Delhi District Court
State vs Saleem @ Allahdiya on 5 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 990/2016
CNR No.DLSH01-005639-2016
State Versus 1) Saleem @ Alladiya
S/o Late Sh. Swaleen
R/o H. No.12A/90, Gali No.11,
Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur,
Delhi-110053.
2) Mohd. Musharraf
S/o Late Mohd. Faizan,
R/o E-38/45, Z-3 Block,
Near Photo Chowk, Welcome, Delhi.
........... Accused
FIR No.: 136/2016
Police Station: Jafrabad
U/s 307/212 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
Date of institution of case : 08.06.2016
Date of reserving for order : 05.02.2026
Date of passing of Judgment : 05.05.2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.03.2016, on receipt of DD No.8A, SI Rohit alongwith Ct. Manoj and Ct. Krishan reached the spot i.e. Gali No.11, Behind Tent Wala School, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi. On reaching there, they came to know that SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 1/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:50:06 +0530 someone had fired a gunshot in the back of injured Mohd. Rashid and he has been shifted to GTB hospital by his family members for treatment. Thereafter, Ct. Krishan was left at the spot. SI Rohit alongwith Ct. Manoj proceeded to GTB hospital. At the hospital, SI Rohit had collected the MLC No.830/16 of injured Mohd. Rashid. Doctors had reported about injury as firearm injury and the injured was fit for statement. SI Rohit recorded his statement. As per the statement of complainant Mohd. Rashid, on 04.03.2016, he was going for work and when he reached at gali no.11, behind Tent wala school, he saw some beggars sitting there. He gave some money to the beggars. In the meantime, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya came from behind and shot him from behind with his katta and again tried to fire upon him 2-3 times with his katta but he could not succeed. Injured raised alarm and accused fled away from the spot. Injured knew accused Saleem @ Allahdiya as elder sister of accused namely Mumtaz w/o Nasir resided in neighborhood of injured. Accordingly, on the said statement of injured/complainant Mohd. Rashid and MLC of injured, SI Rohit prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Manoj for registration of FIR. FIR under section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act was registered against accused Saleem @ Allahdiya. Thereafter, SI Rohit recorded the statement of wife of injured Mohd. Rashid namely Shehnaz and brother-in-law namely Mohd. Arsalan in GTB hospital. Exhibits received from GTB hospital were seized and taken into possession by IO and later on, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for examination. IO searched for accused Saleem @ Allahdiya but he could not be found. During further investigation, wife of accused Saleem @ Allahdiya namely Najmeen was also questioned who disclosed that her husband Saleem @ Allahdiya was having doubt on SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 2/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:50:14 +0530 her for having illicit relationship with Mohd. Rashid. She also stated about the incident dated 11.02.2016 in which her husband Saleem @ Allahdiya had fired upon her but her mother came in between them and the bullet hit her mother regarding which FIR no.86/2016 under section 307 IPC & 27 Arms Act was registered at PS Jafrabad. Thereafter, on 04.03.2016 also, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya had set the flat of her mother on fire regarding which FIR no.135/2016 under section 436/506 IPC was registered against him at PS Jafrabad.
2. During further investigation, on 09.03.2016, on a secret information, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya was apprehended from the house of his friend namely Mohd. Musharraf S/o Late Mohd. Faizan. Thereafter, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya was interrogated and arrested in the present case FIR. As accused Mohd. Musharraf had hidden accused Saleem @ Allahdiya at his house, accordingly, he was also arrested in this case under section 212 IPC. Accused Mohd. Musharraf was released on bail as offence committed by him is bailable. Thereafter, on 10.03.2016, two days PC remand of accused Saleem @ Allahdiya was taken for the recovery of weapon of offence. On 11.03.2016, during PC remand, on the pointing out of accused Saleem @ Allahdiya, the weapon of offence i.e. desi katta was recovered from the first floor of house of sister of accused namely Rani. Desi katta and cartridge were seized by the IO and were sent to FSL Rohini for examination. Accordingly, section 27 Arms Act was also added against accused Saleem @ Allahdiya in the present case.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Saleem @ Alladiya and Mohd. Musharraf under section SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 3/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:50:22 +0530 307/212 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 CrPC committed the case to the Sessions court as the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions court. Later on, supplementary charge-sheet with respect to FSL result was filed before the Sessions court on 17.12.2016. Further, supplementary charge-sheet with respect to accused Saleem @ Allahdiya qua offence under section 25 Arms Act was filed on 10.04.2017.
CHARGE
3. Charge under section 307 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act was framed against the accused Saleem @ Allahdiya on 02.12.2016 and charge under section 212 IPC was framed against accused Mohd.
Musharraf on 17.12.2016 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. A charge under section 25 Arms Act was also framed against accused Saleem @ Allahdiya on 10.04.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in total.
5. PW1 Nazmeen deposed that she was married to Saleem @ Allahdiya. She has passed 4th class. In the year 2016, she had quarreled with her husband. Her husband was having suspicion that she was involved in a love affair with neighbor Rashid. Rashid was living in the same Gali in which she along with her husband was living i.e. House SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 4/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:50:28 +0530 no.12A/90, Gali No.11, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi. Her husband used to state that "tere ko jaan se maar dunga or tum dono ko goli se uda dunga". Due to this reason, she left her matrimonial home and started living with her mother. On 11.02.2016, her husband came at the house of her mother at about 8 PM and had fired at her but her mother came in between and she received two bullet injuries. Her husband fled away. Her mother was taken to the hospital and she was later on admitted in GTB Hospital. On 04.03.2016, her husband had come and burnt the house of her mother. She came to know that her husband had also shot Mohd. Rashid. Her statement was later on recorded by the police.
6. In her cross examination by ld. Amicus Curie for accused, she deposed that she had not seen the incident of her husband shooting Mohd. Rashid. She was married to Saleem on 20th May in the year 2008. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not doubt that she was having an affair with victim Rashid or that he never threatened to kill both of them. She volunteered that the day accused had fired on Rashid, he had also burnt the house of her mother. She had gone to her mother's place one month prior to the present incident. She denied the suggestion that since accused had divorced her, therefore, she was deposing falsely against him. Police informed her about the incident in question when she had gone to PS. One police man namely Devender had told her about the incident. Her statement was recorded at PS in presence of her mother.
7. PW2 SI Harish Chander Pathak deposed that on 06.06.2016, she was posted as Nodal Officer, CPCR/PHQ, ITO, Delhi. On that day, she SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 5/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:50:36 +0530 had issued certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act regarding CPCR DD No. 04Mar161470054. The certificate is Ex.PW-2/A.
8. In his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curie for accused, he deposed that he had given the certificate at the request of HC Subhash on 06.06.2016. He denied the suggestion that certificate Ex.PW2/A is ante-dated and ante-time.
