Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Salauddin on 25 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No.1207/10
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0080302010
State Vs. (1) Salauddin
S/o Abdul Haq
R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/151,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Sheikh Isrial
S/o Mohd. Aslam
R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/136,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Sheikh Aslam
S/o Navi Khan
R/o Jhuggi No.H-4/7,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(4) Sheikh Halim
S/o Sheikh Kazim
R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/182,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 12/10
Police Station: Mahendra Park
Under Section: 392/397/186/353/332/307/411/34
Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 16.4.2010
Date on which orders were reserved: 18.1.2011
Date of decision: 15.2.2011
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
1. As per the allegations on 19.1.2010 at about 8:40 pm all the accused namely Salauddin; Sheikh Israil; Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of mobile phone from the complainant Vibhuti Kumar S/o Moti Shah. Further, all the aforesaid accused persons voluntarily obstructed Ct. Sombir of Police Station Mahendra Park, a public servant while he was discharging his public functions and assaulted/ used criminal force to Ct. Sombir in the execution of his duty as public servant with intend to prevent or deter Ct. Sombir from discharging his duty as public servant. It is also alleged that all the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt with iron rod, sword, iron dagger and baseball bat to Ct. Sombir being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as public servant with intent to prevent or deter Ct. Sombir from discharging his duty as public servant. Further, as per the allegations the accused Salauddin at the time of committing robbery of mobile phone from the complainant Vibhuti Kumar, used knife a deadly weapon and retained the said mobile phone belonging to complainant Vibhuti Kumar knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be robbed property. It has also been alleged that the accused Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam were found in possession of one sword and dagger respectively, in contravention of the provisions of Arms Act.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.1.2010, DD No. 66-B was received at Police Station Mahendra Park regarding beatings St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 2 given to Ct. Sombir pursuant to which SI Ranvir Singh went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital where he collected the MLC of Ct. Sombir and recorded his statement. Ct. Sombir informed SI Ranvir Singh that he was on patrolling duty from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm and at about 8:40 pm when he reached near Red Light at the corner of Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Service Lane one person whose name he came to know later as Vibhuti Kumar informed him that four persons who were going towards Mahendra Park by crossing the red light had snatched his mobile phone on the point of knife. Thereafter Ct. Sombir followed the said four boys and apprehended one of the said boys and brought him back to the spot and started interrogating him. In the meanwhile, three other boys who were the friends of the first boy came at the spot one of whom was having a danda, one was having an iron rod and one was having a sword like object. Two of the said boys caught hold Ct. Sombir and one of the boy hit on his head with an iron road on which he received injuries and fell down.
3. On the basis of the statement of Ct. Sombir the present case FIR was got registered. Thereafter pursuant to a secret information the present accused persons have been arrested and charge sheeted.
CHARGE:
4. This court has settled the charges under Sections 186/353/332/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons namely Salauddin; Sheikh Israil; Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charges under Sections 397/411 Indian Penal Code have been settled St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 3 against the accused Salauddin to which he has also pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Charge under Section 25 of Arms Act has been settled against the accused Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
Public witness/ complainant/ injured:
6. PW5 Ct. Sombir is the complainant/ injured in the present case who has deposed that on 19.1.2010 he was posted at Police Station Mahendra Park and on that day he was on duty in Beat No.8, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar and was patrolling in the evening from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm. According to him, at about 8.40 PM (wrongly written as AM whereas it should have been PM) when he reached at the service lane, red light, Mahendra Park, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar, one boy namely Vibhuti Kumar met him who informed him that four boys who were crossing the red light had committed robbery of mobile phone with him on the point of knife. According to him, he chased the said boys and one person was apprehended by him whereas the remaining three accused persons succeeded in running away. He has testified that he interrogated the person apprehended by him whose name was known as Aslam and was brought to the spot. According to the witness, while he was interrogating the said person meanwhile three accused persons who initially ran away, came to the spot, one of them was having a danda, other was having iron rod and St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 4 third one was having sword like object. The witness has further deposed that two of them caught hold him and one of them hit the iron rod on his head as a result of which he fell down. PW7 has also deposed that the aforesaid three accused persons got released accused Sheikh Aslam and managed his escape. He has proved that thereafter he made a call to PCR on 100 number who came to the spot and took him to the hospital. According to the witness, the public witness Vibhuti Kumar had concealed his presence behind the tempo standing nearby, due to fear. The witness has proved that the investigating officer came to the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW5/A. He has testified that he joined the investigations on 21.01.2010 again when SI Ranbir Singh brought all the four accused persons in the police station, involved in this incident after which he had identified all the four accused persons as the same persons who attacked upon him and got released the accused Sheikh Aslam. He has identified the accused Salauddin as the person who had given beatings to him with iron rod; the accused Sheikh Israil and Haleem as the persons who had caught hold of him and accused Haleem who was having sword like object and Sheikh Israil was having baseball bat (danda). The witness has also identified the case property i.e. one base ball bat which is Ex.P-1 as the same which the accused Sheikh Israil was carrying and a sword like object which is Ex.P-2 as the same which the accused Sheikh Haleem was having. During the examination of the witness the iron rod has not been produced since it was sent to FSL and has not been received and the same was permitted to be exhibited at a later stage for which liberty was granted St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 5 to recall the witness on receipt of the iron rod for additional examination.
7. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that on 19.01.2010 he had joined the briefing at the police station at 5.00 PM and left the police station after lodging the departure entry but he does not remember the number of that departure entry. According to him, besides himself Ct. Surender and HC Anil Kumar were also deputed in beat no.8. He has admitted that he was carrying the walky talky along with him and that the spot is heavily crowded place in the evening. The witness has further deposed that he had not informed his superiors immediately after receiving the information from Vibhuti Kumar. He has further deposed that he had read over his statement Ex.PW5/A before signing the same and did not tell the investigating officer in his statement Ex.PW5/A about the physical appearance, facial features or the colour of the clothes worn by the four boys whom he had notice on the pointing of Vibhuti Kumar. He has denied the suggestion that complainant Vibhuti had not pointed out the accused persons while crossing the road or that he could not notice the said four boys because of heavy movement of traffic and the public persons. The witness has further deposed that he had informed the senior police officials on walky talky about the apprehension of one of the boys namely Aslam. He has testified that he had informed Ct. Prabhu Dayal, driver of the SHO about the apprehension of the accused Aslam but not to the Duty Officer or PCR which fact he did not state to the investigating officer in his statement. PW5 Ct. Sombir has also deposed that no public person St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 6 was present or had collected when the accused Sheikh Aslam was apprehended and he informed HC Anil Kumar about the incident after receiving the injuries but not before apprehension of the accused Aslam. He has denied the suggestion that there is a PCR Van based at the red light near the spot and states that the accused Mohd. Aslam was not taken to the nearest police booth by them after apprehending him. According to him, he made no efforts to call public persons when he was being attacked and he had given the name of Aslam in his initial statement Ex.PW5/A but after being confronted by his earlier statement made to the police the witness has admitted that the name of Sheikh Aslam is not mentioned in the statement and states that his age and description were given by him. He has testified that the complainant Vibhuti Kumar had pointed towards the accused persons from a distance of about 20-25 meters. He has denied the suggestion that it was a foggy and pitch dark at the time of this incident and therefore he could not see the aforesaid accused person. He has admitted that the accused persons involved in the present case had also been arrested on previous occasion and the record in this regard is available in the police station. PW5 has denied the suggestion that he was not attacked by the accused persons as deposed or that they were not involved in the alleged incident as deposed or that accused have been implicated in the present case as they were previously involved in the previous case and they have been made an escape board in the present case.
