Delhi District Court
State vs Akil Ahmed @ Papad on 7 June, 2023
CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021
State v. Akil Ahmed etc.
SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur
Judgment dated 07.06.2023
DLNE010018062021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2-3
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 3-6
3 Charges 6-12
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 13-26
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 26
6 Arguments of Prosecution & Defence 27-31
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 31-37
8 Identification of accused persons 37-40
9 Conclusion and Decision 40-41
Page 1 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021
State v. Akil Ahmed etc.
SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur
Judgment dated 07.06.2023
Sessions Case No. : 237/2021
Under Section : 143/147/148/380/427/435/436/454
read with 149 IPC & 188 IPC
Police Station : Dayalpur
FIR No. : 108/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-001806-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. Akil Ahmed @ Papad
S/o. Sh. Jamil Ahmed,
R/o. H.No.1692, Gali No.17,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
New Mustafabad, Delhi.
2. Raheesh Khan @ Raisu Khan
S/o. Sh. Rafiullah,
R/o. H.No.F-38, Gali No.1,
25 Futa Road, Chand Bagh, Delhi.
3. Irshad
S/o. Sh. Ikram,
R/o.H.No.1194, Gali No.14,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
New Mustafabad, Delhi.
...Accused Persons
Case registered on the SH. DANISH KHAN
complaint of: S/o. Sh. Salim Alam,
R/o. E-37, 13-E, Block Subhash
Vihar, Gonda, Delhi.
Clubbed complaints of: Afroj, Israt, Md. Yameen, Naima,
Munne Miya, Shabir, Sunil
Kumar, Radha Kishan, Seb Khan,
Lalita Rathore, Shahnawaz,
Shahreen, Sameena, Shahzad Ali,
Mosin, Naeema Begum, Anjum,
Tasleem, Md. Wasil, Ashif, Md.
Arshad, Sherudeen, Sheerudeen
Malik, Mohsin and Mohd.
Yameen.
Page 2 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021
State v. Akil Ahmed etc.
SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur
Judgment dated 07.06.2023
Date of Institution : 14.07.2020
Date of reserving order : 23.05.2023
Date of pronouncement : 07.06.2023
Decision : All accused acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by all accused.)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. The above named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427/436 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that this FIR was registered on the basis of complaint dated 01.03.2020 given by Mr. Danish Khan. In his complaint Mr. Danish alleged that he was running a courier service office on rent at A-97, shop no.4, Main Karawal Nagar Road, Chandu Nagar, near Sherpur Chowk in front of Suraj Band, Thakur Veer Singh Market, Delhi. He further alleged that he had lastly opened this shop on 22.02.2020. Thereafter, this shop was not opened due to tension prevailing in that area. In the evening of 24.02.2020, he received a telephonic call from a person residing in front of his shop. Complainant was informed that his shop was looted and set on fire. Complainant alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.6-7 lakh. FIR was registered on 04.03.2020 and thereafter, investigation was handed over to SI Rajiv. As per charge sheet, IO prepared site plan and searched for accused persons, but he could not find any clue. He recorded statement of complainant Danish Khan. Subsequently, some more complaints were received in PS Dayalpur and those complaints were also clubbed in this case on the grounds of proximity of place and Page 3 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 date of incident. Description of those complaints as per charge sheet are as follows: -
Srl. Name of Address of the Complainant/Victim No. Complainant/ Victim 1 Afroj H.No.F-474, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. 2 Israt H.No.A-105, Gali No.15, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 3 Md. Yameen A-12, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Chandu Nagar, Delhi 4 Naima A-12, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi 5 Munne Miya H.No.F-474, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. 6 Shabir D-1, KH-325, Gali No.1, Nehru Vihar, Delhi 7 Sunil Kumar A-141, Chandu Nagar, Main Road, Delhi. 8 Radha Kishan A-97, Chandu Nagar, Main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi.
9 Seb Khan H.No.134A, Gali No.3, Tukmirpur, Delhi. 10 Lalita Rathore A-107, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi.
11 Shahnawaz H.No.103, Gali No.2, D-Block, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
12 Shahreen H.No.19, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 13 Sameena H.No. A-4, Gali No.5,Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi 14 Shahzad Ali Shop at 120-A situated at Yadav Gali, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 16 Mosin H.No.879, Gali No.15, Nehru Vihar, E-2, Dayalpur, Delhi.
17 Naeem Begum H.No. 10A, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi. 18 Anjum Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi.
19 Tasleem B-635, Gali No.26, Vijay Park, Delhi 20 Ashif 186/3, Gali No.25, Old Mustafabad, Delhi. 21 Md. Wasil 1365, Gali No.18, New Mustafbad, Delhi.Page 4 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Srl. Name of Address of the Complainant/Victim No. Complainant/ Victim 22 Md. Arshad 1373, Gali No.18/8, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. 23 Ishrat A-105, Gali No.15, Chandu Nagar, Delhi. 24 Yameen A-12, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi. 25 Mohd. H.No.331, Gali No.1-B, Near Aksa Masjid, Sheerudeen Dayalpur Old Mustabad, Delhi 26 Sheerudeen Block-1, Gali No.11, Main Road, Delhi. Malik 27 Shahnawaz H.No.103, Gali No.2, B-Block, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
3. IO came to know that Ct. Piyush was on duty on 25.02.2020 and had seen the incident. He recorded statement of Ct. Piyush, who claimed to have identified accused Akil Ahmed @ Papad, Raheesh Khan @ Rais Khan and Irshad. IO also obtained copy of CDR and CAF of the mobile phone of the accused persons from Insp. Ashish Kumar, Crime Branch, who was IO in FIR No.84/20, PS Dayalpur. These three accused persons were already arrested in FIR No.84/20 on 12.03.2020. On 16.04.2020, IO of this case arrested these accused persons in the present case on the identification of Ct. Piyush in Mandoli Jail. After interrogation, accused were sent to J/C in this case. According to IO, these accused persons had committed riot, vandalism and arson on 25.02.2020, being part of a riotous mob.
