021
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/s 302/34 IPC
In the matter of :
State
Versus
(1) Mohd. Salam
S/o Mohd. Kadir
R/o Jhuggi No. 453, Kamla Nehru Camp,
Kirti Nagar, West Delhi.
(2) Sahil
S/o Samiddul
R/o H. No. 42, Loha Mandi,
Narayana, West Delhi
(3) Sameer
S/o Md. Zamil
R/o H. No. 55, T-HUTS, Loha Mandi,
Kirti Nagar, West Delhi
........Accuseds
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 1 of 22
Date of institution of case : 28-09-2021
Date of reserving for judgment : 09-12-2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19-12-2025
Appearance:
For the State : Ms. Shubhra Goyal, Ld. Addl.
Public Prosecutor.
For accused Mohd. Salam : Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Ld. LAC.
For accuseds Sahil & Sameer : Sh. Riaz Mohd, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Mohd. Salam, Sahil and Sameer faced trial for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. Charge-sheet was filed against them by SHO PS Kirti Nagar for the commission of the said offence, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken.
The case of the prosecution:
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 03.05.2010 on receipt of DD No. 34 A, Inspector Surya Prakash (IO) alongwith HC Pramal reached at Sardar Vallabh Bhai (SVB) Hospital where he found one boy namely Deva admitted in the State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 2 of 22 hospital, who was brought in unconscious state by his brother Shiva having multiple stab injuries on his body. Deva was declared brought dead by the doctor. In the hospital, IO met the eye witness namely Vishal @ Chhotu, who is the brother of deceased Deva. IO got the dead body preserved at DDU hospital for postmortem. The brother of deceased Vishal @ Chhotu gave his statement to the IO that on 01.05.2021, under the influence of liquor, his brother namely Deva had an altercation with accused- Mohd. Salam and Mohd. Salam gave beatings to Deva on that day. He further informed that when on 03.05.2021 at about 2.10 p.m, he was playing with his friends at the backside of Toilet (Sulabh Sauchalya), Kamla Nehru Camp, Kirti Nagar and his brother Deva was also playing cards with his friends, accused Mohd. Salam alongwith co-accused namely Sahil, Sameer @ Chandu and one CCL 'R' came there having knives in their hands and threatened Deva to teach him a lesson. Accused Mohd. Salam stabbed Deva at his abdomen due to which Deva tried to run from the spot. However, Mohd. Salam caught hold of him and gave knife to Sahil upon which Sahil and CCL 'R' also stabbed Deva. Accused Sameer @ Chandu also gave fist blows to Deva. He further stated that he got frightened and rushed to call his other brother namely Shiva and when they both returned back to the spot, all the accused persons had fled by then the spot and Deva was lying in pool of blood. Both of them took Deva to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital in an e-rickshaw from where he was taken to SVB Hospital. At SVB Hopsital, Deva was declared to State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 3 of 22 have been 'brought dead' by the doctors. On the complaint of Vishal @ Chhotu, FIR u/s 302/34 i.e. the present FIR was registered and investigation commenced. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant and also called the crime team and FSL team at the spot, who lifted the Exhibits from the spot.
2.1 During the course of investigation, at the instance of Shiva (brother of deceased), accused Sahil, Sameer and CCL 'R' were apprehended, who admitted their guilt and they were arrested in the present case. Thereafter on 04.05.2021, accused Mohd. Salam was also arrested and at his instance, the weapon of offence i.e. blood stained knife was recovered from the bushes backside the Sulabh Sauchaliya. IO obtained the postmortem report of deceased as per which the cause of death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
2.2. After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons which was committed to the Court of Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions.
The charge against the accused persons:
3. By order dated 28.10.2021, charge against accused persons namely, Mohd. Salam, Sahil and Sameer was framed u/s 302/34 IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and they claimed trial.