9. PW3 (W) ASI Shashi deposed that on 04.03.2006, she was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, her duty as duty officer was from 8 AM to 4 PM. On that day, at around 10.10 AM, she had received one rukka, which was brought by Ct. Manoj and which was sent by SI Rohit Kumar. On the basis of the rukka, she registered the present FIR No.136/2016 and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Manoj to hand over the same to SI Rohit for further investigation. This FIR was recorded/typed in computer under her instructions and supervision and there was no break down in the computer, while recording/typing the FIR and taking out print-out copy of the same. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW3/A. She made endorsement on the rukka and the endorsement is Ex.PW3/B. After receiving rukka and at the time of registration of FIR, she had made relevant entry in DD register vide DD No.12A. She had brought the original register. The relevant DD entry is Ex.PW3/C.
10. In her cross examination by ld. Amicus Curie for accused, she deposed that she did not remember the exact time of registration of the present case FIR. She handed over the copy of FIR and ruqqa to Ct. Manoj. She denied the suggestion that FIR is ante-dated and ante-time.
SC No. 990/2016State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 6/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:50:44 +0530
11. PW4 Ms. Rani deposed that she does not know anything about this case. She had visited the police station in the year 2016 but she was not aware regarding the present case. She was compelled to sit at the police station Jafrabad. Police officials showed her a katta and had stated that the same was recovered from her house. Police had obtained her thumb impression and her signatures on some blank papers. After that she was directed to leave the police station.
12. Court had put a question to this witness that 'How are you related with the accused Saleem @ Allahdiya'? to which she replied that 'Voh mera muh bola bhai hai'.
13. This witness was declared hostile and cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State. Witness denied making statement Mark Ex.PW3/A to the police. She stated it is incorrect that on 08.03.2016 in the night, Saleem @ Allahdiya had come to her house to know about the well being of his family members and had stated to her that he was having some quarrel with his wife Nazmin. She stated it is incorrect that he had also stated that due to this reason, he was not going to his house. She stated it is incorrect that Saleem @ Allahdiya remained at her house for half an hour and was present at the first floor room of her house. She further stated it is incorrect that on 11.03.2016, police had come along with Saleem to her house and at his instance one desi katta was recovered from inside a torn sofa kept in the room situated at the first floor of her house. She denied the suggestion that being the muh boli sister of the accused Saleem @ Allahdiya, she was intentionally and deliberately not disclosing the true facts of the case. She denied the suggestion that the katta was recovered on 08.03.2016 from her house SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 7/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:50:51 +0530 at the instance of accused Saleem @Allahdiya. She was confronted with her statement on the above said facts.
14. In her cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for Saleem @ Allahdiya and counsel for accused Musharaf , she deposed it is correct that whatever she had stated is true and without any fear or coercion.
15. PW5 ASI Mahipal Singh deposed that on 04.03.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, his duty as duty officer was from 12.00 AM (night) to 8.00 AM. On that day, at around 7.00 AM, he had received an information from Police control Room via telephone that the brother of the caller had been shot at H. No.12/90, Gali no.11, Tent Wala School, Mauzpur, Jafrabad. Said information was recorded by him vide DD No.8A. He had brought the original DD register and photocopy of relevant page was filed which is Ex.PW5/A. This DD was assigned to SI Rohit.
16. During his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, he could not tell the name of caller and the mobile phone from which he had received the call. He further stated that within one minute, he had recorded the call in DD no.8A and handed over it to the IO/SI Rohit Kumar within five minutes. He stated it is correct that caller did not mention the name of the shooter in this information. He denied the suggestion that DD entry is ante-dated and ante-time.
17. PW6 Ct. Krishan Kumar deposed that on 09.3.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he joined the investigation of present case along with IO/SI Rohit. At about 10.40 pm, he along with Ct. Gajender, Ct. Vikas and W/Ct. Annu Dhama were in the room of SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 8/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:50:58 +0530 the IO and the IO apprised them regarding the secret information regarding accused Saleem @ Allahdiya. On the said information, they all along with secret informer left in a Govt. gypsy and reached at Gali no. 27, Old Mustafabad and the secret informer pointed towards one house and stated that the house belongs to Rani, sister of accused Saleem @ Allahdiya and there is possibility of accused being present in the house. After that, informer left the place. IO knocked the door of the house and one lady came out and she told her name as Rani. IO asked about the whereabouts of Saleem @ Allahdiya and also searched the house but he was not traceable. After that they returned back to the PS. He along with Ct. Gajender and the IO left the PS after some time and reached at Photo Chowk, Welcome. IO called the secret informer there and the secret informer came and the IO asked about the whereabouts of Musharraf, the friend of Saleem @ Allahdiya. The secret informer pointed out towards one house situated at Z-3 Block and stated that the house belongs to Musharraf. IO asked the secret informer to stand at a distance and got ready to raid the house. As per the planning, he along with Ct. Gajender went upstairs in the house neighboring Musharraf's house. IO knocked the door of house of Musharraf but nobody opened. After that, IO also came upstairs in the house where they were standing and went on the roof of house of Musharraf. One person who was trying to cross the roof of Musharraf's house was apprehended by them. On interrogation he told his name as Mohd. Musharraf. He also disclosed that he was friend of Saleem @ Allahdiya. He further disclosed that Saleem @ Allahdiya was hiding at the first floor of the said house. They raided the first floor and found that one person was sitting beneath the table situated in a room at the first floor of house of Musharraf. They apprehended him. On interrogation he disclosed his name as SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 9/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:51:04 +0530 Saleem @ Allahdiya. This witness correctly identified both the accused in court. After that, room was searched but nothing was recovered. Accused persons were also searched but nothing was recovered. Both the accused persons were brought back to the PS. Disclosure statement of both the accused persons was recorded and both of them were arrested. The information of arrest regarding Saleem @ Allahdiya was given to his mother and the information of arrest of Musharraf was given to his wife Bibi Zareena. Both the accused persons were produced before KKD Court and two days PC of Saleem @ Allahdiya was obtained. Accused Saleem @ Allahdiya was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/B. His personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW12/C. Accused Mohd. Muhrrof was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/E. His personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW12/F. Accused Mohd. Musharraf made disclosure statement Ex.PW12/D. Accused Saleem @ Allahdiya made disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A. Accused Saleem @ Allahdiya disclosed that he can get desi country made pistol recovered from the house of Rani. IO recorded his supplementary statement.