4. After completion of investigation, on 14.07.2020 a charge sheet was filed before Duty MM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against aforesaid accused persons. Thereafter, on 03.12.2020, ld. CMM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, took cognizance of offences punishable under Section 147/148/ Page 5 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 149/427/436. Thereafter, case was committed to the court of sessions on 08.04.2021. On 04.09.2021, first supplementary charge sheet along with a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C and other documents, was filed before Link MM, North East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. In the first supplementary charge sheet it was further reported that Ct. Piyush was on duty in the Chandu Nagar area on 24.02.2020. He was beat officer of Chandu Nagar area. Thereafter, ld. CMM (N/E) took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 IPC against all aforesaid accused persons and sent this supplementary charge sheet to the court of sessions vide order dated 23.09.2021. Subsequently, on 22.10.2022 second supplementary charge sheet was directly filed before this court. In the second supplementary charge sheet three photographs along with certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act as provided by Danish Khan, were filed. Statement of official, who had pronounced the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area, was also filed.
CHARGES: -
5. On 04.09.2021, charges were framed against accused Akil Ahmed @ Papad, Raheesh Khan @ Rais Khan and Irshad for offences punishable under Section 143/147/148/454/427/380/ 435/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, on 29.09.2021, amended charges were framed against aforesaid three accused persons, for aforesaid offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The amended charges were framed in following terms: -
"That from the morning of 24.02.2020 till the late evening of 25.02.2020, in the area of main Karawal Nagar Road, at or around Page 6 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sherpur Chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi-94, within the jurisdiction of PS Dayalpur, all of you being from a particular community alongwith your other associates (unidentified) formed an unlawful assembly, the object whereof was to cause maximum damage to the property and persons of the area and commit criminal trespass, theft and arson in the shops, houses and other properties of the persons residing in the said area and also put on fire their vehicles by the use of force or violence in prosecution of the common object of such assembly and in violation of the Proclamation issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C by the competent authority, committed rioting and you all knew being members of the aforesaid unlawful assembly that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 143/147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, in the evening of 24.02.2020, exact time unknown, at courier shop (rented) bearing No.4, A-97, in front of Suraj Band, main Karawal Nagar Road, near Sherpur Chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Danish Khan, S/o Shri Shamim Alam, by breaking open its locks to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, in the evening of 24.02.2020, exact time unknown, at property bearing No.A-149, Nehru Vihar, Sherpur Chowk, adjacent to Khadi Showroom, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94 (which housed two cloth showrooms of 25 sq.yards and 135 sq.yards each), you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said property/showrooms, belonging to complainant(s) Afroz and his father Munne Miya, by breaking open the shutters thereof to commit offences, vandalized the same and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid showrooms and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at House No.A- 105, Gali No.15, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said house, belonging to complainant Smt.Israt, W/o Shri Ahmed, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or Page 7 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid house and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at House No.A-12, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said house, belonging to complainant Md.Yameen, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein (which included cash of Rs.1.50 lakhs, 70 gms gold and 500 gms silver) and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid house and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Sixthly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at House No.10A, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said house, belonging to complainant Ms.Naeema Begum, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid house and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Seventhly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at house- cum-shop No.D-1, KH-325, Gali No.1, Nehru Vihar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said house-cum-shop, belonging to complainant Shabbir, S/o Shri Yameen, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid house-cum-shop shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Eightly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at institute bearing No.A-141, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said institute, belonging to complainant Sunil Kumar, S/o Shri Indraj Singh, to commit offences, indulged in vandalism and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid institute and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.Page 8 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Ninethly, on the aforesaid date, in the evening, exact time unknown, at house/godown No.A-97, Chandu Nagar, main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid godown belonging to complainant Radha Kishan, S/o Shri Ram Kishore and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at property bearing No.A-149 (second floor), Nehru Vihar, Sherpurr Chowk, adjacent to Khadi Showroom, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the coaching centre (rented), being run by complainant Saif Khan and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, in front of House No.A- 107, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by causing damage/vandalizing the car bearing Regn. No.DL7CP/8639, belonging to complainant Smt.Lalita Rathore, W/O Ranjit Singh, which at the relevant time was lying parked in front of her said house and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 25.02.2020, between 2.00 PM to 3.00 PM, at shop/office situated in the Kartar Market, near Indraprastha School, Sherpur Chowk, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop/office, belonging to complainant Shahnawaz, S/o Mohd. Yunus, by breaking open its shutters to commit offences, vandalized the same, set on fire pulsar motorcycle bearing Regn. No.DL3SBV/8053 (which was lying parked inside the said shop) and thereafter committed theft of various articles from the tyre-tube shop (also belonging to said complainant) situated in front of said office and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/435/380 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020 , at time unknown, at house-cum-shop No.19, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) Page 9 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 committed lurking house-trespass in the said house-cum-shop, belonging to complainant Smt.Shahreen, W/o Jarif, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at shop situated on the ground floor of house No.A-4, Gali nNo.5, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house- trespass in the said house/shop, belonging to complainant Smt.Sameena, W/o Shri Kamran, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid house/shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 25.02.2020, at time unknown, at shop No.120-A (by the name of M/s Hashmi Traders), Yadav Gali, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Shahzad Ali, S/o Shri Abdul Mateen, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at shop No.B-16 (automobile shop), Nehru Vihar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Mosin, S/o Shri Aas Mohammad, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said house, belonging to complainant Smt. Anjum, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the Page 10 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 aforesaid house and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at about 8.00 PM, near Sherpur Chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you being member of the said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by putting on fire the E- rickshaw belonging to complainant Tasleem, S/o Shri Abdul Hameed, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 435 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, in the night of 24.02.2020, exact time unknown, at dental clinic, situated on main 33 foota road, Panchal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said clinic, belonging to complainant Ashif, S/o Shri Shahnawaz, to commit offences and committed theft of various articles lying therein and thereafter also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance by removing the remaining articles lying in the said clinic outside in the open area and set them on fire and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 454/380/435 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at Hotel bearing No.A-42, Gali No.3, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said hotel, belonging to complainant Md. Wasil, S/o Md. Yakub, to commit offences, indulged in vandalism and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid hotel and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at shop No.A-42 (dealing in Air-Conditioners), Gali No.3, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Md.Arshad, S/o Shri Shahid, to commit offences, indulged in vandalism and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offence punishable under Section(s) 454/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at auto-spare parts shop, situated in Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass Page 11 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 in the said shop, belonging to complainant Sheerudeen, S/o Shri Kamrudeen Saifi, indulged in vandalism, committed theft of various articles lying therein and thereafter also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at time unknown, at shop situated in Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Shahrudeen Malik, S/o Shri Shahzad, indulged in vandalism, committed theft of various articles lying therein and thereafter also committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/380/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Next, on 24.02.2020, at about 8.00 PM, at shop No.A-12, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, you all being members of said unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass in the said shop, belonging to complainant Naeema, to commit offences, indulged in vandalism and committed theft of various articles lying therein and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 454/427/380 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance."
