Delhi District Court
State vs Akram on 5 October, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE/NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 77/2019
CNR No. DLNE01-001053-2019
STATE Versus (1). Akram
S/o Hasmat
R/o E-10/A-13, Jhuggi J-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(2). Shahrukh @ Wanted
S/o Laddan
R/o H-1/158,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(3). Sohail @ Sunny
S/o Farukh
R/o H-1/180-181,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(4). Ajmat @ Ajju
S/o Hasmat
R/o E-10/A-13, Jhuggi J-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(5). Waseem @ Mota
S/o Kamruddin
R/o E-10/B-405, Jhuggi J-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(6). Vishu @ Piyush @ Ashu
S/o Bharat Bhushan Arora
R/o C-25, Gali No.2,
Shastri Park, Delhi
(7). Chiku @ Azad
S/o Late Saleem
R/o E-14, G-558, G-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(8). Ajhar @ Oka
S/o Hasmat
R/o E-10/A-13, Jhuggi J-Block,
New Seelampur, Delhi
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
2
FIR No. : 410/2018
PS. : Seelampur
U/s. : 307/34 of IPC &
Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act
Chargesheet Filed On : 12.03.2019
Judgment Reserved On : 28.09.2024
Judgment Announced On : 05.10.2024
Decision : ACQUITTAL
JUDGMENT:
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2018 at CPA Block, New Seelampur, Delhi, the complainant Smt. Anita was sitting near the house of one Vicky. Her son Bhutta and another boy of the colony namely Tinku were also present there. At about 11:30 PM, accused Akram alongwith his brothers namely Ajhar @ Oka, Ajmat and his associates Wasim, Vishu, Chhonchli and Sunny came there in an auto rickshaw. Wasim was driving the said auto rickshaw. On seeing Bhutta, they stopped the said auto rickshaw and shouted, ye raha bhutta, maro saale ko. When Bhutta tried to run away, Wasim, Vishu, Chhonchli, Sunny and Ajhar @ Oka all caught hold of Bhutta and Ajmat told Akram and Vishu, goli maar do saale ko. Thereafter, Akram and Vishu fired upon Bhutta and Tinku. One of the bullet hit Bhutta in his stomach and another bullet hit Tinku in his left hand. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the spot in the said auto rickshaw. Complainant called at 100 number. In the meantime, both the injured persons were taken to JPC hospital.
2. On the statement of the complainant Smt. Anita, SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
3FIR was got registered u/s. 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 27 of Arms Act. Crime team was called at the spot. The crime team inspected the scene of crime and got the spot photographed. During investigation, CCTV footage of the nearby spot were collected and statements of both the injured namely Bhutta and Tinku were recorded. Accused Ajmat @ Ajju, Akram, Shahrukh @ Wanted, Sohail @ Sunny and Waseem were arrested and at the instance of accused Akram, TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RW-6403 (which was used by the accused persons in the incident of present case), was seized. At the instance of accused Waseem @ Mota, one pistol (which was used in the incident of present case) alongwith two live cartridges were also recovered. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Opinion regarding nature of injuries were obtained.
3. Chargesheet against the accused Ajmat @ Ajju, Akram, Shahrukh @ Wanted, Sohail @ Sunny and Waseem was filed u/s 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act. Later on FSL result was also placed on record.
4. On dated 27.3.2019, accused Vishu was arrested in the present case and supplementary chargesheet against this accused was filed u/s 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act.
5. On dated 20.6.2019, accused Chiku @ Azad was arrested in the present case and supplementary chargesheet against this accused was filed u/s 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act.
6. On dated 13.9.2019, accused Ajhar @ Oka was arrested in the present case and supplementary chargesheet SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
4against this accused was filed u/s 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act.
7. Charges under sections 307/34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons namely Akram, Shahrukh @ Wanted, Sohail @ Sunny, Ajmat @ Ajju, Waseem @ Mota, Vishu @ Piyush @ Ashu, Chiku @ Azad and Ajhar @ Oka; charge under section 27 of Arms Act were also framed against the accused Akram and Vishu @ Piyush @ Ashu and charge under section 25 of Arms Act was also framed against the accused Akram.
8. Prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused persons.
COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESSES
9. Amar @ Bhutta has been examined as PW-1, who has deposed that in the night of 28.10.2018, he alongwith one Tinku and other family members were sitting near the house of their uncle Babu. At about 11:30 PM, accused Akram alongwith his brothers Ajhar @ Oka, Ajmat and his other associates namely Vishu @ Piyush, Sunny, Chiku, Waseem, 'C' (CCL) and Sharukh @ Wanted came in an auto, which was being driven by Waseem and on seeing PW-1, they stopped the TSR over there, and started shouting, 'ye raha bhutta, maro sale ko'. When PW-1 tried to run away, accused Waseem, Vishu, Sunny, 'C' (CCL) and Ajhar caught hold of PW-1 and at that time, accused Ajmat said to Akram, Oka & Vishu to open fire by saying, 'goli mar do sale ko'. He has also deposed that thereafter, accused Akram and co-accused Oka and Vishu fired on PW-1 with their respective weapons and SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
5on seeing the same, Tinku came near PW-1 to save him and Tinku also sustained bullet injury and after firing on them, all the accused persons ran away from the spot in the same auto. Thereafter, mother of PW-1 informed the police at 100 number. PW-1 alongwith Tinku were taken to JPC hospital and from there, they were referred to GTB hospital, where, PW-1 was provided treatment for several days and also deposed that on 11.11.2018, IO/SI Naveen Kumar met him and made enquiries from him and recorded his statement. PW- 1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
10. Rahul has been examined as PW-2. He has deposed that in the night of 28.10.2018, when he alongwith his brother Bhutta and other family members were sitting near the house of his uncle Babu, at about 11:00/11:30 pm, accused Akram, who was having some quarrel with his brother Bhutta, came there alongwith his other associates namely Vishu @ Piyush, Sunny, Waseem, 'C' (CCL) and Sharukh @ Wanted in an auto, which was being driven by Waseem and on seeing Bhutta present there, they stopped the auto near him and started shouting, 'ye raha bhutta, maro sale ko'. He also deposed that at that time, accused Akram and Vishu fired on his brother Bhutta with their respective weapons and when Tinku came near his brother Bhutta to save him, he also sustained bullet injury. After firing, all the aforesaid accused persons ran away from the spot in the same auto. Thereafter, his mother informed the police at 100 number. After that they took his brother Bhutta and Tinku to JPC hospital. From there, they were referred to GTB hospital.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
611. He also deposed that on 30.10.2018, IO/SI Naveen Kumar met him and made enquiries from him and recorded his statement. He also correctly identified the accused persons namely Akram, Waseem, Vishu, Shahrukh @ Wanted and Sunny in the court and deposed that he knew accused Ajhar @ Oka and Ajmat being brother of Akram and correctly identified them. However, when PW-2 did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
12. Tinku has been examined as PW-3. He has deposed that in the night of 28.10.2018, he alongwith Bhutta and his other brothers were present near the house of Vicky. At about 11:00/11:30 pm, one auto came there and stopped near them. The persons who came in the Auto, got down from the Auto and started firing towards Bhutta. Due to said firing, he had also sustained bullet injury. The neigbouring people took him and Bhutta to JPC hospital. From there, they were referred to GTB hospital.
13. He also deposed that on 30.10.2018, IO/SI Naveen Kumar met him and made enquiries from him and recorded his statement and deposed that he had not told the names of assailants to the IO as he did not know their names. He could not identify the assailants in the court as he could not see them properly. Since, this witness also did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
714. Smt. Anita has been examined as PW-5. She has deposed that about one and half years back from 26.10.2021, she was sitting inside her house, when she heard a noise of firing and she came out of her house and she came to know that her son Amar @ Bhutta had sustained bullet injury and she went to JPC hospital and from there, she also went to GTB hospital, where she found her son admitted there. Since, she did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
OTHER PUBLIC WITNESSES
15. Mohd. Yunus (inadvertently numbered as PW-6) has been examined as PW-6. He has deposed that in the year 2018, he was registered owner of TSR No. DL-1RW-6403. He has proved the photocopy of GPA by which he had transferred the abovesaid TSR in the name of Mohsin Mian on dated 20.02.2018, vide Mark PW6/A. He also handed over the possession of the said TSR to Mohsin Mian. Since, he did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
16. Ramesh Chand @ Kalu has been examined as PW-7. He has deposed that he has a shop in Seelampur Market and he had installed the CCTV footage cameras outside his house for security purpose and on 29.10.2018, police of PS Seelampur came to his house and demanded the DVR of his CCTV cameras. He handed over the DVR of his CCTV cameras and police seized the same, vide seizure SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
8memo Ex.PW7/A. He has also identified the DVR as Ex.PW7/B. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
17. Mohsin Miyan has been examined as PW-8. He has deposed that on 20.02.2018, he had purchased the TSR No. DL-1RW-6403 from Mohd. Yunus, vide GPA dated 20.02.2018 and on 28.10.2018, his son took the said TSR and he was present near the Guru Dwara, Seelampur, Delhi and in the evening time, his son informed him that someone had taken away the said TSR from Guru Dwara, Seelampur and after two days, PW-8 came to know that his TSR was in possession of the police of PS Seelampur and after about one month, he took the said TSR on superdari. The said TSR is Ex.PW8/Article-1. He denied making any statement to the police officials and resiled from his previous statement. Therefore, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
18. Aman has been examined as PW-6. He has deposed that on the date of incident, he was sitting at his house and at 08:00/08:30 pm, when he was having dinner, he heard a noise of firing coming out of his house. He went out of the house and saw that his brother Amar @ Bhutta and his neighbour Tinku had sustained bullet injuries. He with the help of some persons of locality took Amar @ Bhutta and Tinku to the GTB hospital, where they were got admitted. He denied as to how his brother Amar and Tinku had sustained injuries and resiled from his previous statement. Therefore, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
9FORMAL/EXPERT/DOCTOR WITNESS
19. SI (Retired) Rajender Singh has been examined as PW-10 and deposed that on 28.10.2018, he was posted as Incharge of Mobile Crime Team, North-East District, Seemapur, Delhi and at about 11:20 PM, on receiving a call from the Control Room regarding incident of firing and to reach at CPA Block, Ghudsal, Seelampur, Delhi, he alongwith the photographer Ct. Javed Khan, finger print proficient ASI Akshay Kumar proceeded from their office and reached at the abovesaid place.