18. He further deposed that on 11.03.2016, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya led them to Gali No.11, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur and pointed out the place where he shot Rashid on 04.03.2016. Accused further disclosed that he had thrown empty cartridge inside Nehar Kothi. IO prepared the pointing out memo, same is Ex.PW17/B. Thereafter, they searched empty cartridge but same was not traceable. Thereafter, they reached at the house of Rani i.e. H.No. F-250, Gali no. 27, Old Mustafabad. Accused led them to first floor of said house. One torn Sofa was lying on the room of the first floor. Accused took out country made pistol (Katta) from inside the said Sofa. He handed over said SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 10/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05
16:51:10
+0530
Katta to SI Rohit. The Katta was opened and one missed cartridge was found inside the barrel. On the base of the cartridge, there was mark of two firing pins. SI Rohit prepared the Sketch of said Katta and Cartridge on the plain paper after measuring the same. He further deposed that the total barrel length was 11 cm, butt length 9.5 cm, body length 10 cm, diagonal length 24 cm and the length of cartridge was 7.6 cm, diameter of the base of the cartridge was 1.3 cm and "G.3 OK" was engraved on the base of the cartridge. The sketch of Katta and Cartridge is Ex.PW12/G. The said Katta and cartridge were recovered in the presence of Rani. Rani put her signature on the seizure memo of Katta and Cartridge. The Katta was wrapped in a white cloth and the cartridge was kept in a small transparent plastic box. Two separate pulandas were prepared and were sealed with the seal of RK. The pulandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Seal after use was handed over to him. After that SI Rohit prepared the recovery site plan Ex.PW17/C. IO recorded the statement of Rani. Thereafter, accused Saleem @ Allahdiya led them to gali no.6, Chauhan Bangar. He had already disclosed that Katta and cartridge was provided by one Shaheen who was residing in Gali No. 6, Chauhan Bangar. After that they made efforts to trace Shaheen but Shaheen was not traceable as accused Saleem @ Allahdiya could not locate the house of Shaheen. After that they all returned back to PS. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. He handed over seal to SI Rohit. IO recorded his supplementary statement. This witness also identified the desi katta as Ex.PW12/Article 2 which was recovered at the instance of accused. This witness has also identified dibbi and live cartridge as Ex.PW12/Article 1.
19. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for both the accused, SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 11/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:51:18 +0530 PW6 deposed that all the officials of their team who were mentioned in his statement belonged to PS Jafrabad. He had seen the secret informer. He joined the investigation alongwith IO and went to Old Mustafabad and met one Rani who was the relative (muh boli behan) of accused Saleem. He denied the suggestion that accused Saleem never told the IO that the said Rani was his relative. IO did not make any DD entry at PS Welcome and PS Gokulpuri in his presence. When they were conducting the investigation regarding the present case, no police official of PS Welcome and PS Gokulpuri joined the investigation. He had never seen Rani before the alleged incident. He did not remember whether IO requested any public person to join the investigation when the accused persons were arrested. At the time of the arrest, there was proper light. He did not remember the exact width and length of the house of Musharraf. It might be of around 30-35 sq. feet. He further stated that when they reached the house of accused Musharraf, both accused persons namely Musharraf and Saleem were found there. He denied the suggestion that when they reached at the said house, accused persons were present alongwith the family members of accused Musharraf. The said house belongs to the father of accused Musharraf. Crowd had gathered at the place of arrest of accused persons. He could not tell whether IO made any public person join the arrest proceeding of accused or not. He stated it is correct that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his presence. The said disclosure statement bears his signatures. He denied the suggestion that Saleem and Musharraf are not brother of Rani or do not have any relation with Rani. He further denied the suggestion that accused Saleem was not arrested from the house of Musharraf or that he was arrested by the police officers from his house. He further denied the suggestion that the SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 12/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:52:22 +0530 recovery of weapon which was used in the present case is false and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation alongwith IO. He denied the suggestion that all the written work was done while sitting at the PS. He denied the suggestion that during PC remand, accused Saleem was kept in the PS itself and was not taken to any place for conducting any proceedings. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of both the accused or that if recovered it was planted by the police officials.
20. PW7 Ct. Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 06.06.2016, six pulandas were handed over to him by the MHCM for depositing the same in FSL. Two were sealed with the seal of RK and four were sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital. He accordingly deposited the same in FSL. Till the pulandas remained in his custody, there was no tampering with the same.
21. During his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curie for the accused, he deposed that pulandas were given to him between 9.00 to 10.00 AM. He deposited the same between 11.00 to 12.00 noon. He deposited the acknowledgment receipt of the FSL on the same day at about 3.00 to 4.00 PM. He did not remember the DD no. regarding his arrival or departure though the entry was made. He denied the suggestion that he had manipulated/tampered with the pulandas during his custody.
22. PW8 ASI Manvir Singh deposed that on 04.03.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as MHC(M). He further deposed that on that day, SI Rohit kumar had deposited four sealed pulandas along with one sample seal of MLC GTB HOSPITAL SHD DELHI and copy of SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 13/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:52:29 +0530 seizure memo in case FIR no.136/16 PS Jafrabad. He made entry in the register no.19 at Sl. No. 1134. The copy of said entry is Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that on 11.03.2016 two sealed pulandas were deposited in malkhana by SI Rohit in case FIR No.136/16, PS Jafrabad. He made entries to the said effect in register no.19 at Sl. No.1147. The copy of said entry is Ex.PW8/B. He further deposed that on 06.06.2016, six sealed parcels along with one sample seal of GTB HOSPITAL, SHD, DELHI was sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC no.148/21/16 through Ct. Pankaj. He made entry to the said effect. The said entry is Ex.PW8/B. RC of No.148/21/16 is Ex.PW8/C.
23. During his cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, PW8 deposed that his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 10.00 night. He did not remember the time when the pulandas were deposited. He did not remember whether name of accused was written on the pulandas. He did not remember whether the name of the exhibits were written on the pulandas. He stated it is correct that time is not mentioned in register no.19. He had not signed the entries which he had made on 11.03.2016 and 04.03.2016. He denied the suggestion that entries in the register no.19 are anti-dated and anti-time.
24. PW9 Mohd. Arsalan deposed that in the year 2016, he was in the search of a job. He further deposed that on 04.03.2016, at about 6.40 am, he was present in his house. At that time, he received a phone call of his elder sister Shehnaz, who told him that his jija Mohd. Rashid was shot by her neighbor Saleem. Then he immediately went to the house of his sister at Vijay Mohalla, Jafrabad, Delhi. Then, he along with his sister Shehnaz took Mohd. Rashid in an auto to GTB Hospital. IO SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 14/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:52:37 +0530 recorded his statement.
25. During his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Saleem, he deposed that IO recorded his statement at GTB Hospital on 04.03.2016. Only his statement was recorded at that time. When he received the said phone call, his entire family members were present including his sister-in-law (bhabi) namely Shobinaz and his parents. The said call was received on the mobile phone of his brother namely Mohd. Roman. The said mobile number was in the name of his brother Mohd. Roman. He did not remember the number at which the said call was received as well as the number from which the said call was made. He stated it is correct that he did not see the incident. He further stated it is correct that whatever his sister told to him regarding the incident he deposed it. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his real sister Shehnaz. Accused Mohd. Musharaf adopted the cross-examination done on behalf of accused Saleem.
26. PW10 ASI Virender Kumar deposed that on 08.06.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as ASI. The investigation of the present case was marked to him. He prepared the charge-sheet in the present case and filed the same before the court. During his cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for both accused, he deposed that he never visited the spot. He stated it is correct that he was never involved in the investigation of this case.
27. PW11 Shahnaz deposed that earlier in the year 2016, she was residing at H. No.12A/90, gali no.11, Mohalla Mauzpur Delhi along with her husband. She further deposed that on 04.03.2016, her husband SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 15/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:53:47 +0530 Mohd. Rashid had left the house for his duty at about 6.30 AM. Just after 10 minutes he came back to his house while running and having his hand on his back. He was looking perplexed and he told her that Saleem @ Allahadiya, who was residing in their neighborhood had fired on him. Thereafter, she immediately called her brother Mohd. Arslan telephonically, who was residing in Kabir Nagar. On his arrival, she along with his brother Arslan took her husband to GTB Hospital in auto rickshaw where he was got admitted. Police had come in the hospital and made inquiries from her and recorded her statement. She identified the accused Saleem @ Allahdiya in the court. She stated that he is the same person who was residing in their neighborhood about whom her husband had told her that he had fired on him.