6. Thereafter, on 22.10.2022, additional charge was framed against aforesaid accused persons for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, to which also they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charge was framed in following terms: -
"That, from the morning of 24.02.2020 till the late evening of 25.02.2020, in and around the area of Main Karawal Nagar Road, Sherpur chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi-94, within the jurisdiction of PS Dayalpur, you all accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr. PC by the competent authority/DCP, North East vide order dated 24.02.2020 bearing no.10094-170 X-1, North East, Delhi dt. 24.02.2020, which was duly announced in all the localities of District North East including area of PS Dayalpur, thereby you all committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."Page 12 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
7. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW1/Danish He was complainant in the Ex.PW1/A Khan present case. PW1 gave a written (written complaint regarding breaking of complaint of locks of his shop situated at A-97, PW1) & shop No.4, main Karawal Nagar Ex.PW1/B Road, Chandu Nagar, near (site plan) Sherpur Chowk, in front of Suraj Band, in Thakur Vir Singh Market. His said shop was robbed and put on fire.
PW1 was not present at the time of incident. He was telephonically informed about this incident, in the evening of 24.02.2020, by one of the neighbourers of his said shop.
Police visited his shop and prepared site plan.
PW1 identified his signatures in Urdu at point A on Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW2/Afroz & They were also complainants of Ex.PW2/A PW6/Sh. the present case. On 24.02.2020, (colly) & Munne Miyan at about 4-5 PM, they found a Ex.PW6/A number of rioters gathered around (photographs their showroom bearing No. A- taken by PW2 149, Nehru Vihar, Sherpur and PW6, Chowk, adjacent to Khadi respectively);
Showroom, Karawal Nagar Road, Ex.PW2/B Delhi-94. PW2 and PW6 Page 13 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties immediately closed their (colly. 4 pages) showroom and went to their (complaint house. given by PW2) & Later on, PW2 and PW6 came to know that lock of their aforesaid Ex.PW6/B showroom was broke open, same (complaint of was vandalized, the goods were PW6) robbed and were put on fire.
On 03.03.2020, PW2 and PW6 took photographs of their burnt showroom. PW2 & PW6 gave their respective written complaint to the police. PW2 identified his signature in English and PW6 identified his signature in Hindi, on each page of their respective complaint.
PW2 & PW6 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW3/Smt. She was also one the Ex.PW3/A Israt complainants. PW3 gave a written (complaint of complaint regarding vandalism, PW3) & robing and arson taken place on Ex.PW3/B 24.02.2020, at her house bearing (Colly) H.No. A-105, Gali No.15, (photographs of Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, burnt house Delhi. At the ground floor, there handed over by was a shop which was put on fire PW3) by the rioters on same day.
PW3 also handed over photographs of her house. PW3 identified his signature at point A on his complaint.
PW3 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of Page 14 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties identification of accused persons. PW4/Mohd. They were also complainants of Ex.PW4/A & Yameen & the present case. They also gave Ex.PW5/A PW5/Ms. their respective complaint (complaint Naeema regarding incident of vandalism, given by PW4 robbery and arson taken place on & PW5, 24.02.2020, at house bearing A- respectively); 12, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Ex.PW4/B Chandu Nagar, Delhi.
(colly) & PW4 & PW5 identified their Ex.PW 5/B signature at point A, on their (colly). respective complaint. PW4 & 5 (Photographs also did not support the case of of house of prosecution on the point of PW4 and PW5) identification of accused persons. PW7/Shabbir He was also one of the Ex.PW7/A complainants. PW7 also gave a (complaint of complaint in PS regarding PW7) incident of vandalism, robbery and arson taken place on 24.02.2020 at 09:00 AM, at his shop situated at ground floor in H.No. D-1, Khasra No.325, Gali No.1, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. PW7 identified his signature at point A on his complaint. PW7 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons. PW8/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW8/A Sunil Kumar complainants. PW8 also gave (complaint of complaint regarding incident of PW8) & vandalism, robbery and arson, Ex.PW8/B taken place on 24.02.2020 at his (Colly).
tuition institute situated at A-141, (Photographs Chandu Nagar. On 25.02.2020, of burnt PW8 received an information institute of about burning of his aforesaid Page 15 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties institute. PW8) PW8 identified his signatures at point A on his complaint.
PW8 did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons. PW9/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW9/A Radha complainants. On 24.02.2020 in (complaint of Kishan the morning, PW9 had opened his PW9) & godown at the ground floor of his Ex.PW9/B house situated at A-97, Chandu (Colly) Nagar, Main Karawal Nagar (photographs of Road, Delhi. In the evening, PW9 godown of saw riotous mob in the area and PW9) he closed his godown and went to a safer place. After few days, when PW9 came back to his aforesaid godown, he found it completely robbed, vandalized and burnt.
PW9 reported the matter to the police and gave his complaint, bearing his signatures at point A. PW9 did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons. PW10/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW10/A Saif Khan complainants. PW10 also gave (Complaint of complaint regarding incident of PW10) & vandalism, robbery and arson Ex.PW10/B taken place on 24.02.2020 in the (Colly) morning hours at his coaching (photographs of institute situated at second floor institute of of property bearing no.134A, Gali PW10) No.3, Tukmirpur, Delhi. PW10 identified his signature at point A on his complaint.