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 4 of 22The evidence by the prosecution:
4. To prove the afore-mentioned charge against the accused persons, the prosecution got examined twelve witnesses in all. For the sake of convenience, a brief description of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses is as under:-
i. PW-1 Sh. Vishal @ Chotu - the complainant of the case;
ii. PW-2 Sh. Sunil Kumar - Friend of Deva (since deceased) who was playing cards with deceased when accused arrived at the spot. He also informed about the quarrel to the Shiva, the brother of deceased;
iii. PW-3 Raja - Friend of deceased who was playing card with deceased when accused arriaved at the spot;
iv. PW- 4 Mohd. Kalam - He informed the police at 100 number about the injured;
v. PW-5 Dr. V.K Ranga - He conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased;
vi. PW-6 Sh. Shiva - Younger brother of deceased and the witness to the incident;
vii. PW-7 Sh. Tahlu Prasad Kesari - He shifted the injured to Acharya Bhikshu Hopsital in his e-rickshaw;
viii. PW-8 SI Himanshi - The first IO of the case, who attended the call of incident;
ix. PW-9 ASI Parmal Singh - He joined the investigation and is the witness to the arrest of accused State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 5 of 22 namely Sahil, Sameer and Rahul (CCL);
x. PW-10 Ct. Ashok - He joined the investigation and is the witness to the arrest of accused Md. Salam;
xi. PW-11 SI Ankur - He is the witness to the seizure of Exhibits during the postmortem;
xii. PW-12 Inspr. Surya Prakash - The IO of the case who deposed about the investigation carried out by him.
5. Prosecution adduced the following documentary evidence:-
i Ex.PW-1/A - Statement of the complainant Sh.
Vishal @ Chotu;
ii Ex.PW-1/B - Dead body identification statement of complainant;
iii. Ex.PW-1/C - Seizure memo of one pair of slipper of deceased;
iv. Ex.PW-2/PA- Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW Sunil Kumar;
v. Ex.PW-3/PA - Statement u/s 161 Cr.P..C of PW-
Raja;
vi. Ex.PW-5/A (colly) - Postmortem report no.
732/2021 dataed 04.05.2021; vii. Ex.PW-5/B - Application of IO for providing subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence; viii. Ex.PW-5/C & Ex.PW-5/F - photographs of weapon of offence;
ix. Ex.PW-6/A - Dead body identification statement of PW Shiva;State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 6 of 22
x. Ex.PW-6/B - Arrest memo of accused Mohd.
Salam ;
xi. Ex.PW-6/C - Personal search memo of accused Mohd. Salam;
xii. Ex.PW-9/B - Seizure memo of plastic box containing blood gauze ;
xiii. Ex.PW-9/B - Apprehension memo of accused Sahil ;
xiv. Ex.PW-9/C - Apprehension memo of accused Sameer;
xv. Ex.PW-9/D - Pointing out memo at the instance of accused;
xvi. Ex.PW- 9/E - Pointing out memo at the instance of accused;
xvii. Ex.PW-9/F - Disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Salam;
xviii. Ex.PW-9/G - Sketh of knife recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Salam;
xix. Ex.PW-9/H - Seizure memo of knife;
xx. Ex.PW-11/A - Seizure memo of Exhibits of
deceased after postmortem ;
xxi. Ex.PW-12/A - DD No. 12/A dated 03.05.2021;
xxii. Ex.PW-12/B - rukka ;
xxiv Ex.PW-12/C - Site plan of the spot;
xxv. Ex.PW- 12/D - Inquest papers regarding
deceased;
Statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused persons:
6. The statement of the accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 7 of 22 was recorded wherein they admitted the contents and genuineness of the following documents:-
i. FIR No. 174/2021 (Ex.PX-1);
ii. Certificate u/s 65-B IEA (Ex.PX-2) ;
iii. Scaled site plan (Ex.PX-3);
iv. MLC prepared by Dr. Shinny (Ex.PX-4);
v. SOC report by ASI Ram Avtar (Ex.PX-5);
vii. 28 photographs (Ex.PX-5/1);
viii. Certificate u/s 65B IEA issued by ASI Sanjeev (Ex.PX-6);
ix. PCR for (Ex.PX-7);
x. FSL report dated 07.12.2021 (Ex.PX-8);
7. In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the witnesses i.e. HC Satbir Singh (Sr. No.2), Dr. Pawan (Sr. No. 7) and Dr. Shinny (Sr. No.21) were dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. During trial, IO Inspector Surya Prakash dropped the public witness Sh. Jitender (Sr. No.10) from the list of witnesses.