8. PW9 Vibhuti Kumar has deposed that he is doing a private job of sealing and cutting of plastic bags and on 19.1.2010 at about St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 7 8:40 pm while he was going from his factory towards Azadpur and reached near red light Mahendra Park, four boys of 20-22 years came towards him and one boy showed him a knife and other boy had a big sword like thing with him and snatched his Chinese mobile of black colour and ran away. According to him, they also tried to take his money which was in his pocket but could not succeed since he started raising an alarm on which these boys panicked and ran away. The witness has deposed that on hearing his cries/ alarm one policeman who was coming on a bike from Mahendra Park side, came towards him and he told him about the incident as to how his mobile had been snatched by the said boys. According to him, he also told the police officer the direction in which the said boys had gone on which the said police officer immediately went in that direction and returned after 10-15 minutes with one boy whom he had identified as one of the boy who had caught his collar. He has also deposed that the said boy whose name he later came know as Sallaudin (Note: in the examination in chief the witness has given the name of the boy as Salauddin but in his testimony he has given the name of the boy who was caught by Ct. Somvir at his instance, as Aslam. Therefore, there appears to be some clerical error) was stating that he has nothing to do in the matter but in the meanwhile the other three boys also came to the spot armed with iron rod, danda, baseball bat etc. and hit the policeman on his head on which the said police officer fell down. The witness has further deposed that he got scared and hid behind a tempo parked near the spot and saw that all four boys ran away thereafter. He has testified that after about five to six minutes, about four other St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 8 policemen came to the spot and he told them the details of what had happened after which the injured police officer was immediately lifted and two officers who had come took him (police official) to the hospital while he (the witness) remained at the spot with two other police officers. He has proved that the site plan of the place where the incident took place was prepared at his instance which site plan is Ex.PW9/A. The witness has also deposed that thereafter on 21.1.2010 at about 8:00 pm he was called at Police Station Mahendra Park where he was asked if he can identify the boys who had committed the snatching incident with him which he affirmed and thereafter he accompanied the police party to Sarai Pepal Thala Bus Stand where one public person informed the investigating officer (witness referred to the investigating officer SI Ranbir Singh as Sahab Ji) that four boys who had committed the incident were present at Pir Baba Mandir. He has also testified that on receiving this information, the investigating officer took him and all other police officers to Pir Baba Mandir where they found four boys standing next to the wall at a dark spot where on the pointing out of the said public person the police officers apprehended these four boys who all were carrying arms. According to him, one boy was having a Talwar, one was having a knife, another was having a danda and the 4th boy was having a rod. The witness has deposed that the said boys were brought to the police station where he identified them as the boys who had committed the incident upon him and had snatched his mobile. He has proved that the said four boys were interrogated by the police during which one of them disclosed his name as Sallaudin and the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 9 names of other three persons he does not remember. The witness has further deposed that the boy who disclosed his name as Sallaudin, took the police party to his house where he (the witness) also accompanied him and found that his mobile was kept on the top of the TV set which he identified after which the said mobile was brought by the police to the police station. He has testified that the iron rod, sword, dagger and the danda baseball was taken by the police in to possession vide memos Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW9/B & Ex.PW9/C and the sketch of the dagger which is Ex.PW9/D was also prepared. He has proved the arrest memos of the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW9/E & Ex.PW9/F and the personal search memo of the accused persons which are ExPW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW6/H and Ex.PW6/F. The witness has also deposed that the disclosure statements already Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/I & Ex.PW9/J were also recorded and his mobile phone which was recovered from the house of accused Salauddin was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court. He has correctly named and identified the accused Salauddin as the boy who had shown him the sword; the accused Aslam as the boy who had shown him the knife and snatched his mobile; the accused Halim as the boy who had slapped him and the accused Israil as the boy who had caught his collar from the back side. PW9 has also identified the accused Aslam as the boy who was caught by the police officer and the other three accused as the boys who had come to free Aslam and deposed that the Salauddin was the boy who was carrying the iron St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 10 rod, Halim was carrying a baseball bat and Israil was having a rod like weapon with him and the accused Salauddin had hit the police officer on his head with the rod. The witness has also identified the case property i.e. one base ball bat which the accused Isrial was having which is Ex.P-1; the sword like object which is Ex.P-2 which the accused Haleem was having; the Chinese mobile phone which is Ex.P-3; a dagger/ chaper (an object meant for cutting the meat) which is Ex.P-4 and one iron rod which is Ex.P-5.
9. With the permission of the court, Ld. Addl. PP for the state put leading question to the witness regarding the jacket of Ct. Somvir, during which the witness has deposed that he does not remember whether any jacket of Ct. Sombir was also taken into possession by the investigating officer. He has, however admitted his signatures on the memo Ex.PW9/K.
10. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he can read and write Hindi and had met the police officials six to seven times with respect to the present case and his statement was recorded once in the present case at the time when the accused persons were brought to the Police Station after their apprehension. He has admitted that he had signed the memos in the police station and states that he is not aware about the nature and contents of the memos that were signed by him at the police station and the same pertains to the quarrel incident which had taken place. He has denied the suggestion that he is unable to tell the nature and contents of the memos that were signed by him at police station and states that all the documents were read over to him after which he signed them. According to him, St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 11 no one else had signed the papers that were signed by him when he was called from his factory after two to three days of the apprehension of the accused persons. He has admitted that he had stated to the police in his statement that other boy had a big sword like thing with him and that they also tried to take his money which was in his pocket but could not succeed since he started raising an alarm on which these boys panicked and ran away. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/DA where this fact is not recorded. According to him, the police official parked his bike where he met him and went after the accused persons and when the first boy was apprehended at the spot on his complaint by the police officer coming on a motor bike, no personal search of the boy was taken in his presence since the police officer was making inquiries from him. He has admitted that there is a heavy vehicular traffic movement and movement of public persons on the main road towards the Jahangir Puri and Azadpur as well as on the road going towards Mahendra Park and states that no public persons gathered when he raised an alarm. The witness has further admitted that the PCR van is stationed at the crossing on the road coming from APMC office Sabzi Mandi near point A but states that no PCR van was stationed there. PW9 Vihbuti has deposed that other three boys came at the spot after about 4-5 minutes but he does not remember whether Ct. Sombir had informed the police officials narrating the incident happened with him and had also informed that he had caught one of the accused. According to the witness, he had shown and pointed out the place where the tempo was parked behind which he had hid myself and had told to the police in his statement St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 12 when they first arrived at the spot after Ct. Sombir was injured about the facial features, physical description and the colour of clothes worn by the four boys involved in the alleged incident. He has also deposed that police officials had not made any inquires from the tempo owner nor the registration number of tempo behind which he had hidden himself, was recorded. The witness has admitted that Ex.PW9/A was not prepared in his presence. He has deposed that his duty hours are from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm and has admitted that attendance register is maintained in their factory and presence is marked in the morning and in the evening also and that he resides in the said factory premises of Mr. Shukla. According to PW9, police officials made inquiries from Mr. Shukla regarding the fact that he was employed there but he is not aware whether police officials had collected the details and copy of the attendance register from his factory or Mr. Shukla and states that Mr. Shukla had accompanied him to police station only once on 20.1.2010. He has denied the suggestion that he was shown the photographs of the accused persons in the police station and states that there was no photograph of the accused outside the police station. The witness has also denied that accused were already present in the police station and he was told by the police officers that they were the boys who had committed the incident and states that he had himself gone with the police officers and the accused were apprehended on his pointing out only after which they were brought to the police station. He has admitted that public persons used to visit Pir Baba Mandir but has denied that there were lot of persons in Pir Baba Mandir on 21.1.2010 and states that St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 13 there is crowd only on Fridays. PW9 Vibhuti has admitted that public persons collected at the time of apprehension of accused persons but they were not asked to join the proceedings. According to him, he had purchased the mobile for Rs.2,500/- but did not obtain any receipt and he had told to the police about the shop from where he had purchased the mobile. The witness has also deposed that he had purchased the said mobile about five to six months prior to the incident and the said phone was working and subscribed with the Vodafone connection and he had told the police that the screen of his mobile phone was slightly cracked. He has testified that the investigating officer had not called any public persons from the neighbourhood to join the proceedings when he went to the Jhuggi of Salauddin. According to the witness, the Jhuggi was found opened and the mother and father of the accused were found present there but they were not joined in the proceedings by the investigating officer. He has denied the various suggestions put to him by the counsels for the accused.