Page 16 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW10 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW11/Smt. She was also one of the Ex.PW11/A Lalita complainants. PW11 gave a (colly).
Rathore complaint to police regarding (photographs of incident of vandalizing her car car of PW11) bearing registration no. DL7CP/ & 8639 on 24.02.2020, by the Ex.PW11/B rioters. PW11 handed over (complaint of photographs of the car to police.
PW11) PW11 identified her signature at point A on her complaint.
PW11 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW13/Smt. She was also one of the Ex.PW13/A Shahreen complainants. PW13 was residing (Complaint of in H.No.19, Gali No.5, Gupta PW13) Market, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi at the first floor and at the ground floor of said premises, there was a shop which was put on fire by the rioters on 24.02.2020. On next day, when PW13 came back to her house, she found it completely vandalized and robbed and the same had also been put on fire.
PW13 gave her written complaint in this regard to the police, bearing her signatures at point A. PW13 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused Page 17 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties persons.
PW14/Smt. She was also one of the Ex.PW14/A Sameena complainants. PW14 was resident (complaint of of H.No. A-4, Chandu Nagar, PW14) Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, at first floor and at the ground floor of aforesaid property, there was a shop which was put on fire by the rioters on 24.02.2020.
On 04.03.2020, when PW14 came back to her house, she found it completely vandalized and robbed. The same had also been put on fire. PW14 gave her written complaint in this regard to the police, bearing her signatures at point A. PW14 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW15/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW15/A Shahzad Ali complainants. On 25.02.2020, he (colly. 3 pages) came to know that the rioters had (complaint of broken-open, vandalized, robbed PW15) & and put on fire his shop under the Ex.PW15/B name and style of "M/s Hashmi (colly) Traders" bearing no.120-A (photographs situated at Yadav Gali, Chandu clicked by Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, PW15) dealing in Unani and Ayurvedic medicines.
PW15 gave a written complaint to the police, bearing his signature in English on each page. On the said date, PW15 went there and took photographs of his burnt Page 18 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties shop.
PW15 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW16/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW16/A Mohsin complainants. On 24.02.2020 he (complaint of found a riotous mob started PW16) accumulating in the locality at or around his automobile shop bearing no. B-16 situated at Nehru Vihar, Delhi and they vandalized, robbed and put it on fire. PW16 gave a written complaint to the police, bearing his signature at point A. PW16 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW17/Ms. She was also one of the Ex.PW17/A Naeema complainants and she had given (complaint of Begum her complaint to police regarding PW17) incident of vandalism, robbery and arson taken placed on 24.02.2020 at her house bearing no.10A, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi. PW17 identified her signature at point A on her complaint.
On the point of identification of accused persons, she also did not support the case of prosecution. PW18/Smt. She was also one of the Ex.PW18/A Anjum complainants in the present case. (complaint of PW8 gave her complaint to police PW18) regarding incident of vandalism, Page 19 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties robbery and arson taken place on 24.02.2020 at H.No. A-12, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi.
PW18 identified her signature at point A on her complaint.
On the point of identification of accused persons, she also did not support the case of prosecution. PW19/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW19/A Tasleem complainants. PW19 gave his (complaint of complaint to police regarding PW19) incident of putting his E-
Rickshaw on fire on 24.02.2020 at about 8 PM, when he was present near Sherpur Chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi. PW19 identified his signature at point A on the same.
PW19 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW20/Md. He was also one of the Ex.PW20/A Wasil complainants. On 24.02.2020, at (colly) about 4-5 PM, a number of rioters (photographs had gathered around his dhaba taken by situated at A-42, gali no.3, PW20) & Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Ex.PW20/B Road, Delhi-94. PW20 (complaint of immediately closed his dhaba and PW20) went to his house. Later on, PW20 came to know that lock of his aforesaid dhaba was broke open, same was vandalized, the goods were robbed and it was put on fire. On the said date, PW20 went there and took photographs Page 20 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties of his burnt dhaba.
PW20 gave his written complaint to the police. He identified his signature at point A on the same.
PW20 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW21/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW-21/A Asif complainants. On 24.02.2020, he (complaint of found a riotous mob accumulating PW21). in the locality at or around his clinic situated at Plot no. A-33, Khasra no.31/6/2 Main 33 Foota Road, Panchal Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Later on, PW21 came to know that the rioters had broken-open, vandalized, robbed and put on fire his aforesaid clinic.
PW21 reported the matter to the police and gave his complaint, which bears his signature at point A. PW21 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW22/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW-22/A Arshad complainants. On 24.02.2020, he (complaint of found a riotous mob accumulating PW22) & in the locality at or around his Ex.PW-22/B shop of A/C Spare-parts situated (photograph of at A-42, Gali no.3, Chandu Nagar, shop belonging Karawal Nagar. Later on, in the to PW22) evening of 24.02.2020, PW22 came to know through his Page 21 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties neighbour that the rioters broke open, vandalized, robbed and put on fire his aforesaid shop.
PW22 reported the matter to the police and gave his complaint, which bears his signature at point A. PW22 also handed over photograph of his aforesaid shop. PW22 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW23/Mohd. He was also one of the Ex.PW-23/A Sheruddin complainants. In the morning of (complaint of 24.02.2020, PW23 came to know PW23) that the rioters had broken-open, vandalized, robbed and put on fire his Auto Spare-parts shop situated at Gali no.5, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar.
PW23 reported the matter to the police and gave his complaint, which bears his signature at point A. PW23 also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons.
PW24/Sh. He was also one of the Ex.PW24/A Sheruddin complainants. On 24.02.2020, he (complaint of Malik was running a shop of old PW24) & electronic goods situated at Gali Ex.PW24/B No.1, Roshan Vihar, Dayalpur.
(photographs On the same day, a riotous mob handed over by started accumulating in the PW24 to locality at or around his shop.
police) Later on, PW24 came to know Page 22 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties that the rioters broke open, vandalized, robbed and put on fire his aforesaid shop.
