Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Vasim @ Chunda on 25 March, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 499/2006
Police Station : Nand Nagri, Delhi
Under Sections : 392/397/427/506/34 IPC &
27/54/59 of Arms Act
Unique ID No. : 02402R01510332006
S.C No. : 04/2008
STATE Versus (1) Vasim @ Chunda
S/o Sh. Bhillan
R/o O-124, Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
(2) Aminuddin@ Bhola
S/o Samsuddin
R/o Shani Bazar, Kardampuri, Delhi.
(3) Dilshad @ Badshan
S/o Sh. Safiq
R/o H.No. 1323, Gali No. 1
Rajiv Colony, Sahibabad, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 31/08/2006
Date of committal : 27/10/2006
Date of reserving judgment : 24/03/2011
Date of pronouncement : 25/03/2011
JU D G M E N T
1.Accused Wasim @ Chunda and Aminuddin @ Bhola were sent up by police of PS: Nand Nagri, Delhi to stand trial for offences punishable Under Sections 392/397/427/506/34 IPC and 27/54/59 of FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 1 of 21 2 Arms Act. Subsequently, accused Dilshad @ Badshah was also sent up for trial for these offences.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of DD No. 17-A, ASI Ramvir Singh alongwith Ct. Mohd. Yunus reached at the spot at House No. Q-241, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where, Smt. Shakuntla met them and got her statement recorded, wherein, she stated that accused persons alongwith another had entered into her house at about 4.20 PM. Accused Dilshad @ Badshah was armed with katta, accused Wasim @ Chunda was armed with Kirpan and accused Aminuddin @ Bhola was armed with knife. At that time, she was counting amount collected as committee (kitty) i.e Rs. 26,000/-. They snatched the same from her after threatening her and thereafter, they went to the shop of her son Sunil where they damaged the shop and taken Rs.1200/- from the shop and also beaten Sunil. On the basis of her statement, FIR was registered against the accused persons.
3. The spot was got inspected by Crime Team and photographs of the spot were taken. Accused persons absconded. On 05.07.2006, at the identification of the complainant, accused Wasim @ Chunda was arrested. He made disclosure statement and got recovered kirpan. On 01.08.2006, accused Aminuddin @ Bhola was arrested in FIR No. 615/2006 and he disclosed about his involvement in the present case and got recovered one knife form garbage (kudedan).
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 2 of 21 3Subsequently, accused Dilshad @ Badshah was arrested in case FIR No. 387/06 U/s 25 of Arms Act. He made his disclosure statement regarding the offence in the present case. On 16.09.2006, he was arrested in this case after permission from Jail. Accused Dilshad @ Badshah got recovered, one country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges from Sahibabad, U.P.
4. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons, the case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 27.10.2006.
5. My Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 06.12.2006, charged the accused persons namely Wasim @ Chunda, Aminuddin @ Bhola and Dilshad @ Badshah for the offences punishable U/s 392/394 read with Section 34 IPC, 397/34 IPC, 427/34 IPC and U/s 506/34 IPC. Accused persons were also separately charged for offences punishable U/s 25/27 of Arms Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses (PW9 H.C Anil Kumar was also examined as PW-4 but when he was examined as PW-4, his further examination- in-chief was deferred as the photographs were not on record and thereafter, he was again examined as PW-9) .
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 3 of 21 47. The prosecution examined following material witnesses:
i. PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala is the complainant. She proved her statement made to the police as Ex.PW1/A. She proved the arrest memo of accused Wasim as Ex.PW1/B, his personal search memo as Ex.WP1/C and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW1/D. She proved the sketch memo of kirpan as Ex.PW1/E, its seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Wasim as Ex.PW1/G. She was, however, partly turned hostile towards the prosecution regarding the identification of kirpan.
ii. PW-2 Sh. Sunil is the son of the complainant and also the material witness of this case.
iii. PW-3 Smt. Sita is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, however, she failed to identify the accused persons and also failed to depose regarding the incident. She was declared hostile by the prosecution.
