Delhi District Court
State vs Shorab Sheikh Etc. on 26 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.44/09
FIR No.351/99
U/s 364/342/325/506/34 IPC
PS H.N.Din
State
Vs.
1.Sohrab Sheikh s/o Jainul Sheikh (Since Expired)
2.Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan s/o Mohd.Laiq
3.Noor Alam s/o Maqsood Ali
4.Abdul Wazid s/o Abdul Wahid
5.Sajjad @ Sehzad s/o Abdul Wazid
6.Naseem Khan s/o Gulmehar Khan
7.Sharafat Sheikh s/o Sheikh Jainul
8.Surjeet Sonkar s/o Mahilal (Declared P.O on 10.12.04)
.....Accused
Challan filed on : 22.10.99
Received by Fast Track Court on:12.05.09
Reserved for Order on : 20.05.10
Judgement delivered on : 26.05.10
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Mohd. Arif lodged the present FIR alleging that he works in Sajjad Hotel, Subhash Nagar. On 12.6.99, at about 4 p.m one Sharafat and Sheikh Jenul came to him and with them there were two boys namely Naseem and Surjeet (proclaimed offender). All of them came in a dark blue colour Zen Car and asked him to go to State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 1 of 22 Nizamuddin. Complainant was forcibly taken in the said car to Nizamuddin and he was taken by accused Sharaft to the upper storey of his house. Accused Sharafat gagged the mouth of complainant with piece of cloth and accused Naseem and Surjeet (Since P.O) tied his hands and legs with a rope. It is alleged that accused Shrafat started beating him with iron rod and asked the complainant about the whereabouts of Shahnawaj, who is the nephew of accused Sharaft. Complainant kept denying the knowledge about the whereabouts of Shahnawaj and those persons kept on beating him. Complainant became unconscious. On next day on 15.6.99 at about 7.30 p.m these persons namely accused Sajjad, Naseem, Surjeet and Sheikh Jenul (Shorab Sheikh) started beating the complainant. It is alleged that at that time one more person namely Alam Maksood (Noor Alam) also joined them in beating the complainant. Complainant was crying and therefore on hearing these cries, someone informed police. Thereafter all the accused persons locked the complainant in the room and went away. It is alleged that accused Sharafat, Naseem, Surjeet (since PO) and Alam Maksood threatened the complainant to kill him. Police received an information through telephone at about 7.40 p.m on 15.6.99 that in the godown of Shrafat, one man is crying. On this information DD no.18A PS H.N.Din was recorded and ASI Attar Hussain alongwith Ct.Naresh Kumar were sent to the spot. They heard the groaning sound of some person from the upper storey of godown of accused. The room was locked from outside. After breaking the lock, police found the complainant who had received many injuries. ASI Attar Hussain recorded the statement of complainant upon which FIR u/s 364/342/506/323/34 IPC was registered. The investigation was State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 2 of 22 done and statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.PC was also recorded. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was filed.
2. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received by the court of sessions on 17.02.05.
3. The charge against the accused Sohrab Sheikh (since expired), Naseem Khan, Noor Alam, Shrafat Sheikh, Abdul Wazid, Sajjad and Mohd. Hanif was framed u/s 364/342/325/506/34 IPC on 14.12.07 by Sh Vinod Kumar, Ld. ASJ to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 14 witnesses and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed.
5. The evidence against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they have pleaded their innocence and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons had not opted to lead defence evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard the Ld.counsel for the accused persons as well as Ld.APP for the State and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.
State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 3 of 22
7. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld.APP and Ld.Counsel on behalf of the accused I have perused the testimonies of all the PWS.
8. PW1 Dr. Mukul Sinha, Radiologist has examined the X-ray plate of Mohd. Arif and he proved report in this respect as Ex.PW1/A.
9. PW2 Dr. Deepak Mathur has examined injured Mohd. Arif and prepared MLC Ex.PW2/A and he opined the nature of injury as grievous-blunt.
