Delhi District Court
State vs Khalid Ali on 27 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
DLNE020000482010
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 460704/2015 CNR Number DLNE020000482010 FIR Number 304/2009 Police Station Seelampur
Name of the Complainant/Informant SI Lokender Name of the Accused, his 1. Khalid Ali (Already discharged) parentage and address
2. Adil S/o Sh. Sadaqat Hussain R/o 1363/48, Jafrabad, Delhi
3. Nadir S/o Sh. Sadaqat Hussain R/o 1363, Gali No. 48, Jafrabad, Delhi.
4. Danish S/o Sh. Nazmuddin R/o 1212-D, Gali No. 13, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi
5. Salim S/o Sh. Nazmuddin R/o 1212-D, Gali No. 13, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 1 of 20 ISRA ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:08:12 +0800
6. Yusuf S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali R/o D-49, New Jafrabad, Delhi
7. Abdul Nasir S/o Sh. Sadaqat Hussain R/o 1363/48, Jafrabad, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence 10.08.2009
Date of institution 30.06.2010
Offences complained of U/s. 147/148/149/440 IPC & 27
Arms Act
Offences charged of U/s. 147/148/149/440 IPC & 27
Arms Act against all the accused
persons.
U/s. 174-A IPC against accused
Nadir & Adil.
Plea of the accused persons Pleaded not guilty for all sections
except Section 174A IPC.
Date of final arguments 27.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 27.04.2026 Final Order ACQUITTED BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 10.08.2009 at about 8:45 p.m. at Chauhan Bangar, Jafrabad, Delhi, sudden gun shots were heard by HC Rahisuddin and HC Arvind while being on patrolling duty. It was found that Adil, Nasir, Nadir, Yusuf along with other persons were firing gun shots over Salim, Danish and other persons and vice versa. The public persons were afraid. On examining the situation, HC Raisuddin and Shashi Bhushan apprehended them for forming an unlawful assembly and committed rioting with deadly weapon. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the persons namely Adil, ISRA FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 2 of 20 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:10:32 +0800 Nasir, Nadir, Yusuf, Salim and Danish (hereinafter referred to as accused persons) under sections 147/148/149/440 IPC and 27 of Arms Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 147/148/149/440 IPC and 27 Act Act was filed before the court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 30.06.2010 and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.03.2015, charge under sections 147/148/149/440 IPC and 27 Arms Act was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial and additional charge under section 174-A IPC was framed against the accused Nadir and Adil, to which they pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 SI Lokender
2. PW2 Ct. Arif Ali
3. PW3 HC Mohd. Raheesuddin
4. PW4 ASI Arvind Kumar
5. PW5 ASI Tejvir Singh
6. PW6 HC Shaeel Ahmed FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 3 of 20 ISRA ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:10:39 +0800
7. PW7 HC Ashok Kumar DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. PW1/A Rukka
2. PW2/A Arrest Memo of accused Khalid @ Babu
3. PW2/B Personal Search Memo of accused Khalid @ Babu
4. PW2/C Disclosure Statement of accused Khalid @ Babu
5. PW5/A Disclosure Statement of accused Yusuf
6. PW5/B Arrest Memo of accused Yusuf
7. PW5/B1 Personal Search Memo of accused Yusuf
8. PW5/A1 & Disclosure Statement of accused Saleem and Danish PW5/A2
9. PW5/C & PW5/D Arrest Memos of accused Saleem and Danish 10 PW5/C1 & PW5/D1 Personal Search Memo of accused Saleem and Danish
11. PW6/A Seizure Memo of cartridges
12. PW6/B & PW6/C Arrest Memo of accused Adil and Nadir STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.PC
04. The accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 05.02.2026. The accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated by the police persons, they were not aware of any incident as alleged, they were lifted by the police persons, Accused Mohd. Yusuf stated that he was not even present on the spot on the day of incident, which was duly verified by the Gram Pradhan. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons despite granting them an opportunity.