The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
9. The statement u/sec. 313 Cr.PC of accused persons was recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were brought to their notice and State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 8 of 22 their explanations were sought. Accused persons wished to lead defence evidence.
Defence Evidence:-
10. In defence, accused- Mohd. Salam had examined Azad S/o Takimam. Accused- Sammer had examined Aisha and accused - Sahil had examined Mohd. Samidul.
11. The Ld. Prosecutor and the Ld. Counsels for the accuseds advanced the final arguments.
Testimony of PW-1 Vishal @ Chhotu paraphrased:
12. On 01.05.2021 at about 8 p.m at Kamla Nehru Camp, a quarrel had taken place between his brother and accused Salam.
12.1. On 03.05.2021, his brother Deva was playing cards near a public toilet and he was playing nearby. At about 2 p.m, accused Salam came there, accompanied by accused- Chandu and accused- Sahil. They were accompanied by another boy who is proceeded against as CCL. Accused Salam stabbed his brother Deva on his stomach with a knife and when Deva attempted to escape to save himself from this assault, Salam caught hold of him and gave the knife to Sahil. Sahil and the CCL then stabbed Deva. Accused Chandu had also assaulted Deva.
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 9 of 2212.2. He ran home to call his brother Shiva. When he returned to the spot with Shiva, he found that by that time all the assailants had fled the spot and Deva was lying in pool of blood on the ground.
12.3. Deva was taken by him and Shiva on battery rickshaw to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital from where he was taken to Sardar Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar in an ambulance where the doctors declared Deva to have been 'brought dead'. 12.4. He identified all the accuseds correctly. Chandu is the alias of accused -Sameer.
12.5. He identified the articles seized during investigation i.e. the following articles:
i. Slippers worn by deceased - Deva at the time of assault;
ii. Black coloured T-shirt worn by deceased- Deva at the time of assault;
iii. Black coloured lower worn by deceased- Deva at the time of assault;
iv. Underwear worn by deceased- Deva at the time of assault;
v. Two towels (gamchha) which were with the deceased- Deva at the time of assault, and vi. The knife used by the assailants to stab deceased- Deva.
13. In the cross-examination of PW-1 as conducted by accused- Mohd. Salam, there is nothing to suggest that the State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 10 of 22 narration of the incident by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief is false. No contradiction or unconformity with the examination-in- chief is present in this cross-examination.
14. In the cross-examination of PW-1 conducted by accused Sahil, the questions put to him were in respect of his clothes and his brother- Shiva's clothes. The emphasis was on the fact that despite the fact that his clothes and Shiva's clothes got drenched in the blood of deceased Deva, such clothes were not collected by the police during investigation. It was not within the capacity of PW-1 to ensure that his clothes and Shiva's clothes were produced with the charge-sheet. Such clothes were never demanded by the IO and hence, were not given to the IO by him. This cross-examination does not falsify his narration of the incident in his examination-in-chief. The pertinent portion of his cross-examination is reproduced below:-
"Myself and my brother Shiva had helped in picking up my brother from the spot who was in pool of blood. My clothes as well as clothes of my brother Shiva got soaked with the blood. I had not shown those clothes to the IO as those clothes soaked with blood of the deceased were thrown at the time of cremation of my brother. The cremation was done after two days of the incident. My clothes had also got soaked with blood while taking my brother to the Hospital. It is correct that such clothes were not handed over to the police. Vol. Since the same were not demanded."State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 11 of 22
14.1. The manner of disposal of such clothes as deposed by PW-1 is the most expected manner i.e. they were parted with at the time of Deva's cremation.
15. In the cross-examination of PW-1 conducted by accused Sameer @ Chandu, there is nothing which falsifies the narration of the incident by PW-1 nor is there anything which contradicts his examination-in-chief.
16. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 as eye witness is unimpeached during the trial. He had seen Sahil, Salam and the CCL stab the deceased - Deva. Thus, this testimony is sufficient to prove the charges against the accuseds.