10. PW3 Mohd.Arif is the complainant and injured in this case and he proved his statement Ex.PW3/A. He has also stated that his statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC by the court which is Ex.PW3/B. He made allegations against the accused persons in his statement. He has also been declared hostile on some material point and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
11. PW4 Abhay Tiwari has deposed that on 17.06.99 he accompanied the police to the godown of Sharafat Bhai at Ist floor where on injured boy was already sitting. He took the photograph of that boy and also photographed the broken lock.He proved photographs Ex.PW4/A1 to A2 and negatives Ex.PW4/B1 to B2.
12 PW5 Ct. Ram Bhool has deposed that on 15.6.99 Ct. Naresh Kr handed over DD no.18A to ASI Attar Hussain and thereafter he alongwith ASI Attar went to godown of Sharafat Bhai at State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 4 of 22 Nizamnagar. At Ist floor they found one room locked and heard voice of screaming. The lock was broken by ASI Attar Hussain and one injured person was found present inside the room. The name of injured was Arif.The photographs were taken. ASI Attar Hussain recorded the statement of injured. the lock was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C. He got the injured medically examined. He further stated that on 13.7.99 accused Sohrab Sheikh disclosed that he can get recover the vehicle in which Arif was brought. He got recovered maruti zen bearing no. DL 4CG 2614 which was seized vie memo Ex.PW5/A. He has stated that disclosure statement of accused Sorab Sheikh was recorded which is Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that on 23.7.99 on the basis of information accused Noor Alam and Naseem Khan were apprehended from DDA Park. He proved personal search memos Ex.PW5/C and D as well as disclosure statements Ex.PW5/E and F. Accused Noor Alam got recovered one knife from the roof of one kabar situated in Basti Nizamuddin which was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/G.He also deposed about arrest of accused Surjeet (since PO) on 10.9.99 from DDA Park.
13. PW6 HC Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 15.6.99 he handed over DD no.18A to ASI Attar Hussain and thereafter accompanied him, HC Inderpal and Ct.Ram Bhul to the godown and remained present outside.
14. PW7 ASI Satpal Singh has deposed that on 16.5.99 he was posted as Duty Officer and he recorded the FIR no.351/99 copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 5 of 22
15. PW8 Lady Constable Asrita has deposed that she was posted as DD writer and she recorded DD no.7B regarding departure entry for patrolling of Ct.Ashok and Rambhul. The copy of DD is Ex.PW8/A.
16. PW9 Sheikh Henan has deposed that he is the owner of maruti zen bearing no. DL 4CG 2614 which was seized in FIR no. 351/99 and thereafter got released on superdari vide superdginama Ex.PW9/A. He has sold the said car and cannot produce the same. He used to park the said car near Bihar House belonging to accused Sharafat Sheikh. He was not interrogated by the police nor his statement was recorded. The copy of RC is Ex.P1. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and the witness has denied having made any statement to the police.
17. PW10 Ct. Ashok Kumar has joined the investigation on 13.7.99. HE has deposed that they went to Islamic Guest House, Basti Nizamuddin where one maruti Zen blue colour car no. DL 4CG2614 was park and it was seized on the pointing out of accused Sorab Sheikh vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Accused also pointed out one godown vide memo Ex.PW10/A. On 16.7.99 accused Sharafat Sheikh came to PS with order of his anticipatory bail and he was formally arrested. His disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B was recorded. He also pointed out the godown vide memo ex.PW10/C.
18. PW11 HC Inder Pal has also deposed that he went to the State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 6 of 22 godown on 15.6.99 with ASI Attar Hussain from where groaning of human being was coming. After breaking the lock one persons was found sitting in injured condition and his name was revealed as Arif. His statement was recorded. He was sent for medical examination and IO made endorsement on the statement of Arif and got the case registered through him. The godown was searched vide memo Ex.PW11/A.He identified the broken lock Ex.P1.