ISRA FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 4 of 20 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:10:44 +0800 FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 27.04.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out towards various inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. Ld. Counsel for accused Nadir, Nasir, Adil and Yusuf relied upon the following judgments:
Amerika Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2011 AIR SC, K M Ravi v. State of Karnataka 2010 3SCC 281, Masalti v. State of U.P. 1965 AIR SC 202, Charan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. 2004 AIR SC 2828. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
06. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offences punishable under section 147/148/149/440 IPC and under section 27 Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is apt to quote the following sections :
Section 147 IPC:-
"Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 148 IPC:-FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 5 of 20
ISRA ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:10:52 +0800 "Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 149 IPC:-
"If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
Section 440 IPC:-
"Whoever commits mischief, having made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or hurt, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 27 Arms Act: -
"(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine."
ISRA FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors.
ZAIDI Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:10:58 +0800 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
07. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
08. The prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (i) the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object (ii) they were armed with deadly weapons (iii) they committed mischief and (iv) they used firearms in furtherance of their common object. For invoking Section 27 Arms Act, conscious possession and use of firearm must be proved.
09. PW1 SI Lokender, in his examination in chief deposed that on 10.08.2009, at about 08.45 p.m., he along with HC Arvind, HC Rahusiddin and HC Shanti Bhusan were on patrolling duty and while patrolling when they reached at Main Road, Jafrabad, he heard fire shots from Gali no. 48, Jafrabad. He deposed that instantly, he along with other staff reached there and found that two groups were firing on each other and in one group there were accused Nasir, Nadir, Adil and Yusuf along with their 4-5 associates and in other group there were accused Danish, Salim Murge Vala alongwith their 4-5 associates. He further deposed that on seeing this, he waved his service pistol in air to control the situation, meanwhile other staff from the PS Seelampur also came there. He further deposed that he also found many fired cartridges on the ground. He deposed that with the help of the other staff, accused Adil and Nadir were apprehended on the spot and rest accused persons fled away from the spot, but in the meantime, before the apprehension, they passed their weapon to some other persons.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
ZAIDI Date:
2026.04.27
16:11:06
+0800
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 7 of 20
10. He deposed that he prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/A and got the FIR registered through HC Rahisuddin. He deposed that ASI Suresh Kumar along with HC Rahisuddin and other staff members came to the spot and he handed over both the apprehended accused persons to ASI Suresh Kumar. He deposed that on his instance, ASI Suresh Kumar prepared the sketch of site plan. He further deposed that ASI Suresh Kumar recorded his statement and relieved him from the spot. He deposed that the case property was not seized in his presence. He again said, the case property was seized in his presence. He did not remember the bore of cartridges but remember the length i.e. 5 c.m.
11. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 testified that he left the spot at about 12.00 mid night and his statement was recorded at about 11.45 p.m. He did not remember, who other police official left the spot with him. He testified that during patrolling duty, they were on bike and there were 2-3 other bikes excluding his bike. He testified that the empty cartridges were seized at about 12.00 mid night by ASI Suresh Kumar in the presence of 10-12 police officials and he signed the seizure memo, but he did not remember how many other police officials signed the seizure memo. He again said that he he did not sign the seizure memo. He testified that 20-30 public persons gathered at the spot and he did not notice any bullet hit mark at anywhere at the spot. He testified that IO never met him regarding this case after leaving the spot by him. He deposed that they left the police station for patrolling at about 07.00 pm., however, he did not remember whether any DD entry was made. He testified that the spot was at a distance of 200-300 meters, where they heard the sound of firing. He testified that he was having the pistol but he did not know whether other police officials having weapons or not. He testified that all the accused persons were known to him prior to the incident being the resident of his division i.e. Chauhan Bangar, PS Seelampur. He testified that 10-12 police officials had reached at the spot prior to the sending of the rukka/tehrir to the PS for registration of FIR. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2026.04.27 16:11:12 +0800 FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 8 of 20