iv. PW-5 Smt. Rajwati is also the daughter-in-law of the complainant, however, she failed to identify the accused persons and also failed to depose regarding the incident. She was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
8. The prosecution examined following material witnesses:
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 4 of 21 5i. PW-9 H.C Anil Kumar was the photographer who took the six photographs of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A1 to A6 and also proved its negatives as Ex.PW9/A7 to A12.
ii. PW-11 H.C Jameel Khan was the Duty officer who on the basis of rukka, recorded formal FIR of this case and proved the copy of the same vide Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW1/B. iii. PW-12 Inspector Dinesh Kumar was S.I at Mobile Crime Team who inspected the spot.
iv. PW-14 Sh. Rupinder Kumar, Addl. DCP who granted sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act for the prosecution of accused Dilshad @ Badshah vide sanction order Ex.PW13/M.
9. The prosecution examined following witnesses of investigation:
i. PW-6 Ct. Mohd. Yunush Khan who accompanied ASI Rambir Singh to the spot for the first time after receiving the DD NO. 17-A. ii. PW-7 ASI Harun Khan is the witness of arrest of accused Aminuddin @ Bhola and his disclosure statement.
iii. PW-8 H.C Upender is the witness of arrest of accused Wasim @ Chunda and also witness of recovery effected at the instance of accused Wasim @ Chunda.FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 5 of 21 6
iv. PW-10 Ct. Pradeep Kumar is the witness of recovery of knife at the instance of accused Aminuddin @ Bhola. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Aminuddin @ Bhola regarding the involvement in the presence case as Ex.PW10/A. He also proved the sketch of knife as Ex.PW10/B and its seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. v. PW-13 SI Lal Sahab is the Investigating Officer who in addition to other memos proved site plan Ex.PW13/A, arrest memo of accused Aminuddin as Ex.PW13/B, his personal search memo as Ex.PW13/C, pointing out memo as Ex.PW13/D, arrest memo of accused Dilshad @ Badshah as Ex.PW13/E, his personal search memo as Ex.PW13/F, his disclosure statement as Ex.PW13/G and Ex.PW13/H, seizure memo of country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered at the instance of accused Dilshad @ Badshah as Ex.PW13/I, its sketch memo Ex.PW13/J, pointing out memo as Ex.PW13/K, FSL result as Ex.PW13/L and sanction order as Ex.PW13/M. He identified Kirpan as Ex.PW8/Article-1, knife recovered at the instance of Aminuddin @ Bhola as Ex.PW13/Article-1 and country made pistol recovered at the instance of Dilshad @ Badshah as Ex.PW13/Article-2 and cartridges as Ex.PW13/Article-3.FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 6 of 21 7
vi. PW-15 ASI Rambir Singh who on the receipt of DD No. 17-A reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Smt. Shakuntala. He proved his endorsement on her statement as Ex.PW15/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Yunus.
10. After conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein, accused persons denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
i. Accused persons namely Aminuddin @ Bhola, Wasim @ Chunda and Dishad @ Badhshah in their statement have similarly stated that complainant Smt. Shakuntala was doing the job of prostitution. She also deals in stolen property. She also selling liquor and the person of bad character were visiting her house. The mohalla people were objecting regarding her activity. Therefore, she was enimical to them and in connivance with the police, she has falsely implicated them in the present case. They choses not to lead the Defence Evidence.
11. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Abdul Sattar, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 7 of 21 812. PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala testified that on 25.06.2006, she was present at her house alongwith her sisters-in-law namely Smt. Seeta and Smt. Rajwati. On that day, at about 4.20 PM, her son Sunil was present at their Grocery Shop situated in the shops of nearby Mandir. Accused Badshah, Bhola and Wasim alongwith their associates, to whom, she did not know, entered her house. Accused Badshah was armed with katta (pistol), accused Wasim was armed with Kirpan and accused Bhola was armed with knife. She stated that she used to run a committee and at that time, she was counting the money of committee, which was about Rs.26,500/-. On the point of above-said weapons, accused persons snatched the said money from her and fled away from there. Accused persons had abused her also. From her house, accused persons came to their shop and had damaged the articles lying in the shop and also robbed Rs.1200/- which were kept in Gulla (money-box) of the shop and also gave beatings to her son Sunil. She stated that accused persons had also threatened to kill them. She rang at 100 number and called the PCR. PCR officers reached at the spot. The police from PS Nand Nagri also reached at the spot and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. She stated that after 10-11 days from 25.06.2006, accused Wasim was apprehended by the police. She was also joined in the investigation by the police at that time. Accused Wasim was interrogated by the police and was arrested vide his arrest documents. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D. She stated that as per his disclosure FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 8 of 21 9 statement, accused pointed out a park, O-Block, Sunder Nagari and from the garbage, he got recovered one kirpan which she identified as the same with which accused threatened them and committed robbery with them, on the date of incident. She failed to identify the kirpan. She denied that kirpan produced in the court is the same which was recovered in her presence.
13. PW2 Sh. Sunil Kumar testified that on 25.06.2006, at about 4.30 PM, he was present at his shop situated at some distance from his house. All the three accused persons namely Wasim @ Chunda, Aminuddin @ Bhola and Dilshad @ Badshah who are known to him as they are living at some distance from his house came at his shop. Badshad was having katta in his hand. Accused Bhola was having knife and accused Wasim was having some weapon in his hand, came at his shop. All the accused persons abused him. They threw the martbans containing biscuits and pastries etc. Accused Badshah lifted his galla containing money and they took out the money from the galla containing Rs. 1000/- or 1200/-. He became afraid and accused persons ran away while threatening him to kill him, if he would try to object them. He informed the police.
14. PW-3 Smt. Sita merely stated that on 25.06.2006, at about 4.00 PM, she was present at her house with her devrani Rajjo and mother-in- law Shakuntala. Three persons came in their house. Her mother-in- law Shakuntala asked her and her devrani Rajjo to go inside the FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 9 of 21 10 room. Those three persons snatched the money amounting to Rs.24,000/-. Thereafter, she does not know what happened. She was declared hostile by the prosecution.
15. PW-5 Smt. Rajwati similarly testified that she does not remember the date or month. It is two year old matter. At about 4 PM, her elder sister-in-law (jethani) Smt. Seeta, mother-in-law and she was present in the house and her mother-in-law was counting money. As she is pardanasheen women, her mother-in-law told her to go inside. She does not know what happened but the money was snatched by the offenders from her mother-in-law. The money was collected by way of kitty (committee). She does not know the persons who had snatched money from her mother-in-law. She saw them but she will not able to identify them. She does not know their names. They were not known to her previously by name or by face. Police came and enquired from her and recorded her statement. She was declared hostile by the prosecution.
16. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that PW-1 is inconsistent in her testimony. She had stated in her initial complaint that accused persons were four in number. However, in her supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C., she states that there were only three persons and when, she was examined in the court, she states that there were more persons than these three. Further, she was not corroborated by her daughter-in-laws who were present there at that FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 10 of 21 11 time. Her son Sunil is not the witness of occurrence at her house and also in his cross-examination, he has not supported the prosecution.
17. It is submitted on behalf of the accused persons PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala is land-grabber and she on account of enemity with the accused persons, she falsely implicated them in the present case. It is further submitted that recoveries are planted upon the accused persons.
18. PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala has narrated two incidents. One incident is with respect to the incident which had taken place at her house in the presence of Sita and Rajwati. PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala has stated them to be her sisters-in-law, whereas, they are her daughter-in- laws. Second incident had taken place at the shop of his son. She stated that accused persons came to their shop and damaged the articles lying there and also looted Rs.1200/- which were lying in gulla and gave beatings to her son. She is not the witness to the occurrence which has taken place at the shop and she is hear-say witness of the incident occurred at the shop.