28. (PW11 Shahnaz was inadvertently examined as PW16 during her cross examination which was conducted on the other date).
29. During her cross examination by ld. Counsel for both the accused, she stated that her husband left the home at about 6.00 am. Her husband is a school cab driver. She had not seen the incident. She denied the suggestion that her husband had not named Saleem as assailant who had fired at him. She further denied the suggestion that her brother Arslaan had not accompanied them to the hospital.
30. PW12 HC Gajender Singh deposed that on 09.03.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as constable. He further deposed that on that day, he joined investigation of the present case. He was present at the PS and at about 10.40 pm, IO/SI Rohit Kumar called him along with Ct. Kishan, Ct. Vikas and lady Ct. Anu Dhama and apprised them SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 16/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:53:54 +0530 regarding the secret information about accused Saleem @ Alladiya. IO informed them that there was information that accused Saleem @ Alladiya was seen going along with one person namely Musharraf R/o Welcome, Photo Chowk, on a black colour motorcycle towards Mustafabad and he can be traced at his sister's house namely Rani R/o Mustafabad. IO informed them that raid has to be conducted to apprehend the accused Saleem @ Alladiya. He alongwith Ct. Kishan, Ct. Vikas, IO, lady Ct. Anu Dhama along with secret informer left the PS in a government gypsy and at instance of secret informer they all reached at Gali No.27, Old Mustafabad, Delhi where secret informer pointed out towards one house and stated that the same was of sister of accused Saleem @ Alladiya and the accused could be traced in the house. After that secret informer left the spot. They all reached in front of the house and the gate was knocked. One lady opened the door who was interrogated. She told her name as Rani. IO asked for whereabouts of accused Saleem @ Alladiva and also looked out for accused in the house but he was not traceable. The lady was again interrogated but no clue of accused was found. After that they returned back to PS. After some time, he along with IO and Ct. Kishan reached at Photo Chowk, Welcome for investigation of present case. IO called secret informer at the spot telephonically and asked about the location of house of Musharraf. The secret informer pointed out towards one house situated at Z-3 Block and stated that the house belongs to Musharraf, friend of accused Saleem @ Alladiya. The secret informer was asked to stand some distance away and IO made preparation for raid. He along with Ct. Kishan was directed to go to roof of the adjoining house of Musharraf. Accordingly, they went there. IO knocked the door of the house continuously but none turned up. After that, IO also came on the SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 17/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:02 +0530 roof of the adjoining house of Musharraf and they all climbed on the roof of house of Musharraf. One person was present on the roof of the house and on interrogation he told his name as Musharraf. The person was trying to get down to the roof of the adjoining house. They apprehended him. IO asked for whereabouts of accused Saleem @ Alladiya and he told that accused Saleem @ Alladiya was hiding himself at the room situated at the first floor of his house. They all alongwith Musharaf went down to the first floor from the roof and saw that accused was hiding himself beneath one table lying on the roof. He was moved out from beneath the table and interrogated. He disclosed his name as Saleem @ Alladiya. He was searched but no weapon was recovered. The room was also searched but nothing was recovered. They took the custody of Musharaf and the accused but family members of Musharraf and neighbors assembled there. There was commotion and somehow they managed to take both, Musharaff and accused to the PS. Accused was again interrogated at PS and his disclosure statement was recorded and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The disclosure statement of accused is Ex.PW12/A. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Saleem @ Alladiva are Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. Accused Musharrraf was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW12/D. The arrest and personal search memo of accused Musharaff are Ex.PW12/E and Ex.PW12/F. The information of arrest of Musharaff was given to his wife Zareena. After that, he alongwith Ct. Krishan took accused Saleem @ Alladiya for his medical examination. After medical examination, he was produced before KKD Court and his 2 days PC remand was obtained. They all returned back to the PS. Accused was kept in custody at the PS. IO recorded his SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 18/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:11 +0530 statement. This witness correctly identified the accused persons in the court. He further deposed that on 11.03.2016, he again joined the investigation along with Ct. Krishan and IO. The accused Saleem @ Alladiya was taken out from lock-up. At the instance of accused they reached at Nukkad, Vijay Mohalla, Gali no.11, Maujpur, Delhi. The accused pointed out the place where he had shot Rashid on 04.03.2016. IO had prepared pointing out memo. The accused further pointed out the place where he had thrown the empty cartridge i.e. Nehar Kothi, Jafrabad, Delhi. They searched for the empty cartridge but it was not recovered. After that accused led them to the house of his sister Rani i.e. F-250, first floor, Gali no.27, Old Mustafabad, Delhi. A sofa was present in the room at the first floor. The seat of the sofa was torn. The accused took out one desi katta, from inside the sofa, and handed over the same to IO. The katta was opened and one cartridge was inside the barrel. On the base of the cartridge, there was mark of two firing pins. IO prepared the sketch of the recovered katta and cartridge on a plain paper. After measuring the same, the total barrel length was 11 cm, butt length 9.5 cm, body length 10 cm, diagonal length 24 cm and the length of cartridge was 7.6 cm, diameter of the base of the cartridge was 1.3 cm and "G.3 OK" was engraved on the base of the cartridge. The katta and cartridge were wrapped in a white cloth and a pulanda was prepared and was sealed with the seal of RK. The pulanda was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. The sketch of katta and cartridge is Ex.PW12/G. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Krishan. The site plan of recovery was prepared by IO. After that statement of witnesses were recorded. After that accused led them to gali no.6, Chauhan Bangar. Accused disclosed that katta and cartridges were provided by one Shaheen who was the resident of gali no.6, Chauhan SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 19/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:19 +0530 Bangar. After that they made efforts to trace Shaheen but Shaheen was not traceable. After that they all returned back to PS. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. IO took back the seal from Ct. Krishan at the PS. IO recorded his statement. Ld. Addl. PP had also put some leading questions to this witness. PW12 stated it is correct that the katta and the live cartridge were sealed and seized separately and separate pulandas were prepared regarding sealing and seizure of katta and live cartridge. He stated it is correct that live cartridge recovered from inside the katta was kept in a transparent box and the same was converted into pulanda with the help of white plaster tape and separate pulanda was prepared and it was sealed with the seal of RK. Earlier he had stated that katta and live cartridge were sealed and seized together due to some confusion. This witness had correctly identified the dibbi and the live cartridge as Ex.PW12/Article1, desi Katta as Ex.PW12/Article 2. This witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
31. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for both the accused, PW12 stated that he did not know whether any DD entry was made regarding the secret information. He also did not know whether any departure entry was made or not. Secret informer did not disclose about the number of motorcycle. Police team alongwith secret informer went to the spot. They were not knowing about the house number in Gali no.27, Old Mustafabad. IO had not asked any public person to join the investigation at the time of arrest of accused. He did not remember the exact time but it was around 11.00 pm when they reached in Mustafabad. They remained there for about half an hour. They did not inquire about the owner of the house from where the recovery has been SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 20/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:54:25 +0530 effected. He did not remember the time when they reached the block in Welcome from where the accused has been apprehended. He did not know the name of the neighbors, which were adjacent to the house from where the accused has been apprehended. He could not tell the number of storeys of house from where the accused has been apprehended and the number of storeys of neighbor's house. IO did not ask in his presence from any public person to join the investigation at the time of apprehension of accused. There are number of houses in the gali from where the accused had been apprehended. He could not tell the exact number of houses. He denied the suggestion that they had not arrested the accused from the said house in the gali at Welcome, photo chowk. They remained in the area of Welcome for about 30-45 minutes. It was in the night. He did not remember the exact time. He stated it is correct that no document was prepared at the time of apprehension of accused It was done in PS. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of katta and cartridge was effected at the instance of accused Saleem. He denied the suggestion that site plans were not prepared in his presence, that is why, it does not bear his signature. He did not remember the arrival or departure entry from the PS. No specific mark was on the katta. The accused had stated that Shaheen lived in gali no.6 but no flat was pointed by the accused. Public persons who did not join the investigation were not served with the notice by the IO. He denied the suggestion that accused Saleem was arrested from his residence.