20. He has further deposed that SI Naveen Kumar and other police officers of PS Seelampur were already present there. He inspected the scene of crime. Two fired empty cartridges were found at the spot and at the instance of SI Naveen, the abovesaid photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime. PW-10 had advised SI Naveen to seize the abovesaid fired empty cartridges. PW-10 also prepared the SOC report and handed over the same to the IO. The SOC report dated 29.10.2018 is Ex.PW10/A.
21. Dr. Shalini, CMO, JPC Hospital has been examined as PW-11 and deposed that on 28.10.2018, she was posted as Casualty Medical Officer at JPC Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi and on that day, at about 11:31 PM, one person namely Bhutta S/o Raju, male, aged about 23 years old was brought to the hospital by his brother Rajesh with alleged history of gunshot in CPA block, 15 minutes back. She had medically examined the abovesaid person and on local examination, she found one entry wound over right side of SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
10back 1x1 cm approximately and there was no exit wound present. She referred the abovesaid patient to surgery department for further examination and medical treatment and prepared MLC No. 731 Ex.PW11/A regarding the abovesaid medical examination.
22. She has further deposed that on the same day, at the same time, another person namely Tinku S/o Jai Prakash, male, aged about 22 years old was also brought to the hospital by his brother with alleged history of gunshot injury and she had medically examined the abovesaid person and on local examination, she found Entry wound over lateral aspect of left arm 1x1 cm approximately; Exit wound over back of left arm 1x1 cm approximately; Grazing wound/penitating entry wound over lateral aspect of left side of chest and after medical examination, she referred the abovesaid patient to surgery department for further examination and medical treatment and prepared MLC No. 732 Ex.PW11/B, regarding the abovesaid medical examination of Tinku. She was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
23. Dr. Arvind Kumar Gautam has been examined as PW-13. He deposed that on 29.10.2018 at about 12:10 AM, one person namely Bhutta S/o Raju, male, aged about 27 years old was brought to the hospital by Sunil Kumar with alleged history of firearm injury at around 11:30 PM on 28.10.2018 at the address mentioned in the MLC and he medically examined him and on local examination, he found lacerated punctured wound 1x1 cm approximately in epigastric region of the abdomen; and lacerated puntured SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
11wound about 1 x 1 cm on right side of lower back on the person of abovesaid injured.
24. He has further deposed that thereafter, he called the Sr. Resident of surgery department for further examination and medical treatment and he referred the abovesaid patient for surgery department for further examination and treatment and prepared MLC No. B-5487/35/18 Ex.PW13/A, regarding the abovesaid medical examination. He had also collected two wound swabs from the abovesaid injuries of the abovesaid injured Bhutta, one control swab and right and left handwash swabs and he sealed the abovesaid samples with the seal of GTB hospital and handed over the same to the Duty Constable in sealed condition with sample seal. He was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, despite opportunity.
25. Ms. Prerna Lakra, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistic) from FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-21. She has deposed that on 26.03.2019, five parcels of case FIR No. 410/2018 PS Seelampur were received in her office in sealed condition with sample seal and same were marked to her for examination. She opened the parcels and gave marking as, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4 and CS-1 respectively. She examined the said contents and analyized them. As a result of atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS) analysis Barium (Ba) was detected on the swab mark as S-3 and Antimony (Sb) was detected on the swab marked as S-4. After examining the abovesaid contents, she prepared her report dated 02.07.2019 and she proved the same, vide Ex.PW2IA SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
12and identified her signatures at point A and B. She was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, despite opportunity.
26. Sh. Avinash Srivastava, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistic) from FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-22. He has deposed that on 24.06.2019, three parcels of case FIR No. 410/2018 PS Seelampur were received in his office in sealed condition with sample seal. Two 7.65 mm cartridges were also received for test firing in unsealed condition. Same were marked to him for examination. On opening the parcel no. 1, he found one improvised pistol 7.65 mm bore and same was marked by him as Ex.F1 and two 7.65 mm cartridges and same were marked by him as Ex. Al and A2. He also deposed that on opening the parcel no.2, he found two 7.65 mm cartridge cases and same were marked by him as Ex.EC1 and EC2 and on opening the parcel no.3, he found one bullet and same were marked by him as Ex. EΒΙ. He examined the abovesaid exhibited articles and prepared his report dated 14.10.2019. He proved his report, vide Ex.PW22/A and identified his signatures at point A, B and C. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, despite opportunity.