PW24 gave his complaint to police, which bears his signature at point A. PW24 also handed over photograph of his shop.
PW24 did not support the case of prosecution on the point of identification of accused persons. PW25/Retd. On 04.03.2020 being Duty Ex.PW25/A SI Bijender Officer at PS Dayalpur from 8 (FIR) Singh AM to 4 PM, he registered FIR in the present case on the basis of original complaint (Ex.PW1/A) of Danish Khan, as received from SI Rajeev.
PW25 identified endorsement of SI Rajeev at point A on Ex.PW1/A. PW25 identified his signature at point A on the FIR. After registration of FIR, PW25 made endorsement on rukka at point Y. PW26/Sh. On 24.02.2020, a riot had taken place beside the Monu road near Subway and peer ki mazar in the area of Chand Bagh on Wazirabad Road. On that day, during noon time, PW26 was present at aforesaid place selling socks. All of sudden, a chaos took place and thousands of persons were there on the road. PW26 wrapped up his articles and moved away from that place. From that place, PW26 went to his home bearing no. C-154, gali no.1, Chand Bagh, Dayalpur, Delhi. Police had made enquiry from PW26 and had obtained his signature on a document.
Page 23 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties On the point of identification of the accused persons, PW26 also did not support the case of prosecution and declared hostile. PW27/Ct. On 24.02.2020 at about 04:00- Ex.PW27/A, Piyush 04:30 PM, he found gathering of Ex.PW27/B & around 1500-2000 persons at Ex.PW27/C Karawal Nagar Road in front of (arrest memo Chandu Nagar. Those persons of accused Akil were equipped with danda, rod, Ahmad @ petrol bottles etc. Those persons Papar, Rahesh were raising slogans and Khan @ Rais damaging vehicles on the road. Khan and They were raising slogans that Irshad, 'CAA and NRC wapis lo'. When respectively) PW27 tried to pacify them, they started damaging nearby shops.
One of those shops was in the property no. A-97, bearing shop no.4. Members of that mob had destroyed/damaged articles of this shop and after taking out those articles on the road, they had set those articles on fire. PW27 had seen this incident from about 15- 20 steps distance. A vehicle of fire brigade also came there, but mob did not allow that vehicle to go ahead. Other vehicles were also set on fire on the road. This chaos continued for long time and after about 1-1 ½ hours, that mob dispersed.
PW27 had seen and identified accused persons in that mob, as he had seen them in the area of PS Dayalpur during patrolling duty. PW27 knew accused Akil, Rahis and Irshad. PW27 came back to PS on that day and Page 24 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties informed his senior officers about above-mentioned incident and that he knew three accused persons in that mob.
On 05.03.2020, PW27 gave his statement before SI Rajiv and narrated aforesaid incident to him. On 16.04.2020, PW27 went to Mandoli Jail with SI Rajiv and identified accused Akil and Rahis in jail no.13 and accused Irshad in jail no.12, before SI Rajiv. SI Rajiv prepared arrest memo there and obtained signature of PW27 on the same.
PW27 identified his signature at circle X on arrest memo of accused Akil Ahmad @ Papar, Rahesh Khan @ Rais Khan and Irshad.
PW28/Sh. He was egg seller on a handcart (rehri) at Dilbar Bhajanpura Chowk, near Chand Baba Dargah.
Around middle of February, 2020, PW28 had seen riots at Bhajanpura Chowk on 2 days and thereafter, he had not come out of his home H.No. D-42, Gali No.1, Chand Bagh, Delhi.
PW28 used to park/stand his handcart near the Chowk beside the Gokalpuri road. PW28 saw from corner of his gali and road that a number of persons came rushing towards Bhajanpura Chowk from Karawal Nagar side. On the point of identification of accused persons, he also did not support the case of prosecution and declared hostile.
PW29/HC On 24.02.2020, he was on duty from 8 AM in his Ankit beat i.e. Mahalaxmi Enclave Beat. At about 08:15 Page 25 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties AM, PW29 received a call from Reader to SHO that an order was passed by DCP, North East u/s 144 Cr.PC. On his instructions, PW29 announced this order in the area of PS Dayalpur i.e. Brijpuri Pulia, Mustafabad, Brijpuri T-Point, Brijpuri, Chand Bagh, 25 foota road Mustafabad, old Mustafabad, Babu Nagar, and Mahalaxmi Enclave, through loud hailer by a TSR auto taken from Shiv Vihar Tiraha. PW30/SI On 04.03.2020, on the instructions of SHO, he was Rajiv Kumar handed over copy of FIR with tehrir of this case for investigation, by DO.
PW30 visited A-97 and had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of PW1. PW30 identified his signature at circle X on the same. PW30 saw that it was shop of courier agency and some articles of that shop were lying in burnt condition outside the shop on the road. The shop, along with some articles, was also found in burnt condition. PW30 recorded statement of PW1 there. On 05.03.2020, PW30 recorded statement of Ct. Piyush, who was eye witness.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex. A-1 and prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-2.
PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 CR.P.C.
8. All accused persons denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence, taking plea that they were not present at the spot on the day of incident and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They also took plea that their name was implicated in this case, just to work out the case and witnesses falsely deposed against them at the instance of IO. Accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
Page 26 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & DEFENCE
9. I heard ld. Special PP and ld. counsel for accused persons. Separate written arguments were filed for prosecution and accused Akil. I have perused the written submissions and entire material on the record.
10. In his written submissions filed on behalf of prosecution, Sh. Madhukar Pandey, ld. Special PP submitted that prosecution solely relied upon the police witnesses in support of this case, because public witnesses became hostile during trial due to fear of their life, as they have to reside, run business and live in that particular society or place where incidents of riots took place. It was further submitted that turning hostile of the public witnesses could not affect the case of prosecution, as the testimony of police witness PW27 as produced by the prosecution clearly establishes the case and the involvement of the accused persons in the present case. The reliance was placed on the case of Pramod Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 588 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: -
"...........The witnesses from the Department of Police cannot be per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony."