12. PW2 Ct. Arif Ali, in his examination in chief deposed that on 17.08.2009, a secret informer had informed AS1 Suresh Kumar that the accused Khalid Babbu was present at Indra Chowk and thereafter, ASI Suresh Kumar went to the Indra Chowk along with him to arrest the accused. He deposed that by pin pointing of secret informer, he and ASI Suresh Kumar apprehended accused Khalid @ Babbu and then ASI Suresh Kumar interrogated him. He testified that after the interrogation, they came to know that accused Khalid @ Babbu was involved in the incident of firing bullets at Gali No. 48, Jafrabad, Delhi on 10.08.2009. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW2 denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. PW3 HC Mohd. Raheesuddin, in his examination in chief deposed that on 10.08.2009 at about 8:45 p.m., he heard the sound of gun fire shots coming from gali no. 48. Jafrabad, on this SI Lokender took out his service revolver and they all rushed towards Gali no.48 and while they entered into gali no. 48, he saw that two groups were firing on each other. He deposed that in one group, there was Nasir, Nadir, Adil, Yusuf and their 4-5 other associates and in other group Saleem Murgewala, Danish were there along with 4-5 associates. He deposed that he along with other police personnel attempted to stop both the groups as the residents of the locality were scared and hide themselves in their respective houses. He further deposed that in the meantime, other police personnels from PS also reached there and thereafter, accused Adil and Nadir were apprehended by the police personnels, however, other accused succeeded to flee away from the spot. He deposed that SI Lokender prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered through him. He deposed that in the meanwhile, ASI Suresh Kumar along with Ct. Shakeel also reached at the spot. He deposed that ASI Suresh Kumar had arrested accused Nadir and Adil vide arrest memo dated 11.08.2009, prepared the site plan, recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC and he was relieved thereafter. He deposed that empty shells of firearm ISRA ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.04.27 16:11:18 +0800 FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 9 of 20 were lying on the spot before he reached to PS Seelampur, although while he came back those were not there.
14. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 testified that they left for patrolling after briefing in the PS around 7 p.m. on their personal motorcycles and they all were having service pistols with them. He further testified that they all were performing patrolling on Jafrabad main road, Jaketwali Market. He testified that spot where the incident occurred located around 200 to 250 meters from the place where they were patrolling. He further testified that factories and shops were located in the locality where they were patrolling and it was a densely populated area. He testified that within 3 to 4 minutes, they all reached at the spot and thereafter, within 5-7 minutes 8-10 police officials from PS Seelampur also reached there. He did not know who intimated PS Seelampur. He testified that all the empty cartridges were found lying within radius of 5 to 10 meters and the width of the street in which the said cartridges were lying was approximately 15 to 20 feet. He testified that said street was having double/three storey houses. He testified that he did not personally check the bullets marks on the houses/building situated there and the IO/any other police official also did not check the same in his presence.
15. He further testified that at about 1:00 a.m on 11.08.2009, when he left the spot, Sl Lokender had also left the spot. He testified that the public persons were also gathered for observing the proceedings there, however, he did not know whether IO/other police official asked the public persons to join the proceedings. He testified that he did not have any personal knowledge that who made the call at 100 number. He further testified that site plan and personal search memo, arrest memo of the accused Nadir and Adil prepared in his presence, but he had not signed the same. He testified that Ct. Shakeel had signed the documents prepared and he was not offered to sign the said documents. He admitted that some public persons were present, however they were at a distance of around 30 meters, but he did not know whether the said public persons were asked to join the investigation. He testified that he had Digitally signed by ISRA FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 10 of ISRA 20 ZAIDI ZAIDI Date:
2026.04.27 16:11:25 +0800 not made any departure entry. He testified that the weapon possessed by him, was duly entered in the requisite register in Police station, however, he did not remember the exact number of its entry. He testified that the paper work at the spot was completed while sitting on the motorcycle. He testified that he had not signed the site plan.
16. He did not remember whether the Investigating officer had put any identification mark upon the case property seized in the present case. He further testified that the raw materials for sealing the case property was already with the IO. He testified that IO had not made any inquiry from the local residents residing there in his presence. He testified that he had not seen any CCTV cameras in the vicinity of the spot of the incident. He testified that the photographs of the empty cartridges were not taken by the IO in his presence. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsels.