19. PW-2 Sh. Sunil was present at the shop. He stated that accused persons were known to him and they came at his shop. All of them abused him. PW-2 has not deposed with respect to the incident which had taken place at the house. Therefore, he is not witness of FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 11 of 21 12 the incident which was allegedly taken place at the house. In his cross-examination, he changed the entire version and stated that accused persons are not known to him prior to the incident. However, he voluntarily stated that they were residing in the same locality. On the date of incident, accused persons had come to his shop in the noon time but he cannot tell the exact time. Accused persons were in inebriated state when they came to his shop and started abusing him. He did not notice anything in the hands of any of the accused persons. When the accused persons abused him, he did not retaliate and left the place. He stated that on the same day, his mother called the police. Accused persons had not snatched anything from him. He was re-examined by Ld. Addl.P.P with respect to the cross-examination. He admitted that in his examination-in-chief, he stated that Badshah was having katta in his hand, Bhola was having knife and accused Wasim was having some weapon in his hand and voluntarily stated that he had stated so at the instance of police official. He further admitted that he had stated in his statement in the court that accused Badshah lifted his galla containing money and they took money from the galla containing Rs. 1000/- or Rs.1200/-. He voluntarily stated that he had stated so at the instance of the police officials but when he returned back to his shop, he found missing Rs. 1000/- to Rs.1200/- from galla.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 12 of 21 1320. Meaning thereby that only incident which had happened at his shop is that accused persons i.e three accused persons came at his shop in inebriated state and abused him.
21. Now coming to the incident allegedly taken place at the house of PW-1 Shakuntala Devi. PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala in her cross- examination stated that she did not give any document to the police regarding the committee (chit fund). She alongwith her two daughters-in-law were present in her house, at the time of incident. She stated that her house is built in 50 sq. yards. It is built one storey above the ground. She owned the shop. There are two rooms built on the ground and similarly on the first floor. At the time of the incident, she was sitting in varanda of her house and her daughter- in-laws were sitting in the room which were in front of varanda. She, however, cannot tell the distance between the room and the varanda. She was sitting on the cot and her daughter-in-laws were sitting on the floor. She stated that accused persons firstly looted the shop thereafter entered into her house. She stated that accused persons broke the flower pots at the shop and looted Rs. 1200/- from there. When shop was looted, she was at her home. Her son told her about the loot at their shop. Her son had come to the house from the shop when the shop was looted. Public persons had gathered near the shop. She stated that all the accused persons were armed but she cannot tell who was having what, which is contrary FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 13 of 21 14 to her examination-in-chief, wherein she had given the description of the arms possessed by the accused persons. She stated that she cannot tell the length and identification marks on the arms. She cannot tell as to how many associates of accused persons had come. She denied the suggestion that she is having enmity with the neighbourers and she is in habit of making complaints against the neighbourers. She admitted that she has shops on public land and vol. stated that entire block is built on the public land. She stated that she does not know which of the accused was arrested by them. She further stated that police did not call her for the identification of the accused persons which is also contrary to her examination-in- chief, wherein, she has stated that accused Wasim @ Chunda was arrested at her instance.
22. Admittedly, PW-3 Smt. Seeta and PW-5 Smt. Rajwati were present in their house, at that time but they have not supported the prosecution with respect to the identification of the accused persons. PW-3 Smt. Seeta has stated that her mother-in-law had asked her and her Devrani to go inside the room on seeing the accused persons. Rather, she would have raised alarm immediately with the support of her daughter-in-laws. It appears that accused persons had acquaintance with Shakuntla and they being the pardanasheen women, PW-1 had asked them to go, on account of presence of male persons and incident did not take place in the same manner.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 14 of 21 15The presence of arms in the hands of accused persons are also doubtful as in her examination-in-chief, she categorically gives the description of the arms. Whereas, in her cross examination, she states that she does not know as to who was armed with what. Further one arm i.e. Kirpan was recovered in presence of Smt. Shakuntala, as per the prosecution and accused Wasim was arrested on her identification, which she completely denies. Therefore, the presence of accused persons with arms in her house is doubtful. Although, it appears that they were present at her house. They are also inconsistent with respect to the breaking of articles at the shop of Sunil. PW-1 Shakuntala claims that flower pots were broken by them. Whereas, Sunil claims that martban having biscuits and pastries were damaged by the accused persons. Therefore, these two witnesses are not corroborating each other on the material particulars. Further, PW-1 has stated that more than three persons were involved in the incident and in her cross-examination, she states that she does not remember how many of them were present and in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C, she states that there were only three persons and she wrongly stated there were four persons.