19. PW12 Ct. Surender Singh has recorded DD no.49B and 50B regarding departure of ASI Attar Hussain and HC Inderpal copies of which are Ex.PW12/A and B.
20. PW13 ASI Attar Hussain is the IO of this case and he deposed the version of PW5, 10 & 11 regarding receiving of DD no.18A, reaching at the godown, breaking of lock, finding one person in injured condition sitting inside, getting the spot photographed, preparing of Inspection memo of the room, recording the statement of Arif Ex.PW3/A, preparing of rukka Ex.PW13/B and getting the case registered. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/C. He further stated that on 12.7.09 accused Sorab Sheikh surrendered before the court and he obtained the PC remand and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed about recovery of Maruti Zen by accused Sorab Sheikh. He further deposed that on 16.7.99 accused Sharafat Sheikh surrendered before him and he was arrested vide memo Ex.WP13/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/D. His disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW10/B. He also pointed out the place vide memo ex.PW10/A. On State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 7 of 22 23.7.99 he arrested accused Noor Alam and Nasim vide memo Ex.PW13/E & F and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW5/F and C. They also pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW13/G& H. He further deposed that accused Noor Alam got recovered one vegetable knife from, the roof of grave/quabar which seized and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/G. He further deposed about apprehension of accused Surjeet Sonkar (Since PO). He got recorded the statement of complainant Arif u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He identified the knife Ex.PW5/A1.
21. PW14 Sh K.S. Mohi. Addl. Sessions Judge, had deposed that on 09.7.99 while he was posted as MM he recorded the statement of complainant Arif which is Ex.PW3/E.
22. Analyzing the testimonies of all the PWS, it is revealed that PW3 Mohd Arif is the complainant and victim in this case and he is the main witness in this case being victim. Pw3 in his testimony has stated that on 12th day of 6th month, he does not know the exact year, three/four persons namely Nasim, Alam, Shorab and two-three other persons came to his shop at about 9.30 - 10 a.m. Accused Nasim and Shorab Sheikh (since expired) asked him to accompany them for some work. They took him in a blue coloured zen car to Nizamuddin and took him to 2nd floor of the building. He does not know the exact address. He was taken to the roof by Nasim, Noor Alam, Shorab and they gave him severe beatings and thereafter they locked him in a room in the said building. He remained locked and confined in the said building for about three days. The building was owned by accused State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 8 of 22 Sharafat Sheikh but Sharafat Sheikh was not present there at that time. The accused persons had tortured him in the said room and have given severe beatings and all the accused persons were giving threats to him to cut his leg and tounge with a knife and with a stone cutting machine. After three days police rescued him. He identified accused Noor Alam, Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan and Naseem by putting hand on them. He has also stated that accused Shorab Sheikh (since expired) and Surjeet (since PO) was also involved in the commission of offence but they are not present in the court. He has also stated that remaining accused present in the court were not involved in commission of offence at any time and they had not given any threats to him and had not given any beatings to him. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. He has further stated that accused Surjeet was having knife and poker and remaining accused were having sarias and dandas in their hands. He was given beatings as the son of accused Shorab Sheikh had gone missing and they wanted him to disclose the place where his son had gone as Shorab Sheikh was having doubt on him. All the accused persons had threatened to kill him. He was examined in the hospital. He identified the lock seized by IO as Ex.P1. He has stated that knife produced in the court is not the same knife which was seized by the IO. When his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW3/B was recorded he was not well. Accused Sharafat Sheikh might have been arrested by the IO. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State and cross examined wherein he has stated that accused Shrafat Sheikh, Abdul Wajid @ Master, Sajjad were not involved in commission of the offence. I have also perused his cross examination. He has stated that no one forced him to record his State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 9 of 22 statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate. He went to the court alone. On the day of occurrence 5 to 6 persons came to his shop. He denied that he had visiting terms with accused Shrafat Sheikh as he is belonging to his native village. He has further stated in cross examination that he cannot say who is the owner of the building in which he was kept by the accused persons after kidnapping. After medical he was brought to PS . His statement was recorded by the police in PS in the evening time after his medical examination. He does not recollect the day and date when his statement was recorded. None of the accused were known to him prior to incident. He came to know the name of accused Noor Alam when he caused injury on his both foot, legs from the sua and when they were talking to each other by name. He could not explain regarding cutting his leg by the stone cutting machine by the accused to the police when his statement was recorded by the police as he was so perplexed. He gave his each and every statement in the pressure of police officials. When he came to the court and produced