Medical witnesses:
11. PW8 Dr. R. S. Mishra, CMO from BJRM Hospital has deposed that on 19.01.2010 he examined the patient Ct. Sombir No. 824/NW aged about 40 years S/o Rameshwar Dayal, Male brought by police officials vide MLC Ex.PW8/A. According to him, as per his opinion on the said MLC the injury on the head was simple in nature and weapon used was a blunt object. He has further deposed that on 19.03.2010 he examined the patient Sombir S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar aged about 40 years male vide Ex.PW8/B. He has testified that the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 14 patient was brought by the police for preservation of blood sample therefore, blood sample and blood gauze piece were collected and sealed with the seal of the hospital and handed over to the police constable.
Police/ official witnesses:
12. PW1 HC Vijay Singh has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Mahendra Park and on 19.1.2010 SI Ranbir Singh had deposited a pullanda sealed with the seal of RS along with its seizure memo which he entered in register no. 19 vide mad no.72/10. He has further deposed that on 21.1.2010 SI Ranbir Singh deposited four pullandas sealed with the seal of RS and one baseball stick along with five seizure memo which case property he entered in the register vide mad no.73/10. According to him, on 19.3.2010 SI Ranbir Singh deposited one blood sample pullanda sealed with the seal of MS BJRM along with the sample seal and its seizure memo which he entered vide mad no.131/10. He has proved that on 19.3.2010 he handed over three pullandas containing blood stained Khaki jacket, blood stained iron rod and blood sample along with the sample seal and FSL Form to SI Ranbir Singh vide RC No.22/21/10 for depositing in FSL Delhi which was deposited in FSL and receipt RC was handed over to him by SI Ranbir Singh. He has placed on record the relevant entries i.e. Entry No. 72/10, 73/10, 131/10 and 22/21/10 which are Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E and copy of Road Certificate Register no. 21 which is Ex.PW1/F. St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 15
13. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that his initials are not there at the bottom of column no.4 where the entry is closed nor there are no initials of SI Ranbir Singh in Column No.7 with regard to entry dated 19.3.2010. He does not remember the time when the exhibits were deposited with him by the investigating officer and has admitted that there is over writing at point A on Ex.PW1/F.
14. PW2 Ct. Bal Kishan has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A proved that on the intervening night of 19/20.1.2010 at about 9:01 pm on receipt of PCR call he recorded the DD No. 66B copy of which is Ex.PW2/B. According to him, he handed over the same DD first to HC Dharamveer and subsequently to SI Ranbir Singh for inquiry. In his cross-examination the witness has denied the suggestion that the DD entry is ante-dated and ante-
timed.
15. PW3 HC Mahender Singh has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A has deposed that on the intervening night of 19/20.1.2010 on receipt of rukka at about 10:55 pm which was sent by SI Ranbir Singh, he recorded the FIR in the present case which is Ex.PW3/B. According to him, after registration of the FIR, the investigations of the case was handed over to SI Ranbir Singh and copy of the FIR and original rukka was handed over to Ct. Raju Singh to be delivered to the investigating officer.
16. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that he had not recorded the arrival entry of police officials involved in the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 16 investigations of the present case but states that he had recorded the departure entry of police officials after receipt of PCR call. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR is ante-timed.
17. PW4 Sh. Jai Bhagwan Kaushik, ACP, Sub Division Jahangirpuri has deposed that on 19.03.2010 he was working as ACP, Sub Division Shalimar Bagh when his subordinate staff and investigating officer has submitted the case file. According to him, he perused the case file and after being satisfied he accorded sanction under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the accused persons namely Sheikh Aslam, S/o Navi Khan, Salluddin, Sheikh Israil and Sheikh Halim for the offence under Sections 392/397/186/353/332/307/411/34 IPC in case FIR No.12/10 of PS Mahendera Park, Delhi which sanction is Ex.PW4/A and the list of witnesses attached to the sanction is Ex.PW4/B. In his cross- examination the witness has denied that he has not applied his mind while according the said sanction or that he had given the sanction in mechanical manner.
18. PW6 HC Chander Beer has deposed that on 21.01.2010 he was posted at Police Station Mahendra Park and on that day he along with SI Ranbir, HC Anil, Ct. Anil, Ct. Surender, Ct. Kiran Pal and one public witness Vibhuti Kumar left the police station at about 8.00 or 8.15 PM for search of accused persons and reached at bus stand Sarai Peepal Thala. According to him, one secret informer met the investigating officer and informed that the accused persons involved in the case of robbery happened on 19.01.2010 were sitting near Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba ka Majar, Mahendra Park who were having St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 17 weapons and could be apprehended if raided after which the investigating officer conveyed this information to all of them and formed a raiding party. He has testified that thereafter they reached at the place pointed out by the secret informer and at the instance of secret informer all the four accused persons sitting there were apprehended. He has proved having apprehended the accused Salauddin who was having an iron rod in his hand which rod was measured by the investigating officer and found two feet and three inches long. He has testified that the investigating officer wrapped the same in a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RS and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. The witness has further deposed that all the accused persons were identified by Vibhuti Kumar also and the accused Aslam was having a dagger, the accused Sheikh Haleem was having a sword and the accused Sheikh Israil was having a baseball Bat/danda. He has testified that the accused Salauddin was interrogated in his presence and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW6/B after which all the accused persons took them to the spot and pointed out the place of incident where the investigating officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW6/C. PW6 has deposed that in pursuance to his disclosure statement, the Salauddin took them to his jhuggi bearing no. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri along with co-accused persons and got recovered one Chinese mobile phone from/ on the TV stated to have been looted from Vibhuti Kumar which mobile phone was identified by Vibhuti Kumar. According to him, the said mobile was also sealed with the seal of RS and the parcel containing mobile St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 18 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/D. He has proved that the accused persons were arrested in the present case vide separate memo and he had signed the arrest memo of accused Salauddin which is Ex.PW6/E and his personally searched was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/F. The witness has further deposed that he had participated in the investigation of accused Salaudin only and all the accused persons were taken to BJRM Hospital for their medical examination and Ct. Sombir had also identified the accused persons in the police station. According to him, the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court.
19. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he is not aware whether the investigating officer had recorded the DD entry regarding the presence of the witness Vibhuti Kumar in police station on 21.01.2010 at about 8.00 or 8.15PM but states that they had informed the SHO that they shall be leaving for the raid along with the public witness. He has testified that they reached at bus stand Sarai Peepal Thala at about 8.20 to 8.25 PM and the investigating officer had not reduced the secret information into writing but he is not aware if the investigating officer had informed the Duty Officer or the SHO about the secret information. The witness has admitted that the place of apprehension i.e. Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba Ka Majar, Mahendra Park is surrounded by thoroughfare and residential complexes are situated at some distance and that public persons were present there. According to the witness, the investigating officer did not ask any passerby to join the raiding party in his presence and no St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 19 public person came after the apprehension of the accused persons. He has further admitted that on seeing them accused persons tried to fleeing from the spot and states that they apprehended the accused before they could leave the place. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons were able to see the police party from the place where they were sitting and has testified that they reached at the spot by hiding themselves and has admitted that there were no bushes where the accused were sitting. The witness has further admitted that some of the writing work was done while sitting in the police station and some on the spot but the statements of witness were recorded in the police station and other writing work was done at the spot. According to him, the jhuggi of Salauddin was double storied but he does not remember whether the investigating officer had called public persons from the locality before conducting proceedings at Jhuggi No. H-2/151 Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He has deposed that the jhuggi was found open and public persons were found present in the jhuggi. He is not aware if the investigating officer had taken any documentary proof pertaining to ownership of Jhuggi No. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri. He has deposed that he was standing outside the jhuggi and was shown the mobile by Vibhuti Kumar outside the jhuggi stating that it was his mobile. He has denied that he had not joined the investigation as deposed or that nothing incriminating was recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the accused.
20. PW7 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on 21.01.2010 he alongwith SI Ranbir, HC Chander Beer, Ct. Anil, Ct. Surender, Ct. Kiran Pal and one public witness Vibhuti Kumar left the police station St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 20 at about 8.00 or 8.15 PM for the search of accused persons and reached at bus stand Sarai Peepal Thala. According to him, one secret informer met the investigating officer and informed that the accused persons involved in the case of robbery happened on 19.01.2010 are sitting near Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba ka Majar, Mahendra Park who were having weapons and could be apprehended if raided. According to the witness, the investigating officer conveyed this information to all of them and formed a raiding party after which they reached at the place pointed out by the secret informer and at the instance of secret informer all the four accused persons sitting there were apprehended. He has proved having apprehended the accused Sheikh Halim who was having a sword like object rod in his hand which sword was measured by the investigating officer, handle of the same was of 10.1 cm, its blade was 46.2 cm and the width of the blade was of 2.5 cm. The witness has testified that the investigating officer wrapped the same in a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RS and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The witness has further deposed that all the accused persons were identified by Vibhuti Kumar also. He has testified that the accused Aslam was having a dagger, the accused Sheikh Israil was having a baseball Bat/ danda and accused Salauddin was having an iron rod. PW7 has also testified that the accused Sheikh Halim was interrogated in his presence and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW7/B. The witness has also deposed that all the accused persons took them to the spot and pointed out the place of incident where the investigating officer prepared the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 21 pointing out memo which is Ex.PW6/C. According to him, pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Salauddin took them to jhuggi bearing no. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri along with co-accused persons and got recovered one Chinese mobile phone from/ on the TV stated to have been looted from one Vibhuti Kumar which the witness Vibhuti Kumar had identified after which the said mobile was sealed with the seal of RS and the parcel containing mobile was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/D. He has proved that the accused persons were arrested in the present case vide separate memos and he had singed the arrest memo of accused Sheikh Haleem which is Ex.PW7C and the accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW7/D. According to the witness, he had participated in the investigation of accused Sheikh Halim only and thereafter all the accused person were taken to BJRM Hospital for their medical examination. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. the sword which was recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Halim which is Ex. P.2 and one mobile phone belonging to complainant Vibhuti and got recovered by accused Salauddin which is Ex. P.3.
21. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the investigating officer had recorded the departure entry on 21.01.2010 when they left the police station for investigation of the present case but he does not remember whether he had signed the departure entry nor does he remember the number of the DD entry. He is not aware whether the complete record of the accused persons involved in the present case is available in the police station being involved in the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 22 other cases also. He is also not aware whether the secret information was passed on to the superior police officials by the investigating officer and has admitted that the disclosure statement of accused Sheikh Halim was recorded after his arrest who had signed on the disclosure statement Ex.PW7/B on the last page but he does not remember whether the signatures were obtained on each page of the disclosure statement. He does not remember whether the jhuggi no. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri is a single storied, double storied or a multi- storied one but states that it was found open when they went there. According to him, he did not enter the jhuggi and remained outside and states that besides himself, the arrest memo and personal search memo were signed by Vibhuti Kumar as attesting witness. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation as deposed or that nothing incriminating was recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the accused.
22. PW10 HC Surender has deposed that on 21.01.2010 he along with SI Ranbir, HC Chander Beer, HC Anil, Ct Anil and one public witness Vibhuti Kumar left the police station at about 8.00 or 8.15 PM for the search of accused persons and reached at bus stand Sarai Peepal Thala. According to him, one secret informer met the investigating officer and informed that the accused persons involved in the case of robbery happened on 19.01.2010 are sitting near Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba ka Majar, Mahendra Park who were having weapons and could be apprehended if raided. He has further deposed that the investigating officer told this information to all of them and formed a raiding party after which they reached at the place pointed St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 23 out by the secret informer where at the instance of secret informer all the four accused persons hiding behind the wall were apprehended. He has testified that HC Anil apprehended the accused Sheikh Halim who was having a sword in his hand and he apprehended the accused Sheikh Aslam who was having a dagger in his hand the khaka of the which dagger was prepared which is Ex.PW9/B and the dagger was measured on which it was found to have a total length of 27.6 cm with a handle of 11.6 cms and blade of 16 cms and the width of blade was 6.3 cms. According to him, thereafter the dagger was converted into a pullanda with a help of cloth and seized vide memo Ex.PW9/B. The witness has further deposed that the accused Sheikh Israil was having a baseball Bat/danda and accused Salauddin was having an iron rod. He has proved that the accused Sheikh Aslam was interrogated in his presence and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW9/J. PW9 has deposed that the public witness Vibhuti Kumar was also present and had identified all the accused persons as the boys who had committed snatching incident with him. The witness has also deposed that all the accused persons took them to the spot and pointed out the place of incident where the investigating officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW6/C and pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Salauddin took them to his jhuggi bearing no. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri along with other accused persons including Aslam and got recovered one Chinese mobile phone from/ on the TV stated to have been snatched from one Vibhuti Kumar which the witness Vibhuti Kumar had identified after which the said mobile was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 24 of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. According to him, the accused persons were arrested in the present case vide separate memos and he had singed the arrest memo of accused Sheikh Aslam which is Ex.PW9/E who was personally searched vide memo which is Ex.PW9/G and he had participated in the investigation of accused Sheikh Aslam only. The witness has also deposed that all the accused persons led the police party to the spot where the investigating officer prepared the pointing out memo which is already Ex.PW6/C after which all the accused person were taken to BJRM Hospital for their medical examination. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. one baseball bat which was recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Israil, which is Ex. P.1; one sword recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Halim which is Ex. P.2; one mobile phone belonging to complainant Vibhuti and got recovered by accused Salauddin which is Ex. P.3; one dagger recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Aslam which is Ex.P.4 and an iron rod recovered from the possession of accused Salauddin which is Ex. P.5.
23. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had recorded the DD entry of leaving the Police Station which was containing the information regarding the presence of the witness Vibhuti Kumar in police station on 21.01.2010 at about 8.00 or 8.15PM but he is unable to tell the DD Number. According to him, the investigating officer had reduced the secret information into writing and in his presence the investigating officer had asked some St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 25 public persons to join the raiding party but he is unable to tell their names and addresses. He has further deposed that there was no crowd of public persons at the spot after the accused were apprehended and the accused did not try to run away from the spot since they were not given that opportunity and they apprehended the accused. The witness has further deposed that the investigating officer prepared the site plan at the place where the accused were apprehended and that the entire writing work was done while sitting at the spot, in front of the Mazar. The witness has testified that the jhuggi of Salauddin is a Pakka structure and is a double storied structure and was found opened and some ladies were found inside the jhuggi. According to PW10, he did not ask those ladies the relationship with Salauddin and he is unable to tell whether they were related to Salauddin or not. He does not remember if the investigating officer prepared the site plan of jhuggi of Salauddin or not nor is he able to tell if the investigating officer had asked Salauddin to whom the mobile belong and states that Vibhuti kumar had identified the phone as belonging to him. He has deposed that Vibhuti Kumar did not give any receipt or documentary record to the investigating officer in his presence to show his ownership of mobile phone nor is he aware whether the investigating officer had collected any such document such as bill from Vibhuti Kumar regarding the same. According to him, the investigating officer had mentioned the complete case particulars on the pulanda used for sealing the mobile phone and the signatures of the persons present in the jhuggi were not taken on the seizure memo of the mobile. He has testified that they came back at the police station at St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 26 about 11.15-11.30PM and he did not go to the spot of the incident again and Ct. Somvir was already present in the police station when they reached there. He has admitted that the disclosure statement of Aslam was taken in his presence but he is unable to tell the number of pages of disclosure statement. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that nothing incriminating was recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the accused.
24. PW11 SI Ranvir Singh is the investigating officer who has deposed that on 19.01.2010, on receipt of DD No.66B which is Ex.PW2/B regarding beating given to Ct. Sombir already from PCR, he reached BJRM hospital and collected the MLC of Ct. Sombir who was declared fit for statement. According to him, Ct. Raju Singh and HC Dharambir were already present in the hospital and he recorded the statement of Ct. Sombir which is Ex.PW5/A and he prepared rukka which is Ex.PW11/A and Ct. Raju Singh was sent to Police Station for registration of the case. He has deposed that he along with HC Dharambir reached at the spot where one Vibhuti met him and has given his statement after which he took HC Dharambir and Vibhuti to the hospital where Ct. Sombir had given his jacket worn by him at the time of incident which was sealed with the seal of RS and taken into possession vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/K. According to him, they all came to the spot where he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW9/A at the instance of Vibhuti and Ct. Raju Singh had also come to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He has testified that he made efforts to trace the accused persons but they could not be traced till then and he deposited St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 27 the parcel containing Jacket with the MHC(M). The witness has testified that on 21.01.2010 he along with HC Surender, HC Chander Beer, HC. Anil, Ct Anil and one public witness Vibhuti Kumar left the police station at bout 8.00 or 8.15 PM for search of the accused persons and reached at bus stand Sarai Peepal Thala where one secret informer met the investigating officer and informed that the accused persons involved in the case of robbery happened on 19.01.2010 were sitting near Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba ka Majar, Mahendra Park who were having weapons and could be apprehended if raided which information he communicate to all the members of police party and formed a raiding party. According to him, thereafter they reached at the place pointed out by the secret informer and at the instance of secret informer all the four accused persons hiding behind the wall were apprehended. He has testified that HC Anil apprehended the accused Sheikh Halim who was having a sword in his hand; HC Surender apprehended accused Sheikh Aslam who was having a dagger in his hand the khaka of which was prepared which is Ex.PW9/D and the dagger was measured which was found to have a total length of 27.6 cms with a handle of 11.6 cms and blade of 16 cms and the width of blade was 6.3 cms. He has testified that the said dagger was converted into a pullanda with a help of cloth and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW9/B. According to the investigating officer, the accused Sheikh Israil was having a baseball Bat/danda and accused Salauddin was having an iron rod and accused Sheikh Aslam was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW9/J. He has further proved having sealed St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 28 the iron rod with the seal of RS and taken into possession vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW6/A and the sword was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The witness has further deposed that the baseball bat/ danda was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW9/C and all the accused persons were arrested vide memos which are Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H and Ex.PW6/F. According to him, the accused were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded which are Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/I and Ex.PW9/J and thereafter all the accused persons led them to the spot of incident where he prepared the memo to this effect which is Ex.PW6/C. The witness has further deposed that in pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused Salauddin, he took them to his jhuggi bearing no. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri along with other accused persons including Aslam and got recovered one Chinese mobile phone from/ on the TV stated to have been snatched from one Vibhuti Kumar which the witness Vibhuti Kumar had identified. PW11 has deposed that the said mobile was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D and the accused persons were medically examined and were produced before the concerned court on the next day and were sent to judicial custody. The investigating officer has proved having collected the result on MLC of Ct. Sombir as simple on the head and he took the blood sample and St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 29 sample seal of the injured Ct. Sombir from the doctor and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW11/B. He has testified that he moved an application before the CMO seeking opinion of the injury possible with the iron rod vide his application which is Ex.PW11/C and the doctor R.S. Mishra, CMO has given his report on his application itself at point B. He has proved having obtained the sanction under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B from Assistant Commissioner of Police. He has deposed that he deposited the exhibits to FSL Rohini and the same has been collected by him which is placed on record vide his application Ex.PW11/D which result is Ex.PW11/E and Ex.PW11/F and the forwarding letter is Ex.PW11/G. The witness has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the challan after necessary investigations. He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court and the case property i.e. a baseball bat which was recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Israil which is Ex.P.1; sword recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Halim which is Ex.P.2; one mobile phone belonging to complainant Vibhuti and got recovered by accused Salauddin which is Ex. P.3; dagger recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Aslam, which is Ex. P.4 and an iron rod recovered from the possession of accused Salauddin which is Ex.P.5.
25. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had not collected the PCR form in this case and it is the PCR officials who got admitted Ct. Sombir at BJRM Hospital but he had not made St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 30 enquiries from any of the PCR officials at BJRM Hospital since they had already left when he reached there. According to him he reached the hospital at about 9.15PM. He has testified that he had not got any information regarding Vibhuti Kumar vide DD No. 66B and he was informed about Vibhuti Kumar by Ct. Sombir at the time of recording of his statement and he met Ct. Sombir at about 9.25PM. He has deposed that the statement of Ct. Sombir at about 9.40 PM and has admitted that doctors and nurses were present in emergency ward at the time of recording of statement of Ct. Sombir but he had not joined doctors and nurses present in the ward in the investigation. He has testified that he left the hospital at about 10.40PM and Vibhuti Kumar met at the spot at about 10.45PM for the first time. According to him, Ct. Sombir had told him about the facial, physical and about the description of accused who was first apprehended by him but Ct. Sombir had not told him about facial, physical and about the description of other three accused persons who were attacked him and states that he told him that they were in the age group of 20 to 22 years. He has further deposed that he had not examined HC Yashpal as an witness in the present case and when he reached the hospital, the MLC was being prepared. The witness has further deposed that no doctor had signed the seizure memo of the jacket and Vibhuti Kumar and Ct. Sombir had signed on the seizure memo of the jacket and he had not obtained the initials of any witness on the site plan Ex.PW9/A prepared at the instance of Vibhuti wherein he had shown the spot where the snatching incident of Vibhuti had taken place but did not show the points from where Ct. Sombir had met Vibhuti and St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 31 the place from where Vibhuti had watched the incident. According to the investigating officer he had not made any enquiries from the tempo owner since he was not found available nor had he noted down the tempo number also. The witness has testified that Ct. Raju took the rukka to Police Station at about 10.40PM and returned back at the spot with the copy of the FIR at about 11.30-11.45PM. He has admitted that notice board carrying information and photographs about the wanted persons, persons involved in various crimes, externies of the area as well as duty charts and legal guidelines is present in Police Station Mahendra Park and that the infrastructural requirement of the police station would be as per Punjab Police Rules. According to him, he left the spot finally on 19.01.2010 at about 11.30-12.00PM (Midnight) nor did he record any DD entry pertaining to the fact that Vibhuti Kumar had arrived at the police station at about 8.00 or 8.15PM. He has testified that he did not reduce the secret information into writing and had not passed on the contents of secret information received to the SHO and other police officers of Police Station Mahendra Park. He has admitted that the place of apprehension i.e. Shah Alam Bandh, Peer Baba Ka Majar, Mahendra Park is surrounded by thoroughfare and residential complexes are situated at some distance but has denied the suggestion that public persons were present there. The witness has testified that he did not ask any public persons from the residential houses to join the raiding party and there was no crowd of public persons at the spot after the accused were apprehended. PW11 has denied the suggestion that accused persons were able to see the police party from the place St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 32 where they were sitting and states that it was a hidden place behind the wall whereas they came from the other side. The witness has further deposed that on Thursdays large number of persons go to the Mazar for offering prayer and Chadar but states that on the date of the incident it was very cold and nobody was present. According to him, there are no bushes at the place where the accused persons were sitting and states that one tree is present there but he did not show this tree in the site plan prepared by him. He has denied the suggestion that the entire writing work was done while sitting in the Police Station and that some of the memo were prepared by him and some were prepared by other staff. The investigating officer has deposed that the jhuggi of Salauddin is a Pukka structure and is a double storied structure and he had called public persons and neighbour from the locality before conducting proceedings at Jhuggi No.H-2/151 Jahangirpuri, Delhi but none agreed and he had not noted down the names and addresses of those public persons. He has testified that he had not taken any legal action against those public persons on their refusal to join the investigation. According to the witness, the jhuggi was found opened and one lady was found inside the jhuggi but he did not ask the lady her relationship with Salauddin and had not prepared the site plan of jhuggi of Salauddin. He has deposed that he had not checked the mobile phone nor had he taken any receipt of ownership from Vibhuti Kumar and submits that Vibhuti Kumar was not having any receipt in this regard. He has denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation fairly or that nothing incriminating was recovered either from the possession or at the instance of the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 33 accused.
Statement of accused/ defence witness:
26. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Salauddin has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role to play in the alleged incident in any manner. According to him, he was not present at the spot as alleged and was lifted near his shop. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from him and the recovery if any has been planted upon him.
27. The accused Sheikh Halim has also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role to play in the alleged incident in any manner. According to him, he was not present at the spot as alleged and was lifted near his shop. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from him and the recovery if any has been planted upon him.
28. The accused Sheikh Isrial has further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role to play in the alleged incident in any manner. According to him, he was not present at the spot as alleged and was lifted near his shop. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from him and the recovery if any has been planted upon him.
29. Also, the accused Sheikh Aslam has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role to St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 34 play in the alleged incident in any manner. According to him, he was not present at the spot as alleged and was lifted near his shop. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from him and the recovery if any has been planted upon him.
30. The accused Salauddin has examined his neighbour Mohd.
Yaqub as his witness as DW1 who has deposed that he is running a Rickshaw Garage at S-2 Jhuggi, Jahangir Puri near Church for the last 10-12 years. According to him, accused Salauddin is his neighbour as he resides near the place of his work and on 19.1.2010 at about 12 - 1:00 noon he was present in his garage when he saw three to four officials came there and lifted the accused Salauddin after which they put the accused in their vehicle and took him away. According to the witness, nothing was recovered in his presence from the accused Salauddin.
31. In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that mother of accused Salauddin is having a tea stall near his garage and is known to him but the accused Salauddin is not related to him. According to him, he did not tell any senior police officers or any authority that accused Salauddin had been lifted by the police official nor he made any 100 number call to inform them about the lifting of accused by the police. He has testified that out of three to four persons, two were in uniform and two were in civil dress. He has denied the suggestion that he is related to accused and has deposed only to save him or that no such incident had happened due to which reason he did not give any complaint to any senior officer.
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 35FINDINGS:
32. I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused persons. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons and the evidence on record.
33. Firstly in so far as the identity of the accused Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim have been duly identified by Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) and the injured/ complainant Ct. Sombir (PW5). The testimonies of both Vibhuti Kumar (PW5) and Ct. Sombir (PW9) corroborated each other on the aforesaid aspect and they have both identified the accused Sheikh Aslam as the person who had been apprehended by Ct. Sombir after Vibhuti Kumar complained him regarding the robbery and the accused Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim as the boys who came back to the spot later duly armed with iron rod, baseball bat (danda) and dagger and attacked Ct. Sombir and freed their associate/ accused Sheikh Aslam and thereafter fled from the spot.
34. Secondly Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) has duly identified the accused Salauddin as the boy who had shown a sword like object to him; the accused Sheikh Aslam as the boy who had shown him the knife and snatched his mobile; the accused Sheikh Halim as the boy who had slapped him and the accused Shekh Isrial as the boy who had caught his collar from the back side.