23. Now coming to the factum of snatching the money of Committee (kiti). PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala has stated in her initial complaint that Rs. 26000/- looted from her by the accused persons. However, when she was examined in the court, she stated that it was Rs.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 15 of 21 1626,500/-. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not give any document to the police regarding the committee (chit fund). PW-3 Smt. Sita has stated that accused persons had snatched Rs.24,000/-. She categorically denied that it was Rs.26,000/- in her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the prosecution. PW-5 Smt. Rajwati in her cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution has admitted that accused Badshah told her mother-in-law that she is giving information about them to the police and warned, threatened and abused her and snatched Rs.26,000/- from her hands and left threatening her. The denomination of the currency notes is not given. Further, the document with respect to committee (kitti) has also not been given. Further, there is inconsistency with respect to the amount involved, which creates doubt about the money allegedly snatched by the accused persons.
24. Now coming to the recovery. PW-8 H.Constable Upender testified that on 05.07.2006, at about 6 PM, complainant namely Shakuntala came there and stated that accused Wasim @ Chunda who has committed the offence of robbery in her house is present near O- Block, Park. On this, he alongwith S.I and the complainant reached at O-Block Park and at her instance, they apprehended accused who were present in the park. IO/SI Lal Sahab interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C. IO recorded his disclosure FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 16 of 21 17 statement Ex.PW1/D and as per his disclosure statement, accused Wasim @ Chunda got recovered the 'kirpan' from near the wall of park under the garbage.
25. PW-13 SI Lal Sahab testified that on 05.07.2006, he alongwith Ct.
Upender were present at Sunder Nagri. He received secret information that accused Wasim @ Chunda is present at O-Block Park, Sunder Nagari. They reached there and at the instance of the secret informer, he apprehended accused Wasim Chunda from the park. Smt. Shakuntala also reached there and she identified accused Wasim Chunda. He interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/B. He conducted his formal search vide search memo Ex.PW-1/C. Accused Wasim Chunda had also made his disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/D to him. The accused had also confessed that he can get recover the Kripan from the park. He led them at the west side of the park and from the corner under the garbage, he took out one kripan and produced to him. He seized the same through seizure memo Ex PW1 /F and measured the length and the width of the kripan and prepared sketch of the same Ex PW1/E.
26. PW-8 H.C Upender in his cross-examination has stated that they reached at the spot from where the accused Wasim was arrested at about 6 PM. The distance between the police post and the place from where the accused was apprehended is about 200 metres. He FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 17 of 21 18 stated that accused tried to run but they did not allow him to run. The park is surrounded by abadi and also near the road. The public persons were walking on the road near the park. IO had asked them to join the investigation when they left the police post but none agreed to join the same. He stated that the height of the garbage was about 1/1½ foot.
27. PW-13 SI Lal Sahab in his cross-examination has stated that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Wasim Chunda at the park while standing at about 6.00/6.15 PM. He cannot tell the height of the garbage. He stated that no public witness was ready to join the investigation at the time of preparation of sketch of kirpan.