Testimony of PW-2 Sunil Kumar paraphrased:
17. On 03.05.2021, he had gone to Kamla Nehru Camp, Kirti Nagar. His Bua resides there. That day at about 2 p.m, he alongwith deceased- Deva and Raja were playing cards behind the public toilet. After about 10 minutes of them having played cards, four persons came there in muffled faces and one was having big knife. They started quarelling with Deva and seeing this, he ran to the house of Deva. At Deva's house he met his brother Shiva and after informing Shiva about the incident, he left for his house.
18. From the testimony of PW-2, the fact(s) which are proved are:
i. The date of day of commission of alleged offence was 03.05.2021:State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 12 of 22
ii. The time of commission of alleged offence was 2 p.m; iii. Deceased Deva was playing cards at that time;
iv. The number of assailants was four;
v. One of the assailants was carrying a knife, and
vi. The assailants picked up a quarrel with deceased Deva.
19. The above proved facts corroborate the happening which is the offence under trial.
20. The argument advanced by the accuseds is that PW-2 is a failed witness so far as the identity of the accuseds is concerned.
20.1. The identity of the accuseds is satisfactorily proved by the testimony of PW-1 Vishal. The deposition regarding the assailants having come there in muffled face is an addition made by PW-2 to what he had informed the police during investigation.
21. The other argument advanced by the accuseds is that according to PW-2, the assailants came in muffled face and therefore, no one could have identified them. 21.1. PW-1 has not deposed that the accuseds came in muffled face. In the cross-examination of PW-1, no question regarding the guise, attire or disguise of the assailants was put to PW-1. Thus, despite the fact that PW-1 Sunil Kumar's testimony does not establish the identity of the accuseds, it does not destroy State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 13 of 22 the probative value of the testimony of PW-1 regarding the identity of the accuseds.
22. It has also been argued by the defence that the witness PW-2 had deposed that he went to the house of Deva where he was met with by his brother Shiva and he informed Shiva about the incident whereas PW-1 had deposed that it was he who had informed Shiva and brought Shiva to the place of incident and therefore, there is contradiction regarding the identity of the person, who had informed Shiva about the assault on Deva.
22.1. PW-2 and PW-3 had not seen the assailants stab Deva as they had fled when quarrel ensued. Hence, they are not eye-witnesses to the murder of Deva whereas PW-1 is eye- witness to the most part of offence. Hence, by the mere length to which the series of acts which constitute the offence were witnessed by PW-1, his testimony's probative value stands at a much higher pedestal than that of PW-2 and PW-3. 22.2. The question that who informed Shiva could have been answered by only one person i.e. Shiva. Shiva was examined by the prosecution as PW-6 and he deposed that he was informed by his younger brother Vishal @ Chhotu / PW-1 regarding the assault on Deva. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 is not contradicted as argued.
23. PW-3 Raja has deposed similarly as has PW-2 Sunil Kumar and his testimony is of the same probative value as testimony of PW-2 which had already been discussed above.
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 14 of 22Testimony of PW-6 Shiva paraphrased:
24. Deceased- Deva was his elder brother. On 03.05.2021, at about 2:00 p.m when he was sleeping in his house, his younger brother Vishal/PW-1 came to him and informed that Sahil and Salam were stabbing his elder brother Deva and also that Rahul and Sameer were assisting them in stabbing Deva near the public toilet at Kamla Nehru Camp, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. 24.1. Upon receiving this intelligence, he and Vishal rushed to the spot where they found accused Sahil and Salam wielding knives and Rahul and Sameer holding Deva. Deva was lying on the ground in pool of blood. He had sustained multiple injuries- thirteen in number, two on his neck, two on his right side stomach, two on his right side wrist, two on his right side thigh and both his testicles were severed from his body by the accused. Upon having seen him the accuseds fled. 24.2. He took battered Deva to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and from there to Patel Hospital where Deva was declared to have been 'brought dead'.
24.3. During the trial, one day before the examination of PW-6 Shiva i.e. on 23.11.2022, father of accused Mohd. Salam had attacked him and threatened him with the object of withdrawing of the present case.
24.4. He correctly identified the accuseds.
25. The fact that it was Shiva, who had taken the State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 15 of 22 deceased to Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar, New Delhi is proved by the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 and corroborated by the record prepared at this hospital Ex.PX4 wherein it is recorded that the deceased was brought to this hospital by his brother Shiva.