17. PW4 ASI Arvind Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 SI Lokender. In addition to that, PW4 deposed that he did not see any accused who fired bullet at the time of incident due to distance and crowd. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 testified that he left the PS at about 06.00 p.m. and he was patrolling in the area of Chauhan Bangar and Jafrabad while walking. He testified that they reached Chauhan Bangar area via Brahampuri Main Road. He did not remember the exact gali number through which they entered into Chauhan Bangar area. He testified that there were several streets which entered into Chauhan Bangar area. He did not remember the exact passage through which they entered into street no. 48 of Jafrabad. He further testified that he did not mark any DD Entry regarding his departure entry personally. He testified that he returned back at PS at around 12:00 mid night and he did not mark any DD Entry regarding his arrival entry personally. He did not know whether SI Lokendra had marked any DD entry regarding their arrival entry in his presence. He did not know whether he deposed that SI Yogendra and Constable Arif were the members of Digitally signed by FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Page 11Date:
of 20 ZAIDI 2026.04.27 16:11:33 +0800 patrolling team in his statement U/s 161 of Cr.PC. He voluntarily deposed that SI Lokendra accompanied them not SI Yogendra and inadvertently, it was mentioned there.
18. He testified that he had gone through his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC, but he did not know about the name of SI. He testified that he stated in his statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. that when accused persons saw the police team, they tried to leave the spot. The same was not mentioned in the statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC of PW4. He testified that he stated in his statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. that eight used cartridges were found at the spot. The same was not mentioned in the statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC of PW4. He did not know whether he had stated in his statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. that IO seized those eight fired cartridges. He further testified that IO/ASI Suresh prepared the rukka at the spot. He did not know who called to IO/ASI Suresh. He further deposed that at that point of time, there were two ASI in the name of Suresh, one ASI Suresh was present at the spot and another ASI Suresh was working as a Duty Officer. He did not know HC Rahisuddin had left the spot to reach the PS and at what time he returned at the spot. He testified that SHO concerned came at the spot after the PCR Call. He did not know whether IO served any notice to any public persons in his presence and that whether the photographs of the marks upon the wall were clicked. He did not remember the exact time when he left the spot.
19. He further testified that SI Lokender, HC Shashi Bhushan, HC Rahishuddin, ASI Suresh and Ct. Shakeel were also present at the spot. He did not remember the name of those police official who left spot along with him and that along with which officer, he reached at the spot. He admitted that he had signed any relevant documents of the present case at any point of time and that he had not apprehended any accused persons at the spot and that he did not know any of the accused persons prior to the present case. He did not remember whether the arrest memo, personal search memo , disclosure statement and seizure memo were prepared in his presence. He testified that Rukka was prepared in his presence and it was Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ZAIDI Date:
2026.04.27 Page 12 of 2016:11:40 +0800 written by SI Lokender. He did not remember about the mode through which HC Rahishuddin had left the spot alongwith Rukka. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsels.
20. PW5 ASI Tejvir Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 20.09.2009, one secret informer came there and informed IO/ASI Suresh Kumar that the accused persons of the present case were present in Jafrabad, on which, he along with IO and secret informer went to the said place, where secret informer had pointed out accused Yusuf and left the spot. He deposed that accused Yusuf was apprehended by the IO at Gali no. 48. He further deposed that IO interrogated accused Yusuf and recorded his disclosure statement Ex PW5/A and accused Yusuf had disclosed the name of two accused namely Saleem and Danish. He deposed that accused Yusuf was arrested and personally search by the IO. He deposed that on 01.10.2009, he along with the IO/ASI Suresh Kumar were on patrolling duty on area of Seelampur, wherein secret informer came there had informed 1O/ASI Suresh Kumar that the accused persons namely Saleem and Danish of the present case were present in A Block Seelampur, after which, he along with IO and secret informer went to the said place, where secret informer had pointed out both the accused who were standing at the footpath and then, he left the spot. He deposed that they apprehended both of them and IO inquired them and after that he recorded their disclosure statement, arrested both the accused Saleem and Danish and conducted their personal search. He deposed that after some time, they brought both the accused persons at the PS and they were confined in the cell and after that, IO recorded his statement.
21. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 testified that he had left the PS for patrolling at about 08:30 am. and his patrolling area was the entire area of PS Seelampur. He did not remember whether any DD entry was made regarding his departure or not. He did not remember if IO had informed his superior police officials regarding the receipt of secret information. He testified that IO had requested public persons to join the investigation, however, none joined and without Digitally signed by ISRA FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ISRA ZAIDI Page 13 of 20 ZAIDI Date:
2026.04.27 16:11:45 +0800 disclosing their names and addresses, they left and no written notice was served on any of the public person who had refused to join the investigation.