27. Sh. Subodh Saini, Jr. Forensic Assistance Chemical Examiner (CFD) from FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-23. He has deposed that on 02.04.2019, one parcel of case FIR No. 410/2018 PS Seelampur was received in his office in sealed condition with sample seal and same was marked to him for examination. On opening the parcel, SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
13one HIKVISION made Digital Video Recorder was found and same was marked by him as DVR1 alongwith its Hard Disk Drive of 01TB capacity and same was marked by him as HDD1. He examined the exhibits and prepared his report dated 28.06.2019. He proved his report, vide Ex.PW23/A and identified his signatures at point A and B. He also proved his certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act, vide Ex.PW23/B and pen drive PD1, vide Ex.PW23/Article-1. He was cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
FORMAL/POLICE WITNESSES
28. ASI (retired) Umesh Kumar has been examined as PW-4. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 28/29.10.2018, he received rukka through Ct. Santosh, which was sent by SI Naveen Kumar and after receiving the said rukka, he made endorsement Ex.PW4/A and thereafter, he got the case FIR No. 410/18 u/s. 307/34 IPC & 27 of Arms Act registered through computer operator and after registration of the case, he handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Santosh for further handing over the same to SI Naveen Kumar. He also proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/B. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
29. ASI Narender has been examined as PW-9. He has deposed that on 28.10.2018, he was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and at about 11:27 PM, on receiving of a call regarding a firing at CPA Block, House No. E-6/176, New Seelampur, Delhi from mobile no. 7428108796, he had recorded the said information, vide DD SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
14No. 7A, copy thereof is Ex.PW9/A and he had handed over the said DD to SI Naveen Kumar for further investigation. He has further deposed that on the same day, at about 11:44 PM, on receiving of another call from mobile no. 9953308411, regarding receiving of gun shot injury at Seelampur Gurudwara by his son and he had recorded the said information, vide DD No. 8A, copy thereof is Ex.PW9/B and he had handed over the said DD to SI Naveen Kumar for further investigation and on the same day, at 11:46 PM, on receiving of another call from mobile no. 8130607075, regarding receiving of gun shot injury by 3-4 boys at CPJ, New Seelampur Delhi and he had recorded the said information, vide DD No. 9A, copy thereof is Ex.PW9/C and he informed SI Naveen Kumar telephonically about the contents of said DD. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
30. ASI Udaivir Singh has been examined as PW-12 and deposed that on 29.10.2018, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Seelampur, Delhi and on that day, SI Navin had handed over to him one pullanda in sealed condition with the seal of NK, another pullanda in sealed condition with the seal of GTB hospital with sample seal, six pullandas in sealed condition with the seal of GTB hospital alongwith the sample seal, five pullandas in sealed condition with the seal of GTB hospital with sample seal in the present case and he had deposited the same in the malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 4281 in register no. 19, photocopies thereof are Ex.PW12/A (collectively).
31. He has further deposed that on 30.10.2018, SI SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
15Navin had also handed over to him one TSR bearing no. DL- 1RW-6403 and one DVR in sealed condition with seal of NK, in the present case and he had deposited the same in the malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 4283 in register no. 19, photocopies thereof are Ex.PW12/B (collectively). Further, on 14.11.2018, SI Navin had handed over to him one plastic container in sealed condition with the seal of NK, containing one pistol and two live cartridges, in the present case and he had deposited the same in the malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 4323 in register no. 19, photocopies thereof are Ex.PW12/C (collectively).
32. He has also deposed that on 26.03.2019, he had sent the five pullandas in sealed condition alongwith one sample seal to the FSL, Delhi, vide RC No. 61/21/19 through Ct. Nadeem, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/D. After depositing the abovesaid articles in the FSL, Rohini, Delhi, Ct. Nadeem handed over the acknowledgment receipt to him, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/E and also deposed that on the same day i.e. on dated 26.03.2019, he had also sent the six pullandas in sealed condition alongwith one sample seal to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi, vide RC No. 62/21/19 through Ct. Nadeem, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/F and after depositing the abovesaid articles in the FSL, Rohini, Delhi, Ct. Nadeem handed over the acknowledgment receipt to him, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/G and on dated 02.04.2019, he had sent one pullanda of DVR in sealed condition to the FSL, Delhi, vide RC No. 65/21/19 through Ct. Sonu, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/H and after depositing the abovesaid articles in the FSL, Rohini, Delhi, Ct. Sonu handed over the SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
16acknowledgment receipt to him, photocopy thereof is Ex.PW12/I. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
33. HC Javed Khan has been examined as PW-14 and deposed that on dated 29.10.2018, he was posted as Constable Photographer in the Mobile Crime Team, North- East district and at night time, information regarding firing was received in his office and at about 2:10 AM, he departed his office alongwith SI Rajender and ASI Akshay Kumar for going to CPA Block, Seelampur, Delhi, where, SI Naveen of PS Seelampur was present. He had seen two fired empty cartridges at the spot. He also took nine photographs of the place of incident at the instance of IO/SI Naveen and after developing the photographs, same were handed over to ASI Rajender to hand over the same to SI Naveen. He identified the nine photographs on the judicial record, vide Ex.PW14/A- 1 to Ex.PW14/A-9 and also proved certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, vide Ex.PW14/B. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
34. HC Santosh has been examined as PW-16. He deposed that on dated 28.10.2018, he was posted at PS Seelampur, Delhi, as, Constable and on that day, SI Naveen received the DD No. 7A and thereafter, he alongwith SI Naveen reached to CPA Block, New Seelampur, Delhi at about 11:35 PM. Where they came to know that injured had already been removed to JPC hospital by the PCR and SI Naveen went to JPC hospital, after leaving PW-16 at the spot.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
17He also deposed that after about 4 hours, SI Naveen again reached at the spot and he handed over rukka with statement of Smt. Anita to him for registration of the FIR and he (PW-
16) went to the PS with rukka and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of the FIR and after registration of the FIR of this case, he again reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/SI Naveen for further investigation.