26. The fact that deceased Deva was cruelly and brutally assaulted as deposed by PW-6 is proved by the presence of thirteen incised and stab wounds on his body during his postmortem. The postmortem report is Ex.PW-5/A. This report identifies these injuries to be the cause of hemorrhage shock which resulted in Deva's death.
27. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW-6 which contradicts his examination-in-chief or the testimony of PW-1 Vishal @ Chhotu. The noteworthy aspect of the cross- examination of PW-6 by accused Mohd. Salam is that Mohd. Salam had suggested existence of a prior enmity between Salam and deceased. This specific suggestion is indicator of presence of motive in Mohd. Salam to kill Deva. The said suggestion is recorded as "it is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as Deva was my elder brother and due to his previous enmity with Mohd. Salam I falsely named him in this case."
28. This suggestion lends assurance to the testimony of PW-1 that on 01.05.2021, a quarrel had taken place between Deva and Salam. Thus, the testimonies of witnesses dealt with so far prove the commission of offences by the accuseds with which the accuseds are charged.
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 16 of 22Testimony of PW-7 Tehlu Prasad Kesari paraphrased:
29. He did not remember the exact date of incident. He was examined before court on 25.11.2022. 7-8 months before 25.11.2022, when he was plying his e-rickshaw and reached the lavatory of Kirti Nagar, he saw a crowd assembled there. Some persons requested him to shift the injured to hospital and accordingly, he took the injured to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and from there the injured's family shifted the injured to another hospital in an ambulance.
30. It has been argued by the accuseds that PW-6 Shiva took the injured to the hospital in the e-rickshaw of Lal Bihari whereas PW-7's name is Tehlu Prasad Kesari and therefore, the testimony of PW-6 gets tainted and becomes untrustworthy.
31. The identity of the person in whose vehicle the injured was taken to the hospital is immaterial and irrelevant to prove the facts in issue of the present case as neither such person is witness to the offence nor is there any dispute as to the fact that the deceased was taken to hospital by PW-6.
32. What PW-6 had deposed regarding the e-rickshaw in which Deva was taken to the hospital is regarding the ownership of e-rickshaw as it appears from the plain reading of his testimony. Pertinent portion of his testimony reads: "We immediately, shifted my injured brother Deva to Acharya State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 17 of 22 Bhikshu Hospital in battery rickshaw of one Lal bihari. From said hospital, we took my brother Deva to Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar where my brother was declared brought dead". The preposition 'of' to the noun 'Lal Bihari' connotes ownership as well as possession. These possibilities were not crystallysed to certainty by any of the accuseds in the cross-examination of any witness. It is a possibility that the owner of e-rickshaw was Lal Bihari whereas it was plied on hire by PW-7 Tehlu Prasad Kesari. Eitherways whether the e-rickshaw belonged to Tehlu Prasad Kesari or Lal Bihari is a non-issue. Identity of the e-rickshaw driver does not taint the testimony of PW-6 so as to destroy it's probative value.
33. There is no dispute regarding death of Deva, date and time of his death and cause of his death. The time of death of Deva as deposed by eye witnesses and as opined by the experts who conducted the postmortem is in conformity.
Testimony of PW-4 Mohd. Kalam paraphrased:
34. He is brother of accused Mohd. Salam.
34.1. On 03.05.2021, he was present in his house and after having his lunch, he came out of his house and saw a crowd having gathered near public toilet. He reached there and saw a person lying injured. He then called the police over 100 number. There is nothing more in his examination-in-chief.
35. The above testimony proves the incident and the State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 18 of 22 casualty.
36. It has been argued by the accuseds that this witness had deposed that he saw two assailants running away towards the jungle and their faces were covered and thus, the accuseds' identity is not established.
36.1. Before dealing with this argument, reproduction of pertinent portion of his testimony in this regards is necessary and the same is :
"while reaching the place of occurrence, I had also seen two assailants running away towards the jungle. As far as I recollect, both the assailants were having their face covered with some cloth".