22. He further deposed that he had not requested to any public persons to join the investigation at the time of arrest of accused Yusuf. He testified that the disclosure statement of accused Yusuf was recorded at the spot, however, the remaining documents were prepared at the PS. IO had not made any arrival entry in his presence. He denied all the suggestion put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
23. PW6 HC Shakeel Ahmed, in his examination in chief deposed that on 10.08.2009, at about 10.45 p.m., IO ASI Suresh received the call regarding a firing, thereafter, he alongwith HC Rahishuddin and ASI Suresh reached at the spot i.e. Jafarabad, where they saw that public persons gathered there and other police officials were also present there and accused Aadil and Nadir were in the custody. He deposed that SI Shailendara handed over the custody of the accused persons to IO ASI Suresh. He further deposed that empty cartridges were also lying on the floor. He deposed that IO prepared some documents and also prepared the site plan. He further deposed that IO measured the cartridges and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A.
24. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 testified that he told the IO to record in his statement 161Cr.P.C that he alongwith HC Rahishuddin and ASI Suresh reached at the spot. The same was not mentioned in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC. He testified that ASI Satender along with two or three police officials from PS Seelampur already present when he reached there. he did not remember who had caught accused Aadil and Nadir. He testified that on that day, DD writer was ASI Suresh. He further testified that IO joined him in the investigation. He testified that HC Rahishuddin handed over the copy of FIR to IO ASI Suresh in the PS, thereafter, he alongwith HC Rahishuddin and IO ASI Suresh went to the spot i.e. Gali no-48, however, he did not remember the house number. He admitted that when they reached at the spot, public persons were present there. He did not Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Date:
ZAIDI 2026.04.27 Page 14 of 2016:11:52 +0800 remember whether IO asked or recorded any statement of public persons at the spot and that whether any written notice was given by the IO to them.
25. He did not know whether IO called the crime team at the spot. He did not remember whether any photographs of the spot were taken by any police officials in his presence and that who had collected empty cartridge from the spot. He testified that IO prepared seizure memo with the seal of "SK", but he did not remember whether IO had given the said seal after preparing seizure memo. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
26. PW7 Process Server HC Ashok Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that nine years ago, he went to the Jaffrabad area to initiate the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against accused persons namely Nadir and Aadir, where, he met mother of those accused persons namely Nushrat Jahan and she told him that Nadir and Aadir had not been residing with her since long back. He deposed that he recorded her statement and obtained her signature on that. He further deposed that he pasted the page at the conspicuous place. He further deposed that he enquired about the accused persons from the neighbourhood i.e. Salon and shopkeeper of General Store and then again, he pasted one copy at conspicuous place. He deposed that he also proclaimed in the open area. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
27. The case of the prosecution rests primarily upon the testimonies of police officials who were allegedly on patrolling duty at the relevant time. PW1 SI Lokender deposed that upon hearing gunshots, he and other police officials rushed to the spot and saw two rival groups firing upon each other. However, his testimony suffers from material contradictions. He stated that the case property was seized in his presence and later retracted by stating that it was not seized in his presence. He first stated that he signed the seizure memo and subsequently stated that he did not sign it. He did not remember the bore of cartridges and admitted that he did not notice any Digitally signed by FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Page 15 of 20 Date:
ZAIDI 2026.04.27 16:11:58 +0800 bullet marks were found at the spot. Despite claiming heavy firing, no damage to walls, shops or houses has been proved. His testimony appears inconsistent and unreliable due to his vacillating deposition.
28. PW3 HC Raheesuddin, deposed regarding groups firing but he admitted that he did not check for bullet marks and that no inquiry was made from local residents in his presence. He did not sign any seizure memo, site plan or arrest memo despite allegedly being present throughout. He admitted that public persons were present but did not know whether any notice was served upon them for joining investigation. He admitted that public persons were present on the spot and they observed the proceedings but no reason has been put forth for their non joinder of investigation.
29. PW4 ASI Arvind Kumar categorically admitted in his examination in chief that he did not see any accused firing due to distance and crowd. He was unable to recall the exact route taken to reach the spot and admitted that he had not signed any relevant document in the present case. He made material improvements in his testimony which were absent in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was also confronted with his previous statement mark X. His testimony does not inspire confidence.