32. PW13 Dr. Mohit Goel deposed that on 05.03.2016, he was posted as SR, Radiology, GTB Hospital. On that day, he had reported x-ray pelvis with both hip joints and x-ray abdomen on x-ray no. 1459/16 dated 04.03.2016 of one Mohd. Rashid. He did not find any obvious SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 21/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:33 +0530 bony injury. A radio opaque foreign body bullet was noted overlying the right sacro iliac joint. Regarding the second x-ray of abdomen the radiography quality was poor that is why he had advised to repeat the x- ray. After that, he left the hospital. His report in this regard is Ex.PW13/A.
33. During his cross examination by ld. Amicus Curie for the accused, PW13 denied that he had not reported the matter correctly.
34. PW14 Ct. Manoj deposed that in the intervening night of 03/04.03.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Ct. and on that day, he was on night emergency duty and on receiving DD no.8A regarding gun shot injury he along with IO/SI Rohit and Ct. Krishan reached at gali no.11, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi where they came to know that the injured namely Mohd. Rashid had sustained bullet injuries in his hip and was shifted to GTB hospital. Ct. Kishan was directed to remain at the spot and guard the spot and he along with IO proceeded to GTB Hospital. At the hospital, IO collected the MLC of injured Mohd. Rashid. Injured was fit for statement. IO recorded the statement and prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of the case at 9.30 am. He accordingly took the rukka to PS Jafrabad, got registered the present case and returned back to the hospital with rukka and computer copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO/SI Rohit. IO collected sealed pulandas from the hospital and he along with IO returned back to the PS. The pulandas were deposited in the malkhana by the IO. They again left the PS in the afternoon in search of accused Saleem Allahdiya at his house i.e. H.No.12A/90, Vijay Mohalla, gali no.11, Maujpur, Delhi. Ct. Kishan was already present there and he SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 22/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:40 +0530 apprised them that Saleem Allahdiya is not at his house. They tried to trace Saleem Allahdiya. The mother of Saleem met them, who stated that she was not aware regarding the whereabouts of Saleem. After that they made inquiries from the neighbors regarding Saleem but he could not be traced. They went to the house of sister of Saleem namely Mumtaz situated near the house of the injured Rashid to trace Saleem. They made inquiries from her but she also did not disclose the whereabouts of Saleem. They also made inquiries from beggars sitting in the gali regarding the incident and whereabouts of Saleem but accused could not be traced but the beggars confirmed that they had heard noise of some firing. They did not tell specifically regarding the incident. After that they made efforts and checked the footage of CCTV cameras but no clue regarding accused and incident was available. After that IO recorded his statement at the PS when they returned back.
35. During cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, PW14 deposed that he reached at the spot at 6.40 a.m. He did not know whether the IO made the departure entry or not. Some beggars told the IO that injured was shifted to hospital. IO had not asked the names of the beggars who disclosed the aforesaid facts. Statement of Rashid was recorded at the hospital. He did not remember the exact time when the statement of Rashid was recorded. Rukka was prepared at 9.15 am. He did not make arrival entry. He did not remember the time when pulandas were deposited. He did not remember the departure entry number vide which they left the PS to go in search of accused. They returned back to the PS in the evening hours. The distance between PS and spot is one km. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.SC No. 990/2016
State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 23/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:47 +0530
36. PW15 Mohd Rashid deposed that on 04.03.2016, he was going for work and when he reached gali No. 11, behind Tent wala school, he saw some beggars sitting there. He gave beggars some money. The accused came from behind and shot him from behind (hip) with the katta. He raised alarm and accused fled away from the spot. The incident had happened in the morning hours of 6.00/6.15 am. He knew the accused Saleem @ Allahadiya as he resides in the same gali. After the incident, he ran towards his house. He called his children and made call on 100 number. He went to GTB Hospital on his own in an auto.
He was medically examined in the hospital. Police had arrived in hospital and recorded his statement. His statement is Ex.PW15/A. The bullet is still inside his body. He did not know what was the reason why the accused shot him and caused bullet injury.
37. Ld. Addl. PP also put some leading questions to this witness. He stated it is correct that prior to the incident, he had quarrel with sister of Saleem @ Allahadiya namely Mumtaz who resides adjacent to his flat and the matter of the quarrel was related to throwing of garbage in front of his flat. He was not aware whether accused Saleem @ Allhdiya casts suspicion on his wife having illicit relationship with him. He had shown the place of incident to the police officials and police officials had prepared site plan at his instance on 13.03.2016 and same is Ex.PW15/B. He was not aware whether after receiving the bullet injury the accused had fired 2-3 times more on him but pistol did not fire (hosh hawash udd gaya tha).
38. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for both the accused, SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 24/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:54:54 +0530 PW15 deposed that there is only one shop at the spot which was closed. In his presence, police had not inquired from the beggars who were present at the time of incident. He was not aware whether police had made inquiries from beggars who were present there at the time of incident. He stated it is correct that the spot is residential area. He volunteered that only beggars were present. He had stated to the police that incident had occurred in presence of beggars. He stated it is correct that he had not seen the assailant. He volunteered that he heard the beggars shouting Saleem Saleem. He had named accused Saleem to the police as the beggars were shouting his name but he had not seen him as the assailant came from behind.
39. Ld. Addl. PP for State also re-examined the witness as fresh facts had come in the cross examination of witness. A question was put to him that in his examination in chief he had stated the name of accused Saleem @ Allahadiya as the accused who had fired on him on the date of incident and had identified him but later on, in his cross examination he had stated that he had not seen the face of the accused since he came from behind and named him only after the beggars shouted Saleem Saleem to which he replied that whatever he had stated in his cross examination is correct. He denied the suggestion that he had introduced fresh facts in his cross examination in order to save the accused from legal punishment. He denied the suggestion that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief was true. He denied the suggestion that he had have been won over by the accused that is why he was intentionally and deliberately introducing fresh facts to save the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had not named the accused after hearing the name of accused from the beggars. He denied the suggestion that he was SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 25/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:55:02 +0530 deposing falsely on oath. He was further cross examined by ld. Counsel for both the accused. He stated that he was deposing voluntarily without any threat coercion or any undue influence.