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 3635. Thirdly it has been established from the testimonies of both Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) and Ct. Sombir (PW5) that it was the accused Salauddin who was carrying an iron rod, Sheikh Halim who was carrying a sword like object and accused Sheikh Isrial who was carrying a baseball bat/ danda both of whom caught hold Ct. Sombir while Ct. Sombir had caught hold of accused Sheikh Aslam at the instance of Vibhuti Kumar and was interrogating him and the accused Salauddin as the person who hit Ct. Sombir on his head with the rod as a result of which Ct. Sombir sustained injured after which they all got the accused Aslam freed and fled away from the spot.
36. Fourthly Dr. R.S. Mishra (PW8) has proved the MLC of the injured Ct. Sombir (PW5) and has opined the injures on his head caused by the accused as simple and blunt to which there is no rebuttal. The MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW8/A shows that the injured Ct. Sombir was taken to the hospital by the PCR with an alleged history of beatings caused by chain snatchers while trying to catch them. The injured was found bleeding from the right side of forehead which wound had to be stitched which aspect has not been rebutted..
37. Fifthly the arrest of all the accused namely Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam on 21.1.2010 has been validly proved by HC Chander Beer (PW6) and HC Anil Kumar (PW7) which finds a due corroboration from the testimony of Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) and SI Ranvir Singh (PW11). PW9 Vibhuti Kumar has specifically deposed that on 21.1.2010 he had gone to the Police St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 37 Station and joined the investigations along with the investigating officer and had identified the accused persons after their apprehension, to which aspect there is no rebuttal.
38. Sixthly the recovery of the dagger from the possession of accused Sheikh Aslam, baseball bat/ danda from the possession of accused Sheikh Isrial, iron rod from the possession of accused Salauddin and sword from the possession of accused Sheikh Halim have been duly proved by prosecution witnesses namely HC Chander Beer (PW6), HC Anil Kumar (PW7) and SI Ranvir Singh (PW11).
39. Seventhly the recovery of Chinese Mobile Phone from the Jhuggi of accused Salauddin after his apprehension has also been proved which mobile phone Ex.P-3 has been duly identified by Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) as that belonging to him which was snatched by the accused, in accordance with law.
40. Eighthly the sanction under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure has been duly proved by PW4 ACP Jai Bhagwan Kaushik which sanction is Ex.PW4/A and has gone unrebutted.
41. Ninthly the counsels/ Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused persons have highlighted the various discrepancies/ contradictions in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses. It is argued that PW9 Vibhuti Kumar has in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the accused Isrial was carrying baseball bat and Halim was carrying baseball bat and Halim was carrying an iron sword whereas in his statement before this court, he has deposed that Halim had slapped him only and Isrial caught hold his collar from the St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 38 back side. It is further argued by the Ld. Amicus Curiae that PW5 Ct. Sombir has admitted that the area was heavily crowded in the evening time but he did not ask any any public witness to join the investigations and hence the testimonies or he various witnesses of the police are required to be discarded. According to the Ld. Counsel the MLC of the injured shows that the nature of injuries were simple head injury and weapon used is a blunt object which injury could be caused by any solid object but certainly not from the iron rod since if the injury was caused by an iron rod then there would have a deep cut on the head and the injured could not have been discharged from the hospital on the same day. It is further pointed out that Ct. Sombir (PW5) has deposed that no public person were present or had collected when he apprehended the accused Sheikh Aslam whereas PW9 Vibhuti Kumar has testified that public persons had collected at the time of apprehension of the accused Sheikh Aslam. It has also been argued that the investigating officer did not join any public person despite the fact that the spot from where the accused persons were allegedly apprehended is a public place i.e. Pir Baba Ki Mazar and it is very unusual that the accused persons who were having arms did not resist their arrest by police to avoid their arrest.
42. I have considered the submissions made before me. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 39 improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 40 sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
43. Further, as regards the contradictions in the timings, presence of a particular police official at a particular time, storeys of the house of the accused etc., I am of the considered that the same are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the injured/ complainant Ct. Sombir (PW5) and Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted in the present case. Even St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 41 otherwise, the alleged contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as the same relate to the investigation including going of the police officials to the house of the accused, etc. Merely due to the contradictions in the evidence regarding investigation or even if there is faulty investigation, the same do not absolve the accused of his liability as it is the evidence of the material and star witnesses which is more important than the evidence of the witnesses of the investigation.
44. As regards the above discrepancies, it may be observed that the same are too minor to be even taken into consideration. All the discrepancies in the timings as pointed out by the counsel for the accused are to immaterial can be ignored attributing the same to the lapse of time as the material facts have been substantially proved by the prosecution.
45. Further, in so far as the aspect of non joining of public witnesses at the time of arrest of the accused persons is concerned, it is evident that the victim Vibhuti Kumar who is himself a person from the public was present along with police party through out the investigations and the apprehension and arrest of the accused was in his presence. The victim Vibhuti Kumar has duly identified all the accused and has attributed specific role to each one of them whose testimony finds due corroboration from the testimony of Ct. Sombir the injured police officer. This being the background, the main incident having been proved, the minor lapses in proceedings are liable to be ignored.
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 4246. Lastly it is argued that the accused cannot be held liable jointly. In this regard, I may mention that Section 34 has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 43 similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all"
nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(3) SCC 793.
47. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that there is ample material on record to prove that all the accused persons Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam have joined and shared common intention which is evident from the fact that initially they all acted in consortium and had robbed the victim Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) by St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 44 showing him a dangerous weapon and thereafter when Ct. Sombir (PW5), the Beat Constable of the area had come to the spot on the alarm raised by Vibhuti Kumar and managed to apprehend accused Sheikh Aslam, his three other associates namely Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim came back to the spot duly armed with iron rod, baseball bat (danda) and dagger and while accused Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim caught hold of him, accused Sombir hit him on his head as a result of which he received injuries and fell down and they managed to freed the accused Aslam and fled from the spot. This being so, all the accused liable for the alleged acts of violation.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
48. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned ' must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 453. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
49. Applying the settled principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the identity of the accused persons has been duly proved by the injured Ct. Sombir (PW5) whose testimony finds a due corroboration from the testimony of Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) the victim who was robbed by the accused. The incident of robbery which the accused committed with Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) also stands established. It is further proved that immediately after the incident Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) stopped the Beat Constable namely Ct. Sombir who was on patrolling duty and informed him of the same and also pointed out the direction where the accused had gone. It is also established that Ct. Sombir went in the direction pointed out by Vibhuti Kumar and succeed in apprehending one of the robbers whose name was revealed as Sheikh Aslam. It is further established that while Ct. Sombir (PW5) was in the process of interrogating the accused Sheikh Aslam, other accused namely Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim came to the spot duly armed with an iron rod, St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 46 baseball bat and sword like object and attacked him as a result of which Ct. Sombir received injuries and the accused managed to get freed the accused Aslam and ran away from the spot while Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) getting scared hid himself behind a tempo which fact finds a corroboration from the testimony of Vibhuti Kumar (PW9). It also stands proved that on a secret information all the four accused persons were duly apprehended on 21.1.2010 along with the weapons i.e. baseball bat, dagger, iron rod and sword like object which the injured/ complainant Ct. Sombir (PW5) and Vibhuti Kumar (PW9) have duly identified in the court as that being used by the accused persons while committing the offence of robbery. The prosecution has also proved the recovery of Chinese Mobile Phone from the Jhuggi of accused Salauddin which phone was robbed from Viphuti Kumar (PW9). Further, it has been proved that the accused Sheikh Halim was found in the possession of one sword like object and the accused Sheikh Aslam was having a dagger in contravention of the provisions of Arms Act and notification of Delhi Administration.