28. There is material inconsistency between the testimonies of these two witnesses. IO/SI Lal Sahab claims that on the basis of secret information, Wasim Chunda was apprehended at the park. Smt. Shakuntala reached there and identified him. Whereas, PW-8 H.C Upender claims that Shakuntala arrived at the police post and tell them about the presence of accused in the park of Sunder Nagri. Thereafter, they alongwith Shakuntala went to the park and apprehended accused Wasim Chunda. However, PW-1 Shakuntala in her examination-in-chief has failed to identify kirpan and stated that none of the accused was arrested at her instance. Therefore, arrest and recovery at the instance of Wasim Chunda, is doubtful.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 18 of 21 1929. As regards, recovery effected from Aminuddin @ Bhola. PW-13 SI Lal Sahab testified that on 01.08.06, accused Amminuddin @ Bhola was arrested by ASI Harun Khan in a theft case FIR No. 615/06 PS Nand Nagari. ASI Harun Khan told him that accused Amminuddin had made disclosure statement to him regarding commission of offence of this case. He also produced the accused Amminuddin to him. He arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW-13/B and conducted his personal search vide memo EX PW-13/C. Accused Amminuddin had also pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex PW 13/D. Thereafter, accused led them at the north side of O- Block Park and from the garbage under the mud he took out one button actuated knife which was in closed condition and same produced to me and he seized the same through seizure memo Ex. PW 10/C.
30. PW-10 Ct. Pradeep Kumar similarly deposed regarding the recovery of knife from the garbage. PW-10 Ct. Pradeep Kumar in his cross- examination has stated that no public person called in the police station to join the investigation, at the time of recording of disclosure statement. He does not remember the time when they left the police station for Sunder Nagri for recovery of knife. Accused Aminuddin @ Bhola disclosed in his disclosure statement that he had thrown the knife at the garbage on the road, O-Block, Sunder Nagri. There is only one garbage at O-Block.
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 19 of 21 2031. This is highly doubtful as in the same garbage, the recovery was allegedly effected at the instance of accused Wasim @ Chund but they could not find the knife there, at that time. Therefore, recovery effected at the instance of accused Aminuddin @ Bhola is highly doubtful.
32. As regards the recovery effected at the instance of accused Dilshad @ Badshah. PW-13 SI Lal Sahab testified that on 16.09.2006, accused Dilshad @ Badshah was produced before the court on production warrant. He obtained one day p/c remand of accused Dilshad @ Badshah. He again made him disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, he led them at his house No. 1323, Gali No.1 at Rajeev Nagar Shahibabad, and from his room he took out one country made pistol and two live cartridges and produced to him, which he seized through seizure memo Ex.PW-13/I. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has received the information from SI Manoj Kumar on 13.09.2006 regarding the arrest of accused Dilshad @ Badshah. They reached at the house of accused Dilshad @ Badshah at his instance on foot. The mother of accused Dilshad @ Badshah was present at the house. He did not record the statement of mother of accused Dilshad @ Badsha or any other public persons as they did not agree. He further stated that there were two/three rooms in the house of accused Dilshad. He denied the suggestion that the area of house of FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 20 of 21 21 accused Dilshad is 22 yards and there cannot be three rooms in the area of 22 yards. He stated that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded in the presence of jailor.
33. The disclosure statement of accused Dilshad @ Badshah Ex.PW13/G is not attested by Jail Superintendent or any witness from jail. Thereafter, another disclosure statement Ex.PW13/H was made, wherein, he stated that he can get recover the katta. This disclosure statement itself is highly doubtful and alleged recovery on the basis of this disclosure statement is not free from doubt. Further, no public witness was joined in the recovery, despite, the fact that they were available. Hence, recovery effected at the instance of accused Dilshad @ Badshah is also not free from doubt.
34. Accordingly, as per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that accused persons namely Wasim @ Chunda, Aminudduin @ Bhola and Dilshad @ Badshah are entitled to benefit of doubt. They are accordingly acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stands cancelled. Sureties discharged. Case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
Today i.e. on 25.03.2011 GURDEEP SINGH
ASJ-04/KKD/25.03.2011
FIR No. 499/2006, PS : Nand Nagri, Delhi Page 21 of 21