11. Ld. Special also relied upon the case of Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana; (2013) 6 SCC 595, wherein Supreme Court observed that: -
"..........there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the Page 27 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence....."
12. Ld. Special PP further submitted that sole testimony of PW27/Ct. Piyush is sufficient to prove that the accused persons were rioting as a part of the mob on that particular day at the spot of incident. In support of his contention, ld. Special PP also relied upon case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 77, and referred to the observations that: -
"26. We do not find anything in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 :(1965) 1 Cri LJ 226: (1964) 8 SCR 133] which in any way qualifies the well- settled principle that the conviction can be founded upon the testimony of even a single witness if it establishes in clear and precise terms, the overt acts constituting the offence as committed by certain named assailants and if such testimony is otherwise reliable'... The test adopted in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202: (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226:
(1964) 8 SCR 133] as a rule of prudence cannot mean that in every case of mob violence there must be more than one eyewitness."
13. The prosecution also stressed on the settled law that "on mere irregularity on the part of IO, accused cannot be acquitted". Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 wherein it was held that: -
"19.......... It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in Page 28 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case."
14. In the written submissions filed on behalf of accused Akil Ahmed @ Papad, Sh. Mehmood Pracha, ld. defence counsel submitted that State has miserably failed to discharge its burden to prove the various charges against the accused persons. It was further submitted that accused was falsely implicated, arrested without any evidence, and the investigating officer made attempts to plant stock witnesses and to make sensational and exaggerated accusations against the accused with ulterior motives. It was further submitted that prosecution has conveniently omitted the observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal Devappa Rathod (supra) that: -
"24. We do not find anything in Masalti (supra) which in any way qualifies the well settled principle that the conviction can be founded upon the testimony of even single witness if it establishes in clear and precise terms, the overt acts constituting the offence as committed by certain named assailants and if such testimony is otherwise reliable. The test adopted in Masalti (supra) is required to be applied while dealing with cases of those accused who are sought to be made vicariously responsible for the acts committed by others, only by virtue of their alleged presence as members of the unlawful assembly without any specific allegations of overt acts committed by them, or where, given the nature of assault by the mob, the Court comes to the conclusion that it would have been impossible for any particular witness to have witnessed the relevant facets constituting the offence. The test adopted in Masalti (supra) as a rule of prudence cannot mean that in every case of mob violence there must be more than one eye witness."
15. Ld. defence counsel further submitted that aforesaid underlined portion, which is clearly applicable in this case, has been omitted by the prosecution in its written arguments. It was further submitted that PW-27 in his testimony dated 23.07.2022, has not attributed anything incriminating to the accused except his Page 29 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 presence in a mob of about 1500-2000 persons. It was further submitted that testimony of public eyewitnesses clearly reveal that they were approached by the Police in August of 2020, i.e. about six months after the incident in question. The witnesses were admittedly not known to the accused, and hence a TIP was necessary, which the police failed to conduct. It was further stated that not a single line of evidence was elicited to show that in what manner, when, and how, the accused influenced the witnesses. It was further submitted that from the testimony of IO/PW-30, it revealed that he had forged several statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and hence, a grave shadow is caste upon the use of such statements as well.
16. Sh. Salim Malik, ld. counsel for accused Raheesh Khan @ Raisu Khan and Irshad, argued that complaint Ex.PW1/A refers to a shop, but site plan does not mention any property number or description of property. It was further argued that initially there was no eyewitness. As per IO, PW6 and PW28 came subsequently to claim being eyewitness, but they did not support the case of prosecution in the court. PW27/Ct. Piyush is the only witness, who supported the case of prosecution and his statement was recorded by IO on 05.03.2020. It was further argued that duty roster was available in PS all the time, but IO did not record any arrival or departure entry. It was further argued that PW27 did not make any call and he was not even aware of ATM near this shop. PW27 was a stock witness introduced by IO and his evidence is not credible and there is no corroboration. It was further argued that no other police staff was examined, who was Page 30 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 present with PW27. PW27 did not say anything about other complainants. Reliance was placed upon the case of Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 195 SC 202, to submit that ratio of the same applies to this case. It was further argued that charge sheet was prepared as per format, without pleading other relevant facts. It was further argued that accused were already in custody in FIR No.84/20 of same PS and they were falsely implicated to show that this case was solved.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOTS
17. For the purpose of ready reference, the description of complaints clubbed and proved in this case is reproduced, which is as under:-
Srl. Name of Exhibit Mark Place of incident No. Complainant of Complaint 1 Danish Khan Ex.PW1/A Shop situated at A-97, shop No.4, main Karawal Nagar Road, Chandu Nagar, near Sherpur Chowk, in front of Suraj Band, in Thakur Vir Singh Market.
2 Afroj Ex.PW2/B Showroom bearing No.A-149, Nehru Vihar, Sherpur Chowk, adjacent to Khadi Showroom, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94.
3 Israt Ex.PW3/B H.No.A-105, Gali No.15,
Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi
4 Mohd. Ex.PW4/A A-12, Gali No.5, Gupta Market,
Yameen Chandu Nagar, Delhi
5 Naima Ex.PW5/A A-12, Gali No.5, Gupta Market,
Chandu Nagar, Delhi
6 Munne Miya Ex.PW6/B Showroom bearing No.A-149,
Page 31 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021
State v. Akil Ahmed etc.
SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Srl. Name of Exhibit Mark Place of incident No. Complainant of Complaint Nehru Vihar, Sherpur Chowk, adjacent to Khadi Showroom, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94.
7 Shabir Ex.PW7/A H.No.D-1, Khasra No.325, Gali No.1, Nehru Vihar, Delhi 8 Sunil Kumar Ex.PW8/A Tuition institute situated at A-
141, Chandu Nagar 9 Radha Kishan Ex.PW9/A Godown at the ground floor of his house situated at A-97, Chandu Nagar, Main Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi.