35. He has further deposed that crime team officials were called by the IO at the spot and the crime team officials had conducted their proceedings and took the photographs. Two fired empty cartridges from the spot were lifted and their sketch was prepared by the IO, vide Ex.PW16/A. IO also took the measurements of the said empty cartridges and seized the same, vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. He also deposed that IO/SI Naveen checked the nearby CCTV footages and in one of the CCTV footages, there was commotion of the public persons and the accused. IO seized the DVR of the said CCTV footage from Ramesh Kumar, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He had identified the case properties i.e. DVR, as Ex.PW7/B and both the fired empty cartridges, as Ex.PW16/Article-1 & Ex.PW16/Article-2 during his examination recorded in the court.
36. HC Jaivir has been examined as PW-17. He deposed that on 14.11.2018, the accused Akram was on PC remand and on interrogation, he had disclosed that he had kept the pistol (which he had used in the incident of this case) at his house and same could be recovered from his house.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
18Thereafter, he alongwith IO and accused Akram reached at the house of accused Akram in Jhuggies J-Block, Seelampur, where, from the corner of the room at ground floor, beneath the clothes, one pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Akram and on checking the magazine of the said pistol, two live cartridges were recovered from the magazine.
37. He has further deposed that IO prepared sketch of the said pistol, magazine and two live cartridges and IO also took the measurements of the said pistol, magazine and two live cartridges in his presence and mentioned the said measurements in the sketch Ex.PW17/G. IO seized the said pistol, magazine and cartridges. PW-17 proved the seizure memo Ex.PW17/H and seal, after use, was handed over to PW-17 by the IO and thereafter, accused was taken to JPC hospital for medical examination and after medical examination, accused was taken to the PS. He also identified the pistol with magazine and the live cartridge, as, Ex.PW17/Article-1.
38. ASI (Retired) Vikram Dutt has been examined as PW-18. He has deposed regarding arrest of the accused Akram.
39. SI Naveen Kumar is the Investigating Officer, has been examined as PW-35. He has deposed that on 28.10.2018, at about 11:30 PM, on receiving of DD No. 7A (Ex.PW9/A), he alongwith Ct. Santosh reached at CPA Block, New Seelampur, Delhi, where injured persons were not found, but, he found two fired cartridges at the spot. He came to know that injured had already been taken to the JPC hospital.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
19On leaving Ct. Santosh at the spot, he went to the JPC Hospital and collected MLC of Amar @ Bhutta and Tinku. At there, he came to know that injured persons had been moved to the higher center i.e. GTB hospital. Thereafter, he reached at GTB hospital and collected the MLC of the injured persons prepared at GTB hospital. He seized the five sealed pullandas in respect of the injured Bhutta, which were handed over to him by the concerned doctor, vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/A. He also seized the six sealed pullandas in respect of the injured Tinku, which were handed over to him by the concerned doctor, vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/B. He made enquiries from Ms. Anita, mother of injured Amar @ Bhutta and recorded her statement, vide Ex.PW5/A.
40. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned to the spot and called the crime team officials. The crime team official, after reaching at the spot, inspected the scene of crime and took photographs of the spot. At the instruction of I/C Crime Team, he lifted the fired cartridge from the spot and prepared sketch of the said cartridges, vide Ex.PW16/A and seized the said cartridges, vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. Thereafter, he prepared rukka on the back side of the statement of Smt. Anita, vide Ex.PW35/C and got the FIR registered. He also prepared site plan of the place of incident, vide Ex.PW35/D. He also seized the DVR from the house, which was situated nearby the spot, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, he returned to the PS alongwith Ct. Santosh on 29.10.2018 at about 6:00 AM and deposited the seized articles in the malkhana.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
2041. He further deposed that on the same day, after lunch time, he went to GTB hospital, where, Duty constable of GTB hospital handed over one sealed pullanda, containing bullet with sample seal to him and informed that the doctor had handed over the same to him and the said bullet was recovered from the body of Tinku. He seized the said pullanda and sample seal, vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/E. On the same day, at about 8:00-9:00 PM, he alongwith Ct. Santosh left the PS for investigation of this case and for the search of the accused persons. One informer met him near Dharampura Red Light and informed him that one of the accused namely Ajmat @ Ajju was present near his house i.e. H. No. E-10/A-13, New Seelampur, Delhi. They immediately reached there and on the pointing out of the secret informer, he apprehended accused Ajmat @ Aju and after interrogation, he arrested accused Ajmat @ Aju in the present case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/C and got conducted his personal search, vide memo Ex.PW16/D.