by the police they told him in the PS that he will name 2/3 accused persons to that he can escape himself. He did not named any assailant in his statement on which basis the FIR was registered and he does not know that they were mentioned by the police. He identified the accused persons in the court at the instance and under the pressure of the police. It is correct that he had moved an application before the court for harassing by the police to name the wrong persons. He admitted that he identified the accused persons under the pressure of police on the pretext that if he will not identify the accused persons he will be falsely implicated in false cases by the police. It is correct that whenever the date of his statement used to State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 10 of 22 come he was kept by the police in the PS for 2/3 days prior to the date of hearing. It is correct that whenever he refused not to identify the accused persons they did not allow him to come to the court. He admitted that he was kept sitting at the palce of recovered about an hour without providing any treatment to compel him to give his statement as per their wish. He did not see any rope. He was unconscious so he cannot say whether hands and legs were tied with a rope or not. He cannot say whether some site plan was prepared by the police at his instance or not. He admitted that whatever statement he has given in the court, he gave under the pressure of police and same is wrong. He cannot read and write being illiterate. He admitted that in the application Ex.PW3/D he took the plea that the name of Shrafat may kindly be deleted and correct version be recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC as IO was adamant and pressurizing him to act and give the statement as per the direction of IO but he was refusing so he was facing hardship and high handedness from the hands of IO. He moved another application in which he has taken plea that police officials did not explain him the contents of FIR and they were doing the investigation as per their wish. On the day of recording statement u/s 164 Cr.PC SI Attar Hussain accompanied him to the court to give the statement as per his wish. All the accused persons present in the court today are not involved in the kidnapping and they have not caused him any injury on his person. It is correct that all the accused persons present in the court are not involved in any manner in kidnapping. This witness has been re-examined by the State and he has stated that he disclosed his condition to the doctor. He sustained injury in his legs due to slip in staircase. He gave his each and every statement under the State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 11 of 22 pressure of someone again said under the pressure of police.
23. In view of the deposition made by Complainant PW3 Arif, it is revealed that in his examination in chief he has assigned the role to accused Nasim, Noor Alam and Shorab Sheikh that they came to his shop on the 12.6.99 and took him to 2nd floor of some building and gave beatings to him at the roof of the building. He was taken at about 9.30 or 10 a.m. There might be other roofs adjacent to the roof of said building and at the time of giving beatings to PW3, he might also have cried and raised alarm. But there is no evidence on file that someone from the public had seen the accused persons giving beatings to PW3 on the roof. He has further stated that he was locked in a room in the said building and confined for three days. He further stated about giving beatings in the room and threats extended to him my the accused persons. He identified accused Noor Alam, Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan and Naseem. He has not assigned any role to remaining accused persons. On perusal of his cross examination it is revealed that he gave his each and every statement under the pressure of police to save him from implication of false cases by the police. He has even stated that he identified the accused persons under the pressure of police and even he has moved an application before the court for harassing by the police to name the wrong persons. HE also moved an application and has taken the plea that the police officials did not explain him the contents of the FIR . He has clearly stated in cross examination that all the accused persons present in the court are not involved in the kidnapping and have not caused him any injury on his persons. He has also stated that he sustained injury in his leg due to State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 12 of 22 slip in staircase. PW3 is the complainant and injured and he was the victim since he was confined by the accused persons and he was even giving beatings by them. He is the star witness of the prosecution and whole case of the prosecution rests upon his testimony. He is the backbone of the prosecution case. On perusal of his testimony it is revealed that first in examination in chief he has assigned role to three accused persons but thereafter in cross examination he changed his stand and stated that all the accused persons were not involved in his kidnapping and they had not caused any injury to him. He has not given consistent statement before the court and he has changed his stand from time to time. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Raj Kumar Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 that:-
'Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot be regarded as reliable and trust-worthy witness of the occurrence' It is also held by Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Admn. 1997 Criminal Law Journal 108(SC) CC Cases that :-
'When the prosecution witness gives two different statements in their testimonies either at one or two suggest, therefore the testimony become unreliable and unworthy of credit and in the absence of any circumstances no conviction could be made therein'.