40. PW17 SI Rohit Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 03/04.03.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as SI and on that day he was on night emergency duty and on receiving DD no.8A at around 7.00 am regarding gun shot injury, he along with Ct. Manoj and Ct. Krishan reached at gali no.11, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi where they came to know that the injured namely Mohd. Rashid had sustained bullet injuries in his back and was shifted to GTB hospital by his family members. He directed Ct. Kishan to remain at the spot and guard the spot and he along with Ct. Manoj proceeded to GTB Hospital. At the hospital, he collected the MLC no.830/16 of injured Mohd. Rashid. Doctors had stated about injury as fire arm injury and the injured was fit for statement. He recorded his statement Ex.PW15/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW17/A and handed it over to Ct. Manoj for registration of the case at 9.30 am. Ct. Manoj took the rukka to PS Jafrabad. The wife of the injured Shehnaz and brother-in-law of injured were also present in the hospital. He examined both of them and recorded their statements. He collected four sealed pulandas alongwith sample seal from HC Virender, Duty Ct. at the hospital and same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.A/2. Ct. Manoj returned back at the hospital with rukka and computer copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Manoj returned back to the PS. The pulandas were deposited in the malkhana by the IO. They again left the PS in the afternoon in search of accused Saleem Allahdiya at his house i.e. H. No.12A/90, Vijay Mohalla, gali no.11, Maujpur, SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 26/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:55:11 +0530 Delhi. Ct. Kishan was already present there and he apprised them that Saleem Allahdiya is not at his house. They tried to trace Saleem Allahdiya. The mother of Saleem met them, who stated that she was not aware regarding the whereabouts of Saleem. After that they made inquiries from the neighbors regarding Saleem but he could not be traced. They went to the house of sister of Saleem namely Mumtaz situated near the house of the injured Rashid to trace Saleem. They made inquiries from her but she also did not disclose the whereabouts of Saleem. They also made inquiries from beggars sitting in the gali regarding the incident and whereabouts of Saleem but he could not be traced but the beggars confirmed that they had heard noise of some firing. They did not tell specifically regarding the incident. After that they made efforts and checked the footage of CCTV cameras but no clue regarding accused and incident was available. After that he recorded statement of Ct. Manoj at the PS when they returned back. Further, on 08.03.2016, he contacted wife of the accused Saleem namely Nazmeen telephonically and she stated that she was willing to join the investigation and come to the PS as she is also having an apprehension from the accused. Nazmeen alongwith her mother came at the PS and he recorded statement of Nazmeen at PS. After that they left. He further deposed that on 09.03.2016, at around 10.30 pm, he was present at the PS and he received secret information that accused Saleem @ Alladiya few minutes ago was seen going along with one person namely Musharraf r/o Welcome, Photo Chowk, on a black colour motorcycle towards Mustafabad and he can be traced at his sister's (muh boli sister) house namely Rani r/o Mustafabad. Thereafter, he discussed the said information with SHO and on the direction of SHO, a team comprising him, Ct. Gajender, Ct. Kishan, Ct. Vikas and SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 27/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:55:18 +0530 lady Ct. Anu Dhama was constituted to apprehend the accused Saleem @Alladiya. He called the members of raiding party and apprised them about secret information and at about 10.45 pm, they all along with secret informer left the PS in a government gypsy and at instance of secret informer they all reached at Gali No. 27, Old Mustafabad, Delhi where secret informer pointed out towards one house and stated that the same was of sister of accused Saleem @ Alladiya and the accused could be traced in the house. After that secret informer left the spot. They all reached in front of the house and the gate was knocked. One lady opened the door who was interrogated. She told her name as Rani. He asked for whereabouts of accused Saleem @ Alladiya and also looked out for accused in the house but he was not traceable. The lady was again interrogated who disclosed that accused Saleem is presently living with his friend Musharaf near Photo chowk, Welcome, Delhi and the accused had visited her house in the night of 08.03.2016. She had also stated that some dispute of accused with his wife is going on. After that they returned back to PS. At the PS, W/Ct. Anu and Ct. Vikas were left out from the raiding party. After discussion of facts with SHO, he along with Ct. Gajender and Ct. Kishan reached at Photo Chowk, Welcome for investigation of present case. He called secret informer at the spot telephonically and asked about the location of house of Musharraf. The secret informer pointed out towards one house situated at Z-3 Block, Welcome, Delhi and stated that the house belongs to Musharraf, friend of accused Saleem @ Alladiya. The secret informer was asked to stand a few distance away and he made preparation for raid. Ct. Gajender along with Ct. Kishan were directed to go to roof of the adjoining house of Musharraf. Accordingly, they went there. He knocked the door of the house continuously but none turned up. After SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 28/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:55:44 +0530 that, he also came on the roof of the adjoining house of Musharraf and they all climbed on the roof of house of Musharraf. One person was present on the roof of the house and on interrogation he told his name as Musharraf. The person was trying to get down to the roof of the adjoining house. They apprehended him and he told that accused Saleem @ Alladiya was hiding at the room situated at the first floor of his house. They all along with Musharaff went down to the first floor from the roof and saw that accused was hiding beneath one table lying in that room. He was moved out from the beneath the table and interrogated. He disclosed his name as Saleem @ Alladiya. He was searched but no weapon was recovered. The room was also searched but nothing was recovered from there. They took the custody of Musharaff and the accused Saleem but family members of Musharraf and neighbors assembled there. There was commotion and somehow they managed to take both, Musharaff and accused to the PS. Accused Saleem was again interrogated at PS and his disclosure statement was recorded and accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The disclosure statement of accused is EX.PW12/A. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Saleem @ Alladiya are Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. Accused Musharraf was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW12/D. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Musharaff are Ex.PW12/E and Ex.PW12/F. The information of arrest of Musharaff was given to his wife Zareena. Accused Musharaf was released on bail as the offence against him was bailable. After that, Ct. Gajender along with Ct. Krishan took accused Saleem @ Alladiya for his medical examination. After medical examination, he was produced before KKD Court and his 2 days PC remand was obtained. They all SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 29/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05
16:55:50
+0530
returned back to the PS. Accused was kept in custody at the PS. He recorded the statement of Ct. Gajender and Ct. Krishan.
41. PW17 further deposed that on 11.03.2016, he again commenced the investigation along with Ct. Krishan and Ct. Gajender. The accused Saleem @ Alladiya was taken out from lock-up. At the instance of accused Saleem, they reached at inter-section of gali no.4 & 11, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi. The accused pointed out the place where he had shot Rashid on 04.03.2016. He prepared pointing out memo, same is Ex.PW17/B. The accused further pointed out the place where he had thrown the empty cartridge i.e. Nehar Kothi, Jafrabad, Delhi. They searched for the empty cartridge but it was not recovered. After that accused led them to the first floor of house of his sister Rani i.e. F-250, Gali no. 27, Old Mustafabad, Delhi. A sofa was in the room at the first floor. The seat of the sofa was torn. The accused made recovery of one desi katta, from inside the sofa, and handed over the same to him. The katta was opened and one missed cartridge was found inside the barrel.