42. He further deposed that on interrogation, accused Ajmat @ Ajju also made his disclosure statement, which was recorded by him, vide Ex.PW16/E. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Ajmat @ Ajju, they reached near Dharampura Red Light, where, at the instance of accused Ajmat @ Ajju, they apprehended accused Wasim @ Mota and arrested him, vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/F. His personal search was also got conducted, vide personal search memo Ex.PW16/G. On interrogation, accused Wasim @ Mota also made disclosure statement, which was recorded by him, vide Ex.PW16/H. SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
2143. He further deposed that during the PC remand, they tried to apprehend the other accused persons and at the instance of accused Wasim @ Mota, one auto (TSR) bearing No. DL-1RW-6403 was seized from opposite C-Block, Double Story, New Seelampur, Delhi, vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He also prepared pointing out memos of the place of incident at the instance of accused Ajmat @ Ajju, vide Ex.PW35/F and at the instance of accused Wasim, vide Ex.PW35/G. Thereafter, during investigation on dated 30.10.2018, he went to the GTB hospital for making enquiries from the injured and recorded statements of injured Amar @ Bhutta and Tinku in the hospital. In the hospital, he also recorded statement of Rahul and Aman.
44. He further deposed that on 11.11.2018, he arrested accused Sohail @ Sunny from near Dharampura Red Light, at the instance of the secret informer, vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A and got conducted his personal search, vide personal search memo Ex.PW17/B. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Sohail @ Sunny, vide Ex.PW17/C. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Sohail, they apprehended accused Shahrukh @ Wanted and arrested him in this case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/D and got conducted his personal search, vide personal search memo Ex.PW17/E. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Shahrukh @ Wanted, vide Ex.PW17/F.
45. He further deposed that on 13.11.2018 at about 9:00 PM, on the identification of the secret informer, accused Akram was arrested in this case, vide arrest memo SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
22Ex.PW18/A from near Tikona Park, Dharampura Red Light, Seelampur and got conducted his personal search, vide personal search memo Ex.PW18/B. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Akram, vide disclosure statement Ex.PW18/C. On 14.11.2018, at the pointing out of accused Akram, one pistol containing two live cartridges in its magazine were got recovered from his house. IO prepared their sketch, vide Ex.PW17/G and seized it, vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/H.
46. He further deposed that on 28.11.2018, he recorded statement of Mohsin, who got released the said TSR i.e. TSR No. DL-1RW-6403 on superdari, vide Ex.PW8/PA. He also recorded statement of Mohd. Yunus, who was the registered owner of the above said TSR i.e. TSR No. DL-1RW-6403. Thereafter, on 27.01.2019, he filed the chargesheet against five accused persons namely Akram, Shahrukh @ Wanted, Sohail @ Sunny, Azmat @ Ajju and Wasim @ Mota. He also obtained result on the MLCs of injured Amar @ Bhutta and Tinku and opinion qua the injuries suffered by both the injured. He also collected photographs Ex.PW14/A1 to PW14/A9 and crime team report Ex.PW10/A from the office of Crime Team. Thereafter, on 17.03.2019, he filed supplementary chargesheet regarding MLCs of injured persons containing results regarding nature of injuries, photographs of crime team and crime team report. He correctly identified all the accused persons namely Akram, Shahrukh @ Wanted, Sohail @ Sunny, Ajmat @ Ajju, Wasim @ Mota in the court. He also correctly identified the case properties i.e. the TSR as Ex.PW8/Article 1, DVR of white SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
23colour Hik Vision model DS6004HG-1-F1, as, Ex.PW7/B, fired empty cartridges, as, Ex.PW16/Article-1 and PW16/Article-2, the pistol with magazine and live cartridge, as, Ex.PW17/Article, one led of the bullet which was taken out from the body of injured Tinku by the doctors, as, Ex.PW35/Article 1.
47. The testimonies of PW-15 HC Javed Khan, PW-19 Ct. Suresh, PW-20, Dr. Shamshad Ahmad, PW-24 ASI Shri Pal Singh, PW-25 SI Virender Kumar, PW-26 R. Eniyavan, PW-27 HC Ajeet Bhaskar, PW-28 HC Nadeem, PW-29 HC Pramod, PW-30 HC Nishu Kumar, PW-31 HC Sonu, PW-32 Ms. Annu Aggarwal, the then Ld. ASJ-06 (POCSO), PW-33 HC Nitin Kumar and PW-34 Sh. Rajender Prasad Meena, SP, Dadar Nagar, Haveli have not been reproduced, as they are formal in nature and they have played minor role during the investigation of the present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
48. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against all the accused persons were put to them as required u/s 313 CrPC. All the accused persons stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
49. I have heard Sh. F. M. Ansari, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for all the accused persons.
50. Sh. F. M. Ansari, Ld. Additional PP for the State submitted that all the material witnesses including the SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
24complainant have supported the case of the prosecution. It has been argued that though there are minor contradictions and some of the witnesses have turned hostile, despite that all the essential ingredients of the offences against the accused persons have been duly proved and contended that since the charges have been proved against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted in the present case.
51. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. counsel for all the accused persons submitted to the contrary. It has been argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses. Infact, most of the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Only PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta and PW-2 Rahul have to some extent supported the case of the prosecution. However, their testimonies cannot be relied upon, firstly on the ground that they are interested witnesses and secondly on the ground that there are contradictions in their depositions.
52. Ld. Counsel further argued that there was previous enmity between the complainant/injured and the accused persons, which fact has been admitted by PW-1 in his cross- examination. Further, during examination-in-chief, PW-1 has stated the names of all the eight accused persons to be assailants, whereas, in his cross-examination, he had admitted that he had not seen Ajhar @ Oka and Ajmat on 28.10.2018 at the time of incident. As per the case of the prosecution, all the eight accused persons alongwith one CCL had attacked the injured persons and caused them injuries, however, PW-2 SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
25Rahul had named that accused Akram alongwith other assailants namely Vishu, Sunny, Wasim, 'C' CCL and Shahrukh @ Wanted came in an Auto, which was being driven by Wasim. Therefore, as per the testimony of PW-2, only five of the accused persons alongwith CCL had come at the spot, which contradicts the case of the prosecution. When he did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein, he had stated that he did not disclose the name of accused Ajhar and Ajmat to the police. He did not know if accused Ajhar and Ajmat had also come in the TSR with other accused persons. Therefore, as per the testimony of PW-2, accused Ajhar and Ajmat were not there at the spot at the time of the incident. Therefore, the credibilities of PW-1 and PW-2 have shaken and thus, the accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of their testimonies. The remaining public witnesses also did not supported the case of the prosecution at all.
53. It has further been argued that none of the witnesses had disclosed the registration number of the TSR, in which the alleged assailants had come at the spot. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused persons with the TSR, which was recovered during the investigation. Further, as per the testimony of PW-8 Mohsin Miyan, who was the registered owner of the TSR at that time also shows that at the relevant time, the TSR was with his son and in the evening, his son had informed him that someone had taken away the TSR from Gurudwara, Seelampur. Thus, the prosecution had failed to prove that any of the accused had taken the said TSR, in which, the accused persons allegedly reached at the spot.
SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
26Lastly, it has been argued that the recovery of the alleged pistol at the instance of the accused Akram is also doubtful, as, when the disclosure statement was made by the accused, he was in police custody and thus, the same is not admissible in the evidence. Moreover, when he was taken to his house by the IO, no public witness had joined the investigation and in fact, the IO did not make any effort to join any of the public witnesses during the recovery of the alleged pistol. Moreover, no videography/photography was done, so as to ensure that it was actually recovered from the house of the accused Akram. On these grounds, it has been argued that accused persons are entitled to be acquittal, as the prosecution failed to prove its case against all the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt.
54. I have considered the rival submissions, put forth by both the sides.
FINDINGS
55. As per the record, total 36 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, out of which, 8 witnesses are public witnesses, whereas, remaining witnesses are formal /official in nature. Out of the 8 witnesses, 2 witnesses i.e. PW- 6 Mohd. Yunus and PW-8 Mohsin Miyan are with respect to the TSR, which was allegedly used by the accused persons, while coming at the spot. PW-6 Mohd. Yunus was the registered owner of the said TSR, whereas, PW-8 Mohsin Miyan was the purchaser of the TSR from Mohd. Yunus. Although, as per the prosecution story, the alleged assailants had come to the spot on a TSR, but, none of the witnesses, either in their statements u/s. 161 of CrPC, or in their SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
27testimonies, as witness in the court have disclosed anything about the registration number of the said TSR. PW-8 Mohsin Miyan has deposed that at the relevant point of time, the TSR was with his son, however, his son had informed that someone had taken the TSR from Gurudwara, Seelampur and after two days, he came to know that the TSR was in possession of the police of PS Seelampur. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said TSR was actually used by the assailants for coming to the spot and the said TSR was in possession or being driven by any of the accused persons.
56. PW-3 Tinku, who was one of the injured and PW-5 Smt. Anita, who was the mother of injured Amar @ Bhutta had turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution at all. PW-6 Aman, who was the brother of injured Amar @ Bhutta also did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the entire prosecution case depends upon the testimonies of PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta and PW-2 Rahul.