10 Saif Khan Ex.PW10/A Coaching institute situated at second floor of property bearing no.134A, Gali No.3, Tukmirpur, Delhi 11 Lalita Ex.PW11/B A-107, Gali No.5, Chandu Rathore Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
12 Shahnawaz Ex.PW12/A H.No.103, Gali No.2, D-Block, (Took name of Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
different accused) 13 Shahreen Ex.PW13/A H.No.19, Gali No.5, Gupta Market, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 14 Sameena Ex.PW14/A H.No. A-4, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi 15 Shahzad Ali Ex.PW15/A Shop at 120-A situated at Yadav Gali, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 16 Mohsin Ex.PW16/A Automobile shop bearing no.B-
16, Gali No.6, situated at Nehru Vihar, Delhi 17 Naeem Ex.PW17/A H.No. 10A, Gali No.5, Chandu Begum Nagar, Delhi 18 Anjum Ex.PW18/A H.No.A-12, Gali No.5, Chandu Nagar, Delhi.
Page 32 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Srl. Name of Exhibit Mark Place of incident No. Complainant of Complaint 19 Tasleem Ex.PW19/A Near Sherpur Chowk, Chandu Nagar, Delhi 20 Md. Wasil Ex.PW20/B Dhaba situated at A-42, gali no.3, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94.
21 Ashif Ex.PW21/A Clinic situated at Plot no.A-33, Khasra no.31/6/2 Main 33 Foota Road, Panchal Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
22 Mohd. Ex.PW22/A Shop of A/C Spare-parts Arshad situated at A-42, Gali no.3, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar.
23 Sherudeen Ex.PW23/A Auto Spare-parts shop situated at Gali no.5, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar.
24 Sharudeen Ex.PW24/A Shop of old electronic goods Malik situated at Gali No.1, Roshan Vihar, Dayalpur.
18. Before I deal with aforesaid incidents, it is appropriate to mention here that in the charge sheet IO mentioned about 27 complaints being clubbed in this case. However, on perusal of the list of complaints mentioned in the charge sheet, it can be found that name of three complainants were mentioned twice in the list. These were Israt, Mohd. Yameen and Shahnawaz. Moreover, there was discrepancy in the serial numbers in the sense that after serial no.14, there was no serial no.15 and straight away serial no.16 was given in the list. Thus, this list effectively referred to 23 additional complaints, which were shown to be taken up for investigation in this FIR itself. However, IO/PW30 SI Rajiv Kumar deposed in his cross-examination (dated 29.03.2023, para
4) that he had clubbed other 27 complaints in this case on Page 33 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 30.03.2020. He was further cross-examined in respect of investigation done on the so called 27 complaints and was asked to point out all those complaints on the record. After going through the record, he could point out only 24 complaints (description of which has been given herein above). Thereafter, he kept changing the number of complaints to say that there were 22 complaints. After more questioning on the aspect of investigation done on the additional complaints and evidence against the accused persons in respect of these incidents, IO finally answered that he had found evidence against the accused persons in respect of incident at the premises of Danish only and none else. He further stated that he had clubbed other complaints in this case with complaint of Danish because those places of incidents were also situated at the distance of around 100 to 300 meters from the premises of Danish. Thereafter, he further stated that the place of incident as disclosed in complaint of Asif Ex.PW21/A was at a distance of about 300-400 meters from the premises of Danish.
19. Thus, from the testimony of IO itself it is amply clear that though he clubbed additional complaints in the present FIR for investigation, but he charge sheeted accused persons in this case only on the basis of evidence against them qua incident taken place at the property of Danish, who was the first complainant. This FIR was registered in respect of incident taken place at the premises of Danish. In some of the additional complaints, the complainants had mentioned that the mob at their respective places were chanting slogan of "Jai Shree Ram". One Page 34 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 complainant namely Shahnawaz in his complaint Ex.PW12/A had mentioned name of Bhullu and Lala being part of the mob at his place. However, IO did not say anything in the charge sheet or in his examination in chief, about such allegations made in the respective complaints and the investigation done by him on the basis of such allegations. It is very difficult to assume that it would have been a mob of persons from Muslim community, who would have been chanting slogan of "Jai Shree Ram" while indulging into riot and vandalism. I say so also because it is so projected by prosecution also that a communal riot had taken place. Even in the statement recorded by IO, one witness (Mohd. Yameen) had mentioned about there being two groups/mobs confronting each other and resulting into riots. IO in his cross- examination in respect of investigation done on additional complaints, though claimed to have made inquiry from respective complainants, but he could not come up with satisfactory account of further investigation, if done by him. Thus, it is amply clear that all the additional complaints clubbed in this case were not completely investigated. IO was even not aware of the time when such incidents took place. It is also apparent that there was no logical ground with the IO to club those complaints in the present FIR. It appears to have been so done in very casual manner. Hence, I find that all these complaints are wrongly clubbed in the present FIR in mechanical manner and were not investigated.
20. Since, all the additional complaints clubbed in this case, were not completely investigated, it shall not be appropriate for this court to still deal with those complaints in order to return any finding.
Page 35 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 IO had already acknowledged in his testimony that he did not have any evidence against the three accused persons charge sheeted in this case, in respect of incidents being disclosed in the additional complaints. In such situation, it shall be injustice with those additional complainants, so as to decide their complaints in the present FIR itself, without there being a proper and complete investigation on their complaints.
21. As far as incident at the premises of complainant Danish Khan is concerned, he was examined as PW1. According to his testimony, he had opened his shop at A-97, Shop No.4, Main Karawal Nagar Road, Chandu Nagar, Delhi, lastly on 22.02.2020. In the evening of 24.02.2020, he was informed by his neighbour through telephonic call about trespass, loot and arson at his shop. When he visited his shop after 01.03.2020, he found his shop in completely burnt condition. This fact has not been challenged by the defence. IO/PW30 deposed that he visited this shop, which was shop of courier agency and the shop along with its articles was found in burnt condition. IO should have also called crime team for inspection of this place and should have taken photographs of this place as well. Still, on the basis of unchallenged testimony of PW1, it can be concluded that his shop was actually vandalized and set on fire.