30. PW5 admitted that he did not remember whether any DD entry was made regarding his departure or not. He admitted that no public person joined the investigation and left without disclosing their names and addresses and no written notice was served on any of the public person who had refused to join the investigation. He testified that he had not asked the school officials/chowkidars to join the investigation.
31. PW6 HC Shakeel Ahmed contradicted other witnesses regarding the Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ZAIDI 2026.04.27 16:12:06 Page 16 of 20 +0800 sequence of events. He could not state who collected cartridges or whether crime team was called. He was unsure whether SHO visited the spot. Such inconsistencies create serious doubt regarding the manner of investigation.
32. IO has recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons, but there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused persons. Arrests of some accused persons were allegedly made later on secret information. It is settled law that disclosure statements to police are inadmissible except to the extent of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, no recovery pursuant to disclosure has been effected.
33. At this stage it is germane to mention section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
"Section 27 how much of information received from the accused may be proved- provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered may be proved.
In the case of Md. Inayatulla Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC483 it was held that for the application of section 27 of the IEA the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portion which were the immediate cause of discovery would be relevant and rest must be rejected."
34. Disclosure statement cannot be admissible there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement and there is no independent witness to the same. Derivative use of custodial statement is not permissible in law. Disclosure statement is admissible only in evidence if something is recovered from the accused which is not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. Hence, the same becomes inadmissible in law.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ZAIDI 2026.04.27 Page 17 of 20
16:12:14
+0800
35. It is significant that no public witness was joined in the investigation though 20-30 public persons were allegedly present. No written notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was served upon any public person who allegedly refused to join. In a case of alleged firing in a densely populated area, failure to associate independent witnesses casts serious doubt. No independent public witness has been examined, despite the admitted fact that the spot was a densely populated residential area having shops, factories and double/triple storey houses. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which must go to the accused.
36. No photographs of the spot were taken. No bullet marks were proved. No damage to property was shown despite charge under Section 440 IPC. There is no evidence of any broken window, damaged wall, or from structures. In absence of proof of mischief, Section 440 IPC is not attracted. Though empty cartridges were allegedly recovered, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of custody. There are contradictions regarding who seized them, who signed seizure memo, and whether identification marks were affixed. No ballistic expert has been examined to connect the cartridges with any firearm or with any accused.
37. Crucially, no firearm has been recovered from any of the accused persons. It is admitted that before apprehension, accused persons allegedly passed their weapons to unknown persons. Thus, there is no recovery of weapon, no forensic report, and no evidence of conscious possession. In absence of recovery and ballistic linkage, offence under Section 27 Arms Act is not proved.
38. The testimonies reveal discrepancies regarding departure and arrival entries in the Daily Diary. Several witnesses admitted they did not remember whether Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2026.04.27
16:12:20
+0800
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 18 of 20
DD entries were made. Such lapses assume significance when the entire case hinges upon the patrolling version.
39. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal v. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29. No arrival or departure entries have been placed on record to fortify the case of the prosecution by the IO. There is no independent witness to the seizure memo.
40. The prosecution has also failed to establish the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly. Mere presence at the spot, even if assumed, does not establish common object under Section 149 IPC.
41. The cumulative effect of contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, absence of independent corroboration from any public person, non- recovery of weapon of offence,lack of ballistic evidence, absence of proof of mischief, and inconsistencies regarding seizure of cartridges renders the prosecution case doubtful. The investigation appears to be done in manner.
42. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovery and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. ZAIDI 2026.04.27Page 19 of 20
16:12:27
+0800
In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI (178 (2011) DLT 529). It was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt complicity of accused. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where, there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
43. On perusal of the documents and consideration of submissions, it is the considered opinion of the court that prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, accused Adil, Nasir, Nadir, Yusuf, Salim and Danish are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 147/148/149/440 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Pronounced in the open Court on 27.04.2026
Digitally signed
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2026.04.27
ZAIDI 16:12:35
(Isra Zaidi) +0800
Judicial Magistrate First Class-4
North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 304/2009 State Vs. Khalid Ali and Ors. Page 20 of 20