57. Now, it is to be seen whether the testimonies of PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta and PW-2 Rahul are credible and trustworthy enough so that conviction can be passed solely upon their testimonies. PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta is one of the injured and PW-2 Rahul is the brother of Amar @ Bhutta. As per the case of the prosecution, there were 9 assailants in total, 8 are the accused in the present case and one was the CCL. PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta, in his examination-in-chief, had named all the 8 accused persons alongwith the CCL, who had come in an auto, which was being driven by accused Wasim. However, in his cross-examination, he had submitted that he SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
28had not seen the accused persons namely Ajhar and Ajmat on 28.10.2018 i.e. at the time of incident. This submission on behalf of the witness is contrary, to which, he had deposed in his examination-in-chief and thus, to some extent has shaken the credibility of the said witness. Further, it is worth-noticing that in his cross-examination, he had admitted that one case was registered against him on 26.10.2018 by the opposite party i.e. the accused persons and he was released on bail in that case on 28.10.2018 in day hours. Thus, it has come on record, as admitted by PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta that there was previous enmity between the parties and the opposite party had got registered an FIR against PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta, wherein, he was arrested and released on bail on the day of incident only.
58. PW-2 Rahul has also not supported the case of the prosecution to the fullest as in his examination-in-chief, he has named five of the accused persons alongwith the CCL, who had come in an auto. Thus, as per his version, three of the accused persons had not come, which contradicts the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that on the day of incident i.e. 28.10.2018, two accused persons namely Ajmat and Ajhar were not there. He further stated that he had not disclosed the name of accused Ajhar and Ajmat to the police, which further puts dent in the story put forth by the prosecution. Remaining public witnesses PW-3 Tinku, PW-5 Smt. Anita and PW-6 Aman have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that in view of the previous enmity between the parties and the fact that none of the SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
29witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, it is not safe to convict the accused persons on the uncorroborated testimonies of PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta and PW-2 Rahul, especially when there are noticeable contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 Amar @ Bhutta and PW-2 Rahul.
59. Moreover, the recovery of the alleged pistol from the house of the accused Akram is also doubtful. As per the prosecution case, the accused Akram was arrested on 13.11.2018 and on 14.11.2018, when he was on police custody remand, he had made disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, the alleged pistol was recovered alongwith two live cartridges from the house of accused Akram. However, it is not understandable as to if, the IO had prior information about the said pistol being there at the house of the accused Akram, then why, no public witness was included at the time of recovery of the alleged pistol.
60. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bantu v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi: 2024:DHC:5006, observed that while the testimony of the police witness is sufficient to secure conviction if the same inspires confidence during the trial, however, lack of independent witnesses in certain cases can cast a doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution's case.
61. It was held that when the Investigating Agency had sufficient time to prepare before the raid was conducted, not finding public witness and lack of photography and videography in today's time cast a doubt on the credibility of SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
30the evidence.
62. In the present case, no notice was served on the people under Section 100(8) of the CrPC and neither any effort was made to jot down the names or details of such persons. It is peculiar that the Investigating Agency was unable to associate even a single public witness at the time of recovery of alleged pistol, especially since the prosecution had prior information. It is also not understandable as to if no public person was available, then why no videography of the alleged recovery was done by the IO. The Hon'ble Apex Court, way back in the year 2018 in Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P.: (2018) 5 SCC 311, after taking note of the technological advancements, had passed certain directions. The Hon'ble Apex Court had emphasised the role of audio-visual technology in enhancing the efficacy and transparency in the Police investigations.
63. At the time of recovery of the alleged pistol, alongwith the IO, HC Jaivir was also present. In his cross- examination with respect to the alleged recovery, there are certain contradictions which make the recovery of the said pistol doubtful. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he did not remember, when they left the PS with the accused Akram. He could not even say, as to whether it was morning time, day time, evening time or night time. He further admitted that no person was called from the adjoining jhuggies to join the investigation. It is strange that he was not aware about the locality / area where the house of the accused Akram was situated. Under these circumstances, recovery of SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
31the alleged pistol becomes highly doubtful and makes the case of the prosecution all the more untrustworthy.
64. In this regard reliance is being placed on "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
65. In case Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that:
"Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large, and divides vague SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.32
conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be true and 'must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
66. In case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that:
"Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
67. In case Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujrat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227, the Hon'ble Supreme Court SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
33of India has held that:
It is a settled principle of law that doubt cannot replace proof. Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence (Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 463). Only such evidence is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance with law. In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness. This Court in the case of Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 has held that:
"3.... So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect..."
The same principle has been enunciated in: Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 165.
68. In view of the above and especially in view of the failure of the IO to join any independent public witness during proceedings or investigation, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts and to bring their acts and conduct within four corners of the said provisions SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.
34of law constituting any of such offence or within legal ambit which would warrant their conviction and punishment in the present case. In view of the cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and every benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, hence, the accused persons are entitled to every benefit arising due to lacuna's in the prosecution case.
69. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, accused persons cannot be held guilty and are, accordingly, acquitted of the charged offences punishable under sections 307/34 of IPC & Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act and all the accused persons stand acquitted of all the offences charged against them in the present case. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on proper receipt and identification. Case property, if any, be confiscated to the State after the expiry of the period of the appeal. All the accused persons are required to furnish bail bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC.
70. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on the 5th day of October 2024 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2024.10.08
15:12:02
+0530
(PUNEET PAHWA)
Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge/ North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi SC No. 77/2019 State Vs. Akram & Ors.