State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 13 of 22
24. In consideration of deposition made by PW3 and in view of the above observations observed by the Hon'ble Apex court and Hon'ble High court, PW3 is not reliable and trustworthy witness in respect of the prosecution version. I have also considered the testimonies of witnesses adduced by the prosecution.
25. PW4 Abhay Tiwari is the formal witness who clicked the photographs from where PW3 Mohd. Arif was recovered. As per his version he took the photograph on 17.6.99 while as per the case of prosecution, Mohd. Arif was released on 15.6.99. PW6 HC Naresh has handed over DD no.18A to ASI Attar Hussain and went to the godown but he remained present outside. PW7 ASI Satpal Singh is also a formal witness who recorded the FIR copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. PW8 L/Ct Asrita is also a formal witness who recorded DD no.7B and PW12 Ct. Surender is also a formal witness who recorded DD no.49 & 50B. PW9 Sheikh Hanan is the owner of car bearing reg no.DL4CG 2614. But he has stated that he cannot produce the car since he had already sold the same. In his cross examination it has come that he sold the same to one Tilak in Paharganj. But still the car could not produced in the court. So, the vehicle in which the complainant was allegedly kidnapped could not be proved and produced in the court.
PW5 Ct. Rambool, PW10 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW11 HC Inderpal and PW13 ASI Attar Hussain (IO) are the witnesses of investigation. PW5, 11 and 13 had gone to the building from where complainant was rescued. It has been stated by these Pws that complainant was rescued from Ist floor while PW3 complainant has stated that he was taken at 2nd floor of that building. It has also come in evidence that the lock of State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 14 of 22 the room was broken in the presence of Imtiaz. But the said Imtiaz has not been made as witness nor examined in the court. PW5 has stated that after medical examination of injured he again reached at the spot but the police team was not present so, he took the injured to PS Hazrat Nizamuddin while PW13 IO has stated in cross examination that Arif was got admitted in the hospital so only Ct. Rambhool came back to the spot and he disclosed him that Arif was remained in the hospital for his treatment. PW5 in cross examination has stated that he told the dates 15.6.99, 13.7.99, 23.7.99 and 10.9.99 after refreshing his memory from the file. He has further stated that IO broke the lock with hammer and brick with the help of HC Inderpal. PW11 HC Inderpal and PW13 IO have stated that lock was broken with the help of brick. The brick with which the lock was broken has not been seized nor exhibited before the court. PW5 has further stated that he was directed to take Arif for medical after breaking the lock of the room straightway to the AIIMS Hospital while IO has stated that complainant Arif was not sent for first aid immediately to the hospital from the spot because he was kept at the spot for completing the paper work. PW5 has stated that in the godown of first floor there was only one big room hall type is situated while PW13 IO has stated that there were 3-4 rooms at the first floor. PW11 HC Inderpal in cross examination has admitted that the lock is in shining position and looks like a new one. If the said lock had been broken some dent might have come on it. But no dent was seen on it. It has been admitted by IO as well as other investigation witnesses that no person from the public has been associated in the investigation in this case. PW12 has admitted that were were around 200 to 250 jhuggis surrounding the State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 15 of 22 said godown. But IO has not made any attempt to join public persons in the investigation. Even Imtiaz who was allegedly present there, has been not made witness in this case which create doubt in the case of the prosecution. PW13 has stated that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/C. The site plan was allegedly prepared at the instance of PW3 Mohd.Arif. But Mohd. Arif in his deposition has stated that he does not know whether any site plan was prepared at his instance or not. PW13 has stated that he recorded the statement of the complainant at the spot and got the case registered but PW3 complainant has stated that his statement was recorded by the Police in PS in the evening time after his medical examination. So, there are glaring contradictions in the testimonies of official witnesses in this case. PW13 has clearly stated in his examination in chief that during the course of investigation he could not find any clue or incriminating evidence against accused Abdul Wazid @ Master, his sone Sajjad and Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan and he put them in column no.2 of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. I have also perused the report u/s 173 Cr.PC. In the said report it has been mentioned by the IO that complainant used to change his statement and it seems that he has been won over by the accused and Abdul Wajid, Sajjad and Hanif @Chandan has been named after thought, may be due to revenge. So, IO of this case himself has stated in the said report that complainant used to change is statement from time to time and accused Abdul Wajid, Sajjad and Hanif has been named due to revenge. Therefore complainant PW3 Mohd. Arif cannot be regarded as trustworthy witness. I have also perused the medical evidence in this case.
State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 16 of 22
26. PW1 Dr. Mukul Sinha is the radiologist who prepared X- ray report Ex.PW1/A. AS per the said report there was fracture of 9th rib right side. PW2 Dr. Deepak Mathur has prepared the MLC of Mohd. Arif Ex.PW2/A. As per the MLC the nature of injuries has been opined as grievous. However, PW3 Mohd. Arif who is the complainant and victim in this case has stated in cross examination that he sustained injury when he slipped from the staircase. So, it cannot be regarded that the accused persons had caused the injury on the person of complainant.
27. In this case charge has been framed u/s 364/342/325/506/34 IPC. PW3 complainant has specifically stated in cross examination that the accused persons present in the court are not involved in his kidnapping and they have not caused him any injury on his person. The car in which the complainant was kidnapped has not been produced in the court. He further stated that he was kept sitting at the place of recovery for about an hour without providing any treatment to compel him to give his statement as per their wish. He identified the accused persons at the instance and under pressure of police so that he could not be implicated in any case. Witnesses of investigation PW5 & 13 have stated that accused Noor Alam got recovered a vegetable knife from the roof of quabar situated in Basti Nizamuddin. First of all it is not clear as to from which quabar the said knife was recovered. Secondly, it is generally seen that quarbars used not to have any roof. Further, complainant PW3 has not identified the knife recovered at the instance of accused Noor Alam and he has stated that it was not the same knife. So, recovery of said knife is State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 17 of 22 doubtful in this case.
28. It is well settled principle of law in AIR 2003 SC 3609, State of Punjab Vs.Karnail Singh that :-
"Golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the views which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is not less than from the conviction of an innocent"
29. In view of the above case law as well as my discussions above, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. I, therefore give the benefit of doubt to all the accused persons in this case. All the accused persons Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan s/o Mohd.Laiq, Noor Alam s/o Maqsood Ali, Abdul Wazid s/o Abdul Wahid, Sajjad @ Sehzad s/o Abdul Wazid, Naseem Khan s/o Gulmehar Khan & Sharafat Sheikh s/o Sheikh Jainul are acquitted from the charges levelled against them u/s 364/342/325/506/34 IPC. Accused Sharafat Sheikh and Abdul Wazid are in JC. They be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Remaining accused Noor Alam, Sajjad @ Sehzad, Naseem Khan and Mohd. Hanif @ Chandan are on bail. So, their bail bonds/surety bonds are cancelled and sureties are State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 18 of 22 discharged. File be consigned to record room with the direction to re- open the case as and when accused Surjeet Sonkar who is proclaimed offender in the present case is re-arrested or surrenders himself before the police or the court. The proceedings against accused Shorab Sheikh is abated since he has already expired. It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on 26.05.2010.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Shorab Sheikh Etc. FIR no.351/99 Page No. 19 of 22