36.2. Identity of the accuseds is adequately established as discussed earlier. In his examination-in-chief, PW-4 had not deposed that he had seen two of the assailants running towards the jungle and it was only in his cross-examination that he said so upon being so led by the accuseds. He is brother of one of the accused named Salam. His interest in saving Salam from being punished is natural. The prosecution examined him only because it was him who had made the PCR call and he was to prove no other fact. He was not examined by prosecution as witness to identity of the accuseds or any other relevant fact. His relation with accused Salam is motivation enough for him to depose in such manner that prosecution's case become doubtful. He had not seen the fleeing accuseds from their front. In such circumstance State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 19 of 22 the natural and obvious question that arises is that how did he come to know that the two persons he saw running towards the jungle were assailants? There is no answer to this question, Thus, testimony of PW-4 does not demolish the case of prosecution nor does it destroy the probative value of testimonies of the eye- witnesses. PW-4 is not eye-witness of the offence.
37. The other witnesses called by the prosecution and examined are police officials, who participated in the investigation of the case. They are not eye-witnesses and there is nothing in their examination which is contrary to the case of the prosecution and hence, their testimonies are not dealt with herein for the sake of brevity. No argument of the defence is directed towards the testimonies of police officers either.
38. DW-1 Azad had deposed that in the month of Mau-2021, he was employed as sofa repair worker at Shop no. 24, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar. Accused Salam was his co- worker/employee there. On the date of incident i.e. 03.05.2021, he and accused- Salam reached the said shop at 10 a.m and remained their till 8 p.m. In the night of 03.05.2021, police officers came to their locality and took Salam with them. 38.1. Thus, Azad had been examined to prove alibi as defence.
38.2. By all objective standards, the testimony of Azad is untrustworthy. On 03.05.2021, the Delta Wave of Corona Pandemic was at its peak and entire country was under strict lock down. Hence, it is not expected that the shop referred to by DW-
State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 20 of 22Azad was operational that time. Hence, the accused- Salam has failed to prove his alibi.
38.3. It is noteworthy that one of the defence witnesses Aisha had deposed that her son accused- Sameer was home only because in the month of May-2021, strict lock down was in- force.
39. DW- Aisha had deposed that three police officers came to her house, inquired about her son accused - Sameer and took Sameer with them assuring her that they shall drop Sameer home within 2-3 hours. Later on, she came to know that Sameer had been apprehended and sent to Children Home. 39.1. It is not clear that by examining Aisha what defence did the accused want to prove. Aisha could not depose regarding the time when the police officers visited her house to take away Sameer. Hence, her testimony is not comprehensive enough. She had not identified the date of the day when this happened. Hence, her testimony has not affect on the fate of the trial.
40. DW- Mohd. Samidul is father of accused- Sahil and he had deposed that on the date of incident i.e. on 03.05.2021, he and his children were present at his house and then at about 4 p.m, 2-3 police officers came to his house and took Sahil with them assuring that they would release him 2-3 hours thereafter. Later on, he came to know that Sahil had been arrested by the police.
40.1. Nothing in testimony of Mohd. Samidul demolishes the case of prosecution and the testimonies of eye-witnesses as State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 21 of 22 discussed earlier.
40.2. If Mohd. Samidul was examined by defence to prove that accused Sahil was arrested by police from his house then it is obvious that police would go to any accused's house to inquire about him. In the present case, the visit of police officers is not before the time of commission of offence. So it is not the defence that the accuseds were arrested before the offence and the case was planted on them.
Conclusion:
41. Hence, it is found that the prosecution has successfully proved its case and the defence has failed to raise any doubt- reasonable in nature. The Post Mortem Report adequately links the 13 injuries suffered by Deva to be the cause of his death. The accuseds - Mohd. Salam, Sahil and Sameer are therefore, convicted for the offences as they were charged with i.e. they are found guilty of having committed offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC by committing murder of Deva.
42. Let accuseds - Mohd. Salam, Sahil and Sameer be heard on the point of sentence. Digitally signed by NIPUN NIPUN AWASTHI AWASTHI Date:
2025.12.19 Announced in open Court 18:02:06 +0530 on 19-12-2025.
(NIPUN AWASTHI) Addl. Sessions Judge-08 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi State Vs. Md. Salam.& Ors SC No. 524/21 FIR No.174/2021 PS Kirti Nagar Page 22 of 22