50. This being so, I hereby hold all the accused persons namely Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 r/w 332/34 and Section 392 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, I hold the accused Salauddin guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 r/w 332/34, Section 392 read with 397 and Section 411 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. A sword like object was recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Halim and a dagger was recovered from the possession of accused Sheikh Aslam, both of St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 47 which are prohibited arms as per the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No.F.13/203/78-Home (C) since at the time of their arrest the accused Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam were found in possession of the aforesaid arms at a public place. I, therefore, hold the accused Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim guilty of the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act for which they have been accordingly convicted.
51. Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 22.2.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 15.2.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 48 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No.1207/10 State Vs. (1) Salauddin S/o Abdul Haq R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/151, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (2) Sheikh Isrial S/o Mohd. Aslam R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/136, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (3) Sheikh Aslam S/o Navi Khan R/o Jhuggi No.H-4/7, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (4) Sheikh Halim S/o Sheikh Kazim R/o Jhuggi No. H-2/182, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. FIR No.: 12/10 Police Station: Mahendra Park Under Section: 392/397/186/353/332/307/411/34 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 15.2.2011 Arguments heard on: 22.2.2011 Date of sentence: 25.2.2011 St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 49 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. PP for the State.
All the convicts are in judicial custody with Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, Sh. Anil Bhardwaj and Sh. D.K. Pandey Advocates.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 15.2.2011 this court has held the accused namely Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 read with 332/34 and Section 392 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, the accused Salauddin has been held guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 read with 332/34, 392 read with 397 and 411 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. The accused Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam have also been held guilty of the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act for which they are accordingly convicted.
The case of the prosecution is that on 19.1.2010 Ct. Sombir was on patrolling duty from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm and at about 8:40 pm when he reached near Red Light at the corner of Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Service Lane one person whose name he came to know later as Vibhuti Kumar informed him that four persons who were going towards Mahendra Park by crossing the red light, had snatched his mobile phone on the point of knife. Thereafter Ct. Sombir followed the said four boys and apprehended one of them and brought him back to the spot and started interrogating him. In the meanwhile, St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 50 three other boys who were the friends of the first boy and had managed to flee came back to the spot. One of whom was armed with a danda, one was having an iron rod and one was having a sword like object. Two of the said boys caught hold of Ct. Sombir and one of the boy hit on his head with an iron rod on which he received injuries and fell down. On the basis of the statement of Ct. Sombir the present case was registered. On 21.1.2010 all the four accused persons were arrested pursuant to a secret information. During the course of trial, the injured/ complainant Sombir and the victim Vibhuti Kumar have appeared in the court and duly identified all the accused persons. Ct. Sombir has identified the accused Sheikh Aslam as the boy who was first apprehended by him and while he was interrogating him the accused Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim came at the spot. He has identified the accused Salauddin as the boy who had given him beating with iron rod and the accused Sheikh Isrial and Sheikh Halim as the boys who had caught hold of him. He has further identified accused Sheikh Halim as the boy who was having a sword like object in his hand and the accused Sheikh Irial as the boy who was having a baseball bat (danda). On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly Ct. Somvir and Vibhuti Kumar, this court has held the accused Salauddin, Sheikh Isrial, Sheikh Aslam and Sheikh Halim guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 r/w 332/34 and Section 392 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, the accused Salauddin has been held guilty of the offence under Sections 186, 353 r/w 332/34, Section 392 read with 397 and Section 411 Indian Penal Code and St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 51 accordingly convicted. The accused Sheikh Halim and Sheikh Aslam have also been held guilty of the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act for which they have been accordingly convicted.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convicts has vehemently argued all the convicts are young boys and have remained in judicial custody for a considerable period of time. Ld. counsel for the convict Halim submits that the father of the convict has now expired and there is no one to take care of his wife and one year old daughter of the convict Halim. It is requested that a lenient view be taken against the convicts.
The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment to the convicts keeping in view the fact that the convicts have not only robbed the mobile phone from Vibhuti Kumar but are desperate criminal who have no respect for law, who while getting their associate Aslam freed, have also caused injuries to Ct. Sombir on his head and obstructed him from discharging his official duties.
The convict Salauddin is a young boy of 21 years having a family comprising of widow mother, five brothers and four sisters. He is totally illiterate and was doing the work of catering. He is also involved in five other cases i.e. FIR No. 495/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 186/353/506/332/34 IPC; FIR No. 414/09, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 380/451/323IPC; FIR No. 851/03, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 380/511 IPC; FIR No.134/09, Police Station St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 52 Jahangir Puri, Under Section 399/402 IPC and FIR No. 5110/08, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 392/411/34 IPC.
The convict Isrial is also a young boy of 21 years having a family comprising of parents, three brothers and three sisters. He is 5th class pass and was working in a factory. He is not involved in any other case and is a first time offender.
The convict Sheikh Halim is also a young boy of 21 years having a family comprising of wife and one year old daughter. He is 7th class pass and was working as Helper and is not involved in any other case and is a first time offender.
The convict Sheikh Aslam is aged about 22 years having a family comprising of widow mother, one brother and three sisters. He is 4th class pass and had a chicken shop. He is also involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No.526/06, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act; FIR No.542/05, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 394/34 IPC and FIR No.538/09, Police Station Jahangir Puri, Under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
I have considered the rival contentions. Law and order situation has been deteriorating in the country and has worsen in the recent past. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. They unhesitatingly and indiscriminately use dangerous firearms on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. Undue sympathy, under these circumstances, to impose inadequate sentence St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 53 would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society cannot long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to award a sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. (Ref: Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463).
No leniency can be shown to persons who have no respect for life. Anyone who does not hesitate to take the law into his hands does not deserve any leniency and any indulgence by the court, under these circumstances, can be misplaced.
I, therefore, award the following sentence to the convict Saluaddin:
1. The convict Salauddin is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
2. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code.
3. Further, the convict Salauddin is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years for the offence under Section 353 read with 332 Indian Penal Code.St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 54
4. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Sheikh Isrial is awarded the following sentences:
1. The convict Sheikh Isrial is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
2. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 186 IPC.
3. Further, the convict Sheikh Isrial is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 353 read with 332 Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
In so far as the convict Sheikh Aslam is concerned, he is awarded the following sentences:
1. The convict Sheikh Aslam is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 392 IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
2. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 55 Code.
3. Further, the convict Sheikh Aslam is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 353 read with 332 Indian Penal Code.
4. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict Sheikh Halim is awarded the following sentences:
1. The convict Sheikh Halim is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code.
In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
2. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code.
3. Further, the convict Sheikh Halim is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 353 read with 332 Indian Penal Code.
4. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/- for the offence St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 56 under Section 25 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
All the convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the legal Aid cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 25.2.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Saluddin Etc., FIR No. 12/10, PS Mahendra Park Page No. 57