22. As far as an unlawful assembly/mob being responsible for such condition of the shop of PW1, is concerned, except for PW27/Ct. Piyush there was no other witness from the prosecution to say anything about aforesaid incident. PW1 in his complaint Ex.PW1/A itself had mentioned that he had received call from a Page 36 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 person residing in front of his shop. Unfortunately, IO did not make inquiry about particulars of such person from PW1 and accordingly, this person was not examined by IO. Even in the court, PW1 was not asked about particulars of such neighbour.
23. PW27/Ct. Piyush deposed that he was on duty at Main Wazirabad Road and Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road. He deposed that there was gathering of around 1500-2000 persons at Karawal Nagar Road in front of Chandu Nagar and those persons started damaging nearby shops, which included shop no.4 in property No.A-97. Keeping in view the circumstances at that point of time and the fact that even PW1 had not opened his shop on account of tense atmosphere because of riots, it can be safely assumed that his shop was actually vandalized and set ablaze by mob of rioters i.e. an unlawful assembly. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
24. It is the case of prosecution as well as matter of record that except for PW27/Ct. Piyush, prosecution did not produce any other witness to establish identity of the accused persons as member of the responsible mob behind the aforesaid incident at the premises of PW1. Though in the arguments filed on behalf of prosecution, it was submitted that public witnesses became hostile during trial due to fear of their life. However, as far as PW1 is concerned, right from the time of making his complaint, his stand had been amply clear that he was not present at his shop at the time of the incident. In that situation, it cannot be said that PW1 turned hostile and it is also well reflected from his testimony that prosecution had neither declared him hostile nor Page 37 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 had cross-examined him. In fact, except for PW26 and PW28, none of the public witnesses were declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecution.
25. If I refer to the charges framed in this case (which was framed on the basis of material presented by the prosecution), then I find that in respect of all the incidents mentioned therein (except three incidents related to premises of Shahnawaz, E-rickshaw of Tasleem and premises of Naima) including the incident at shop no.4, A-97, no time period of the incident was mentioned. It was shown to have taken place at time unknown. If the IO could not even find the time period of the incident at shop no.4, A-97, though, he claimed that he had found one eyewitness i.e. PW27/Ct. Piyush, it shows the authenticity of such claim of the IO. As already mentioned herein above, IO did not attempt to find the person who had informed PW1 about the incident. Therefore, it was laxity on the part of IO, rather than hostility of public witnesses, so as to not get credible relevant public witness in respect of the incident at the premises of Danish. PW26 and PW28 were vendors who used to sell their items on and near Wazirabad Road. No one can be sure if they had actually seen and retained faces of accused persons, after seeing them in the mob at A-97, Chandu Nagar.
26. PW27/Ct. Piyush deposed that at about 4-4.30 PM, there was gathering of about 1500-2000 persons at Karawal Nagar Road in front of Chandu Nagar. These persons were raising slogans against CAA/NRC and they started vandalizing nearby shops. One of the those shops was in property no.A-97. The members of Page 38 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 this mob destroyed articles of this shop after taking them out on the road and thereafter set those articles on fire. This chaos continued for long time and PW27 had seen and identified three persons i.e. the three accused herein in that mob. PW27 claimed that he had seen them in the area of PS during patrolling duty and he also knew their names. He further testified that he came back to PS and informed his senior officers about aforesaid incident and about knowing three accused persons being part of that mob. He gave his statement before IO on 05.03.2020 and he had given only one statement before the IO. However, PW27 did not say anything in respect of role played by the accused persons.
27. The record shows that IO recorded his statement on 16.04.2020 and there is no statement dated 05.03.2020. Since this witness claimed that he was examined once only by the IO, there cannot be situation of having additional statement recorded on 16.04.2020. Interestingly, even IO/PW30 deposed that he recorded statement of Ct. Piyush on 05.03.2020. Thus, their testimony is in total contradiction to the record of prosecution itself regarding date of examination of Ct. Piyus. According to PW27 and PW30, they went to Mandoli Jail together on 16.04.2020, when all three accused persons were arrested in this case by PW30 on identification of PW27. During his cross- examination, PW27 deposed that he came to know about name of accused Irsad, when he made inquiry from secret informers after the riots. Such improvement made by PW27, contradicted his own version about knowing all three accused persons with their names since prior to the riots. Same was stand taken by PW27 in Page 39 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 respect of acquiring knowledge of name of accused Raheesh. PW27 further deposed in his cross-examination that he did not tell name of father of accused persons before the IO. He also stated that he had only informed about area of their residence before the IO. However, statement of this witness as recorded by IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would show that name of parents of all three accused persons were mentioned by IO. Such situation leads to two possibilities. Either PW27 was not deposing before the court correctly or his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not a record of his actual knowledge about this case, rather it was prepared by IO after supplementing it with additional facts. Only then, there could be reference to parentage of these three accused persons in this statement.
28. For me the aforesaid situations are sufficient to shake my confidence over the credibility of PW27 in respect of his statement given regarding identification of the accused persons. I am conscious of the observations made by Supreme Court in the cases of Pramod Kumar (supra), Kashmiri Lal (supra) and K. Yarappa (supra), as referred by ld. prosecutor. However, I find that the evidence produced by the prosecution in the case, fails to qualify the test of credibility in respect of identification of the accused persons being member of the mob, which was responsible for the incident at the premises of Danish. CONCLUSION & DECISION
29. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against all the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused 1. Akil Ahmed @ Papad, 2. Raheesh Khan @ Raisu Khan, and 3.
Page 40 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001806-2021 State v. Akil Ahmed etc. SC No.237/21, FIR No.108/20, PS Dayalpur Judgment dated 07.06.2023 Irshad, are acquitted of the charges in respect of incident at shop no.4, A-97, Chandu Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi. It is once again made clear that in the present case, I have consciously not given any finding in respect of charges qua other incidents based on additional complaints, for the reasons that same were not properly and completely investigated by IO and for such omission of the IO, those complainants should not be prejudiced. Hence, the matter in that respect is being referred to investigating agency again. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2023.06.07 15:01:28 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 07.06.2023 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 41 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 41 of 41 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi