Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. Sc No. 28 Of ... on 23 July, 2012
Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 28/2011
Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
FIR No. 83/2011
U/s. 392, 397, 302 r/w 34 IPC
PS : Sangam Vihar
State
Versus
Mohd. Parvez Alam @ Khan @ Parvez Khan @ Parvez Alam,
S/o Sh. Abdul Wahab,
R/o 130/13, Govind Pur, Kalkaji,
New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 1
Pardeep @ Parveen,
S/o Sh. Jaleshwar,
R/o F2/226, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 2
Instituted on : 26th August, 2011
Argued on : 23rd July,2012
Decided on : 23rd July,2012
JUDGMENT
1. Case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, is that on 16.03.2011 at 10:15 PM, an information vide DD No. 44A was recorded that a boy has been stabbed at KSK School, Ratia Marg. IO/Inspector Dalip Singh along with Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh and Constable Hari Om reached at the spot. They found that injured had been shifted to the hospital by the PCR Van and Blood as well as one ear phone with black colour lead of mobile phone was found lying State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 1/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 near the drain. No eye witness was found at the spot. Leaving Constable Hari Om at the spot, Inspector Dalip Singh alongwith Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh reached at Trauma Center, AIIMS. IO collected MLC No. 250052 of 'unknown' upon which, doctor declared the patient as 'brought dead'. IO inspected dead body and noticed some wounds with a sharp weapon. No eye witness was also found in the hospital. IO and ASI Virender Singh returned back to the spot. ASI Karan Singh met Shiv Kant s/o Shiv Shankar in connection with the inquiry of DD No. 94B dated 16.03.2011. IO recorded statement of Shan Kant. In his statement, Shiv Kant stated that he was employed as driver by Malli Taxi Stand, Sector 4, Pushp Vihar and Sripal s/o Fakir Chand was employed as taxi driver. After completion of their duty, he and Shri Pal often return back to their residence at Sangam Vihar. On that day, he and Shri Pal consumed liquor together at taxi stand. At about 09:00 PM, both of them proceeded towards Sangam Viahr in a Tavera Car. At about 09:45 PM, when they reached at Ratia Marg, near KSK Marg, Sri Pal stopped the vehicle in order to proceed towards his house. Shivkant alighted from the vehicle and when he was urinating alongside wall of the KSK School, a person namely, Parvez Khan, who was already urinating there uttered, something but Shivkant did not bother. In the meanwhile, one boy aged about 25 years came there and placed knife on his stomach and asked him to take out whatever he was having. Due to fear, he gave Rs. 2,500/ lying in his pocket. Shripal came for his help and told him to take away the vehicle. Shripal caught hold of them and Shivkant ran away with vehicle No. DL1 YB6668. It is further alleged that while speeding away, his vehicle collided with a motorcycle but Shiv Kant did not stop his vehicle and stopped it after reaching at his home. After sometime, the owner of the bike reached at his house following him.
State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 2/16
Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
Arguments took place between his mother and the biker and then, motorcyclist went away. Complainant informed police at 100 number. Thereafter, he tried to contact Shripal on his phone, but his phone was found switched off. Police came at his house and he accompanied police to KSK School. After reaching KSK School, Shivkant explained that police took him to the hospital. It is stated that he already knew Parvez Alam, aged about 2830 years and his associate was aged about 2125 years of fair colour complexion. They robbed him and caused him stab injury. On the basis of MLC and statement of complainant a case FIR No.389/11 u/s 302/392/397 r/w 34 IPC PS Sangam Vihar was registered. During investigation, IO prepared site plan. ASI Virender was handed over clothes of deceased which were seized by the IO. IO also collected ear phone lead of black colour and blood stain, earth control and seized them. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Shivkant was conducted. IO recorded statement of witnesses and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
2. On 07.04.2011, accused were arrested by the IO and one knife was recovered from the possession of accused Pradeep. One bag was found on the shoulder of Parvez Alam, having clothes of both the accused and one Novel having Rs.200/ were recovered from him. Disclosure statements of both accused were recorded and pointing out memos were prepared. Accused persons were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate and sent to Judicial Custody. IO moved an application for conducting TIP of the accused persons. Both accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. IO obtained subsequent opinion from the doctor regarding weapon of offence. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini and Draftsman prepared a scaled site plan. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 3/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. After supplying of copies, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 26.08.2011. Charges under section 392 r/w 34 IPC 397 r/w 34 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC were framed by this Court against both accused on 01.09.2011 to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
3. The points which emerge for determination in this case are :
(i) Whether at about 09:45 PM on 16.03.2011, on the main road, opposite KSK school, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar accused persons committed robbery of Rs.2,500/ from the complainant Shivkant?
(ii) Whether at the time of committing robbery accused persons used knife.
(iii) Whether accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Shripal?
To prove the charges, prosecution examined twenty three witnesses. Gist of the testimony adduced by prosecution witnesses is as follows : Medical evidence
4. Doctor Kaushik BPN (PW19), Senior Resident at JPNAT Center, AIIMS. On 16.03.2011, during his duty hours at about 22:44 hours, one injured 'unknown', 36 years male was brought to the casualty with alleged history of 'assault by some person at Sangam Vihar at 10:12 PM on 16.03.2011'. On medical examination by PW19, patient was found to be 'dead'. PW19 prepared MLC Ex.PW19/A.
5. Doctor Tejaswi (PW23) gave subsequent opinion regarding spring actuated knife. After analyzing postmortem report no.TC 233/11 prepared by Doctor Raghavendra Bagla and inspection of knife, he opined that the external injury no.1, 2, 3 and 4 could be possible by the spring actuated knife and injury no.
State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 4/16
Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
5 could be possible by brick fragments (which were submitted in a sealed parcel). Injury no. 2, 3, and 4 either individually or in combination were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. PW23 prepared sketch of spring actuated knife and the brick fragments. His subsequent opinion is Ex.PW22/C and the sketch of spring actuated knife and brick fragments is Ex.PW23/A. Police & other witnesses
6. ASI Rakesh Kumar (PW1), Duty Officer, at about 02:20 AM on 16.03.2011 on receipt of rukka prepared by Inspector Dilip Singh, he recorded FIR (Ex.P1).
7. Head Constable Veer Pal (PW2), Incharge of PCR van. At about 10:05 PM, he received a call that a boy had been stabbed near KSK school. He reached at Ratia Marg, KSK School and found one male injured person lying there. He took the injured to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he was declared "brought dead".
8. W/Constable Chanchal (PW4), DD writer recorded DD No. 94B on receipt of information through wireless operator. Copy of DD No. 94B is Ex.PW4/A.
9. Constable Gorge Kutty (PW5), Constable in Trauma Center, AIIMS. He deposed that at about 10:30/45 pm on 16.3.2011, one injured was brought to the Trauma Center vide MLC No. 250052 . He was declared "brought dead" by the attending doctor. Doctor handed over articles recovered from the dead body to him which were given by PW5 to ASI Virender and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A).
State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 5/16
Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
10. SubInspector Harpal (PW7) joined the investigation with IO. He prepared inquest report (Ex.PW7/A) and handed over the same to the doctor for conducting postmortem. His request letter is (Ex.PW7/B). PW7 recorded statement of two witnesses namely, Om Prakash and Dharampal, who identified dead body. Their statements are (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D). PW7 seized the sealed exhibits given by the attending doctor, blood in gauze and clothes of the deceased which were seized by him vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/E) and deposited the exhibits in the malkhana.
11. Constable Hari Om (PW9) joined the investigation with IO.
12. SubInspector Mahesh Kumar (PW10), is draftsman. On 01.06.2011, he along with Inspector Dalip Singh visited the place of occurrence and took rough notes. He prepared scaled site plan (Ex. PW10/A).
13. Head Constable Kapil (PW12), Photographer. On 16.03.2011, he alongwith Incharge Crime Team reached at the spot and took photographs of the spot (Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/6). On 17.06.2011, PW12 handed over photographs to the IO and placed on record, negatives of photographs (Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A6).
14. Constable Amar Singh (PW13) joined the investigation with SI Harpal. On 17.03.2011, he went to Trauma Center, AIIMS in connection with postmortem of deceased Shripal. After getting the postmortem conducted, the dead body was handed over to the elder brother of deceased vide receipt (Ex. PW13/A).
15. Inspector J. D. Meena (PW14), on 16.03.2011 was on patrolling duty. He reached at the spot, he met Constable Hari Om and found fresh blood lying on the road along side of the wall of the school near "Naali". He came to know that State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 6/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 injured had already been shifted to the hospital by PCR officials.
16. W/Constable Poonam (PW15) deposed that on 16.03.2011, she was posted as constable at PCR, Control Room, PHQ. On that day, at 11:11:38 PM, she received an information from mobile number 9213384922 from Road No. 19, MCD School, House No. 2168, IBlock, Sangam Vihar to the effect that "Adchini School ke pass Sangam Vihar Parvez naam ke admi ne mujhe chaku dikha kar 2500 rupey chin liye hain". She recorded information vide PCR form (Ex.PW15/A).
17. Constable Kunal Sharma (PW16) deposed that on 07.04.2011, he joined the investigation of this case alongwith the IO/Inspector Dalip Singh, HC Chander Pal and Ct. Rajender. Secret informer informed IO/inspector Dilip Singh that the accused who were wanted in this case were sitting at the Airforce bus stand on M. B. Road and if raided, they could be apprehended. Secret informer pointed out towards the accused Parvez Alam and Pradeep and left. They apprehended the accused and their personal search was carried out. PW16 deposed that a knife was recovered from the pocket of pant of Pradeep and a black colour bag which was hanging on the shoulder of accused Md. Parvez Alam and that bag was having clothes and a novel. Accused persons were arrested. PW16 signed the arrest memo. The arrest memo of accused Md. Parvez Alam is Ex.PW16/A. His Personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/C. The arrest memo of accused Pradeep is Ex.PW16/B. His Personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/D. Sketch (Ex.PW16/E) of knife was prepared. Measurement of knife was conducted and its total length is stated to be 23.4 cm. IO sealed the knife with the seal of 'DS' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/F. Bag recovered from accused Md. Parvez Alam containing the clothes, one novel and Rs.200/ (cash) in denomination State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 7/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 of Rs. 100/ each was sealed with the seal of 'DS' by the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G. PW16 deposed that on 08.04.2011, IO interrogated both accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex.PW16/H (of Md. Parvez) and Ex.PW16/J (of Pradeep). Both accused persons were taken to the spot at KSK Public School, Ratia Marg, where they pointed out the place of occurrence. IO prepared the pointing out memo of the said place at their instance which is Ex.PW16/K. On 19.05.2011, PW16 took 11 exhibits of this case from malkhana through road certificate and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini with sealed and intact condition. He obtained the receipt of the same from FSL and gave the same to MHC (M).
18. Assistant SubInspector Virender Singh (PW17), on receipt of DD No. 44A (Ex.PW17/A) on 16.03.2011, at about 10:15 pm, from Constable Hari Om, PW17 alongwith Constable Hari Om reached at the spot i.e. in front of K. S. K. Public School, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar. He deposed that duty constable George Kutty conducted the search of dead body and he handed over to him the belonging of the deceased consisting of Rs.150/ (cash), one ring of brass, one mobile phone (black colour) and one iron kada. PW17 took the same into possession and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He deposed that IO lifted one ear phone lead from the spot which was lying between the school wall and the drainage and same were kept in a plastic jar and sealed with the seal of 'DS'. IO lifted the blood in gauze and the blood stained earth and kept in plastic jar alongwith earth control. One blood stained piece of brick was taken from the spot and kept in a plastic jar. All the jars were sealed with the seal of 'DS'. Seal after use was handed over to him. The Sl. No. 1 to 6 were marked to the jars and seized the same vide seizure memo State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 8/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 Ex.PW3/B.
19. Constable Rajender Singh (PW20) joined the investigation with IO/Inspector Dilip Singh, Head Constable Chander Pal and Constable Kunal. He is a witness to the arrest and personal search memo of both accused persons. He deposed that accused persons were brought to the police station after their medical examination. On 08.04.2011, both accused were taken to the spot i.e. at KSK Public School, main road, Ratia marg where they pointed out the place of occurrence . IO prepared the pointing out memo of the said place at their instance which is Ex. PW16/K bearing my signatures at point B. Accused were produced in the Court and their dossier were got prepared.
20. Ms. Mona T. Kerketta (PW21), Metropolitan Magistrate deposed that on 27.04.2011 an application was moved by the IO, who produced accused Mohd. Parvez and Pradeep @ Praveen from police custody in muffled face. Accused Mohd. Parvez and Pradeep @ Praveen refused to join the TIP. The TIP proceedings are Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/D.
21. Inspector Dalip Singh (PW22) is the investigating officer, who conducted investigation of the case and prepared above noted documents during investigation.
Public Witnesses
22. Deepak (PW18) is Nodal officer. He deposed that telephone number 9582525386 belonging to Mohd. Parvez Alam s/o Sh. Abdul Wahab. He placed on record the call detail records of the aforesaid phone number for the period w.e.f. 16.03.2011 to 17.03.2011 (Ex.PW18/D). PW18 also brought on record the Cell ID Chart Ex.PW18/E. State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 9/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011
23. Shivkant (PW3) is the complainant. He deposed that it was 16 or 17 March 2011, he and his colleague Sripal left the taxi stand at Push Vihar, Sector4 in a Tavera taxi in order to go to their residence at Sangam Vihar. Taxi was being driven by Sripal. Both of them were under the influence of liquor and they were consuming liquor since 06:00 PM and drank till 08:00/08:30 PM at the taxi stand. PW3 deposed that he drove the taxi for some distance, but since he was under too much influence of liquor, therefore, Sripal Drove the taxi. At KSK School Sangam Vihar, he got down in order to urinate near a nali, where one other boy was also urinating nearby, uttered something but he ignored him. In the meantime, another boy came near the Nali and placed a knife on his abdomen and told him to handover whatever he had. He gave Rs. 2,500/ which were in his pocket to that boy. In the meantime, Sripal came out of the taxi and caught hold of both the boys. Being afraid, he ran away from the spot in the Tavera Taxi. Residence of Sripal was nearby, therefore, he left him on the spot.
PW3 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State. In cross examination, he has not named the accused. PW3 deposed that he was under the influence of liquor and the police obtained his signatures on certain papers on which something was written. In cross examination conducted by Learned Addl. PP, PW3 denied that out of two boys, who met him at the spot, one was Parvez Khan. PW3 stated that his statement (Ex.PW3/A) was not read over to him and he put his signature, thereon on the directions of Police. He denied that he knew Parvez Khan, being the resident of the same block. He could not identify those two boys. PW3 denied that he had been won over by the accused persons. He denied that he deliberately did not identify accused persons. PW3 stated that police never took State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 10/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 him to the spot where the alleged accident with the motorcycle occurred. PW3 admitted that he had not given name or description of those boys who had robbed Rs.2,500/ on the night of 16.03.2011.
24. Sanjeev (PW6) was running a shop in the name of M/s.Sanjeev Electronics at GII/44, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar. He deposed that bike bearing no. DL 3SBQ 5743 which was being used by him, was parked outside the shop. In the meantime, one Tavera Car came at a very fast speed and hit his bike and ran away. He chased Tavera Car and went inside the house at I block, where driver entered. They sorted out the matter with the relative of the driver in a sum of Rs.1,000/. He could not identify the driver or Shivkant as he had not seen him.
Leading questions were put by Learned Addl. PP regarding house and vehicle number. PW6 deposed that he could not tell it the registration number of Tavera Car was DL 1YB 6668 and he could not say if he entered house no. 2168, Gali No.19. In cross examination, he deposed that police never recorded his statement and police neither seized damaged bike nor took any photographs thereof.
25. Vinod (PW8) deposed that he did not see anything and had not witnessed any incident. Police made some inquiries from him but had not recorded his statement. Police had not read over any statement to him. He did not know accused Parvez Alam and Pardeep. PW8 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. He denied all the suggestions put to him by Addl. PP. He specifically denied that accused Parvez was present or was having a knife in his hand or that accused Pravez and Pradeep were beating a person or gave twothree knife blows to him.
26. Jai Singh (PW11) deposed that he used to sell Momos on his thella near KSK School, Sangam Vihar. On 16.03.2011, at about 09:00 pm, he closed his State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 11/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 thella. On 17.03.2011, at about 02:00 PM, police came to his thella and inquired about Pradeep. PW1 deposed that he showed ignorance about any incident as he had not seen any incident on 16.03.2012. He did not know anything about this case. PW11 deposed that he knew Pradeep as he was resident of his gali. PW11 was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP. He specifically denied that he heard the shrieks of beatings or someone was calling Pradeep. He denied that he reached near the gate of KSK School along with his friend Vinod and saw that accused persons were beating one person. He denied that Pradeep inflicted two three knife blows on the said person.
Statement of accused
27. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Md. Parvez Alam stated that he was looking for a job and had consumed liquor on 07.04.2011 along with other persons who were employed with him. On 07.04.2011 , at about 10/10:30pm, three police officials took him from CLal Chowk at Govind Puri on the pretext that he was required in the police station for inquiry. He was falsely involved by the police in many other cases, whereas he had been acquitted.
28. It may be noted that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion howsoever strong, it may be, cannot take the place of proof. "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622)", while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 12/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The following conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
29. Legal position is well settled that mere recovery of the blood stained clothes or weapons at the instance of accused do not lead to a conclusion that accused persons are the perpetrator of the crime. In a decision reported as 'Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 110', a watch belonging to the deceased and one dagger found to be stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the accused. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that said recovery by itself, State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 13/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 does not connect the accused person with the murder of the deceased. It was further held that said circumstance may create some suspicion but the same cannot take the place of proof. In the decision reported as 'Prabhoo vs State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1113' a kulhari, a shirt and a dhoti which were found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance. It was held that it is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be such as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not with his innocence and that from the mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused.
Discussion of evidence
30. Case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eyewitness as well ass circumstantial evidence of recovery of weapon. Admittedly, no eye witness has linked the accused with the offence in question. None of the eyewitness namely Shiv Kant (PW3), Vinod (PW8) & Jai Singh (PW11) have supported the case of prosecution. PW3 deposed that he could not identify the two assailants even if shown to him in the Court. PW8 deposed that he did not see anything and did not witnessed any incident. PW11 showed ignorance about any incident. All these witnesses were cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State. They denied all the suggestions put to them by the Learned Addl. PP. PW3 stated that he put his signature on his statement on the direction of the police and the same was not read State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 14/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 over to him. Other circumstance alleged is recovery of knife from accused Pradeep and one bag, allegedly hanging on the shoulder of accused Parvez Alam having clothes, Novel and Rs.200/. As regards recovery of the knife, two witnesses have been examined by prosecution namely Constable Kunal Sharma (PW16) & Constable Rajender Singh (PW20). PW16 during the cross examination deposed that public persons were present at the place, where secret informer had met them. At the time, when accused persons were apprehended, there was no scuffle and the accused persons did not attempted to flee away on seeing the police party. PW16 deposed that the knife, which was allegedly recovered was not used by the accused persons. PW20 admitted that IO did not call the officials from the Airforce, which was at a distance of 100 meters. PW20 deposed that site plan was prepared at the place, where both the accused persons were apprehended, but when he was asked to show the site plan. After seeing the record, he deposed that there was no such site plan on record. PW20 testified that the alleged recovery was effected before recording of disclosure statement of both accused persons and no crime team was called at the spot to lift the finger prints from the alleged recovered knife.
31. Accused persons were arrested on 07.04.2011 whereas alleged incident took place on 17.03.2011. IO (PW22) admitted that no recovery was effected pursuant to the disclosure statement of both the accused persons. According to the IO, there was no identification of clothes, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of accused persons. PW2 deposed that the place of incident was already in their knowledge before the arrest of accused persons and before they pointed out the place. Therefore, pointing memo is meaningless. No finger prints were lifted from the alleged knife. IO admitted that there was no State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 15/16 Unique ID No. 02406R0179292011 documentary evidence to the effect that accused ere in muffled face.
32. To conclude, evidence on record shows that no recovery was effected pursuant of the disclosure statement of the accused persons. No public witnesses has been joined despite their availability. It does not appeals to the commonsense that accused persons were sitting with the knife allegedly used by them in crime, after three weeks of the alleged incident. In the facts and circumstances, recovery of knife and clothes from the possession of accused seems highly doubtful. On scrutiny of evidence on record, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, accused persons namely Mohd. Parvez Alam and Pardeep are hereby acquitted from the charges. Accused persons, who are is in judicial custody, are ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the
open court on (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
23 July, 2012
rd
Additional Sessions Judge04
(SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi
State Vs. Mohd. Parvez Alam & Ors. SC No. 28 of 2011 16/16