On the base of the cartridge, there was mark of two firing pins. He prepared the sketch of the recovered katta and cartridge on a plain paper. After measuring the same, the total barrel length was 11 cm, butt length 9.5 cm, body length 10 cm, diagonal length 24 cm and the length of cartridge was 7.6 cm, diameter of the base of the cartridge was 1.3 cm and "G.3 OK" was engraved on the base of the cartridge. The sketch of katta and cartridge is Ex.PW12/G. The katta was wrapped in a white cloth and the cartridge was kept in a small transparent plastic box. Two separate pullandas were prepared and were sealed with the seal of RK. The pullandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Krishan. After that he SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 30/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:55:58 +0530 prepared the recovery site plan, same is Ex.PW17/C. He recorded statement of Rani. After that, accused led them to gali no.6, Chauhan Bangar. Accused disclosed that katta and cartridges were provided by one Shaheen who was the resident of gali no.6, Chauhan Bangar. After that they made efforts to trace Shaheen but Shaheen was not traceable as the accused could not locate the house of Shaheen. After that they all returned back to PS. Case property was deposited in malkhana. He took back the seal from Ct. Krishan at the PS. He recorded statement of Ct. Krishan and Ct. Gajender. Accused was sent to lockup. On the next day, accused was produced before court and sent to J/C. He further deposed that on 13.03.2016, he reached at the house of victim Rashid and prepared site plan Ex.PW15/B at his instance. He recorded supplementary statement of Rashid. After that, he was transferred on 03.05.2016 and handed over the case file to MHCR, PS Jafrabad. This witness correctly identified both the accused in court. Case property has already been exhibited in the statement of HC Gajender as Ex.PW12/Article 1 and Article 2.
42. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for both the accused, he deposed that the information was received in PS at 7.00 am and thereafter he received DD entry no.8A at around 7.05 am. He immediately left the PS for the spot. It took around 5-10 minutes to reach at the spot. He stated it is correct that there is no document on judicial file to show that he was on emergency duty on the date of incident. He volunteered that his duty roaster can be called from PS to verify the same. He stated it is correct that in DD no.8A name of accused is not mentioned. He remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes for the first time. He had not recorded statement of any witness SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 31/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:56:08 +0530 at that time. He volunteered that victim was already rushed to the GTB hospital by his family members. During the first visit, he inquired from the neighbors, passers-by and beggars. He had not mentioned the said fact in rukka nor mentioned the name of above persons any where during the course of investigation. He volunteered that beggars and passersby have not disclosed their names and addresses. It came in investigation that PCR call was made by brother-in-law of victim. He recorded the statement of Arslan in this regard. He stated it is correct that it is not mentioned in the statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. of Arslan that he made the call. After going through DD no.8A, witness stated that it is correct that he had not investigated about the caller. He did not remember whether DD no.8A contains name of the caller, injured and accused. He reached GTB Hospital at around 8.15 am alongwith Ct. Manoj and remained there till around 11.00 am. He recorded the statement of injured between 9.00 to 9.30 am. He stated it is correct that the wife and brother of the injured are not witness to any document/seizure-memo. He reached at PS around 11.30 am from the hospital. He did not recall whether he had made any arrival entry after reaching at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally avoiding answer to the aforesaid question as there is no DD entry. He stated it is correct that on 04.03.2016 he had not made any DD entry while leaving PS in afternoon in search of accused. He volunteered that as a normal routine, they make consolidated DD entry after reaching PS. He stated it is correct that no consolidated DD entry is on record. He had interrogated the mother of the accused on 04.03.2016 regarding the whereabouts of the accused. He stated it is correct that he had not recorded any statement of mother of the accused or any other person. Thereafter, on the same day they went to the house of sister of Saleem SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 32/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:56:17 +0530 and interrogated her regarding the whereabouts of the accused. He stated it is correct that he had not recorded any statement of sister of the accused or any other person. He had not recorded the statement of any beggar in this regard. He made efforts to check the footage of CCTV cameras around the spot but there was no CCTV camera installed around the spot or nearby area covering the incident. He returned to PS at around 6.00/7.00pm and did not investigate the matter further on that day. From 05.03.2016 to 09.03.2016 he made efforts to trace the accused. He stated it is correct that same fact is not mentioned in his examination-in-chief. On 09.03.2016, he had made a separate DD entry no.30A recorded at 10.45 pm regarding the secret information and their departure to H. No. F-250, gali no.27, Old Mustafabad which is house of muh boli sister of accused. He could not say whether the same is part of record or not. He stated it is correct that he had not recorded statement of any other person on 09.03.2016. There is no written order for the constitution of raiding team. Thereafter, he alongwith raiding team went back to PS. He did not remember whether he had made any DD entry of arrival. On the intervening night of 09/10.03.2016, he again left PS at around 1.00 am. He did not know whether he had made any departure entry at 1.00 am. They reached at Z-3 block at around 1.30 am. They found no one to ask to join the investigation. He stated it is correct that secret informer did not point out particular floor of the building from where the accused was apprehended. He volunteered that the entire building was of Musharaf. The said building consists of 4 floors having area of 20-25 sq yd. He stated it is correct that secret informer had not disclosed about the physical description of the accused Musharaf. He had not tried to find out about the occupants of the said building. He stated it is correct that address mentioned in the arrest SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 33/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:56:24 +0530 memo of accused and the victim are same. He did not remember whether he had made any DD entry when they apprehended and brought both the accused in PS. He tried to join public witnesses while preparing pointing out memo but the public witnesses refused by stating their genuine reasons. He stated it is correct that names of public witnesses were not recorded anywhere. He denied the suggestion that both accused never made any disclosure statement or that all the seizure-memos, pointing out memos, personal search memos were prepared while sitting in the PS. He denied the suggestion that accused were never apprehended/arrested in the manner as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that accused Saleem surrendered himself at the PS after knowing about the present FIR lodged against him. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Saleem. He denied the suggestion that the recovery of pistol and cartridge are planted one.
43. PW18 HC Virender deposed that on 04.03.2016, he was posted at GTB Hospital as duty constable. On that day, injured Mohd. Rashid was admitted in GTB Hospital and after his medical examination, the doctor concerned handed over him four sealed parcels sealed with the seal of MLC GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi alongwith sample seal of GTB Hospital. He produced the sealed parcels alongwith sample seal before SI Rohit Kumar, who seized the same vide seizure-memo Ex.A/2.
44. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for both the accused, he stated that his duty hours were from 9.00 am to 9.00 am next day (24 hours). He did not remember the exact time when he handed over the SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 34/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:56:33 +0530 pulanda but it must be before 9.00 am. When he handed over the pulanda, SI Rohit was alone. He never joined the investigation thereafter. He stated it is correct that there is no witness to Ex.A/2.
45. Vide order dated 22.02.2018, ld. Amicus Curie on behalf of accused persons admitted the genuineness of documents i.e. MLC No.830/2016 dt. 04.03.2016 of injured Mohd. Rashid as Ex.A-1 and seizure memo of wound swab, clothes, hand wash and control swab dt. 04.03.2016 as Ex.A-2. Accused had also admitted the genuineness of FSL Report No.FSL2016/F-4260 dt. 25.11.2016 as Ex.A/2. One order dated 03.07.2017 of IPS, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of police, North East District, Delhi as Ex.A/3 was also admitted. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
46. Statement of accused Saleem Allahdiya under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and stated that he had strained relations with his wife Nazmeen. He had two kids from the said wife. He is the only child of his parents and there was property in the name of his mother. He further stated that his mother in law i.e. mother of Nazmeen wanted him to transfer the property in her name as she was uncertain about upbringing of the kids and when he refused for the same, she in connivance with her daughter and four sons namely Kamil, Faisal, Faiz Khan and Faizan, falsely implicated him in the present case. The person namely Faisal, Faiz and Faizan have criminal antecedents and Faisal is BC of the area and is presently in JC in some other case. He further stated that the complainant in the present case i.e. Mohd. Rashid is the close friend of Kamil and therefore, at the instance SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 35/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:56:50 +0530 of Kamil, Rashid implicated him. His wife Nazmeen and mother in law constantly threatened him to get him jailed. He further stated that his wife also filed case under section 125 CrPC against him which was later withdrawn. He stated that he was not even present at the spot at the time of incident.
47. Statement of accused Musharraf under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and stated that he knew Saleem @ Allahdiya for last 20 to 25 years and did not have any knowledge about the alleged incident or the alleged role of Saleem @ Allahdiya. He further stated that as he knew co-accused Saleem @ Allahdiya, he was called in the police station and falsely implicated. He did not help accused Saleem in any manner in the present case to shield him from the investigation. He stated that he met accused Saleem @ Allahdiya outside at a neutral place and not at his home which consists of one room only where he stays with his wife and children. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
48. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused Saleem @ Allahdiya have been heard. Material on record perused and submissions considered.
ARGUMENTS
49. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused Saleem has been correctly identified by the victim Rashid as the person who had shot him in his back. It is further submitted that the police witnesses have also corroborated the version of this witness. Moreover, the illegal firearm used for the commission of the offence has been SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 36/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:57:00 +0530 recovered at the instance of the accused and he has been correctly identified by the victim in the court. So far as accused Musharraf is concerned, it is submitted that the co-accused Saleem Allahdiya was apprehended from the house of this accused while he was hiding on the first floor of the said house. Accused Musharraf himself was caught while trying to cross over to the roof of the neighbors house from the roof of his own house. It is contended that this material is sufficient to convict co-accused Musharraf for offence under section 212 IPC.
50. On the other hand, ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. Amicus Curiae have argued that as per the allegations leveled by the prosecution, the complainant/victim was shot in his waist. It is argued that the victim who was examined as PW15 by the prosecution identified the accused in his examination in chief but in his cross examination he categorically stated that he had named accused Saleem Allahdiya on the basis of what he had heard from the beggars present around the spot of incident and he had himself not seen the accused shoot him. He also refers to the testimony of PW5 to contend that the caller who made the PCR call also did not mention the name of the shooter. He further argued that empty cartridge has not been recovered and these are glaring doubts in the case of prosecution. So far as accused Musharraf is concerned, he has argued that there is nothing on record to show that the accused knew that co-accused Saleem Allahdiya was wanted for some offence or had committed some offence or that he knowingly harbored the co-accused having knowledge of his commission of some offence. He further submits that there are glaring discrepancies in the manner in which the co-accused Musharraf is shown to have been apprehended.SC No. 990/2016
State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 37/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05
16:57:08 +0530
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Wife of the accused is an interested witness.
51. The prosecution has examined PW1 Najmeen who is the wife of the accused as the first witness against the accused. Notably, this witness is also a witness in a case filed by her against her husband which led to registration of a separate FIR bearing no.86/2016, PS Jafrabad. However, her knowledge about the present case is doubtful. It is stated by this witness that she "came to know" about the fact that the husband of this witness i.e. accused Saleem @ Allahdiya had shot the injured Rashid. She apparently states that she was told by police officials about the same when she had visited the police station. The question is why would the police official chose to tell her about the same? Even if it is assumed that they told her because she was victim of similar offence and she was the wife of accused, then also her testimony in the present case is not that of a independent witness but an interested witness. This is for the reason that she has already stated in her testimony that the accused used to suspect that she was having an affair with the injured. She also has her own discord with the accused. She had already given her statement to the police regarding the incident of accused shooting at her and her mother. Therefore, the credibility of the witness stands diluted and her testimony is to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Recovery of weapon of offence
52. Detailed observations were made by this court in the judgment dated passed in FIR no.86/2016, PS Jafrabad regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence which is allegedly the same in both cases. There SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 38/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:57:18 +0530 are various alleged discrepancies which have been pointed out with regard to the recovery. Most notably, PW4 from whose house the weapon has been recovered completely resiled from her statement and also stated that she has signed on blank pages. The copy of the seizure memo annexed in the case file of FIR No.86/2016, PS Jafrabad also does not bear her signatures. However, this discrepancy has already been dealt with and discarded in the observations given by this court in the judgment dated 21.04.2026 in the connected case. This court notes that original seizure memo prepared in this bears the signature of PW Rani. Hence, this is not a discrepancy which should be fatal to the case of prosecution as it could be that while the original seizure memo was signed by the witness, the police forgot to take her signature on the photocopy annexed in the other case.
53. A bigger discrepancy is that the witness has stated that she had signed the document at the instance of the police. In this regard, it is noteworthy that PW4 has stated that her signatures were taken on blank papers. However, she did not take any action in respect of the same. Moreover, the disclosure memo of the accused recorded in this case was produced in evidence of the other case in this court during the deposition of PW 18 who is the Assistant Ahlmad who produced file of this case. Interestingly, this disclosure statement bears the signature of the accused. As it has led to the recovery of weapon of offence, the same becomes admissible in evidence and relevant for decision of the case. Thus, even if the testimony of PW 4 is discarded from consideration, then also the disclosure of accused regarding the presence of the firearm at the spot from which it was recovered i.e. from inside the sofa in the first floor of the house of PW Rani, renders SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 39/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:57:29 +0530 the version of the prosecution credit worthy.
54. The fact that as per prosecution, PW Rani was the muh boli behan of accused shows that she had every incentive to resile from her statement and not support the prosecution case.
55. Further, it is also relevant that the recovery also stands rendered believable as the same was affected in proximity in time of the incident of shooting committed by the accused which is subject of FIR No.86/2016, PS Jafrabad.
56. No doubt there are discrepancies in the investigation conducted for both cases and the investigation could have been conducted in a better manner. One such discrepancy is the fact that no used cartridges were recovered from the spot of both incidents. However, as opined in the judgment dated 21.04.2026, the absence of recovery of the empty shells was not a ground to acquit the accused in that case in the wake of other material on record of that case.
57. Thus, the recovery of one illegal firearm from the accused stands proved on record. However, while the said arm was used to commit the offence which is subject matter of the judgment dated 21.04.2026, it still remains to be seen whether this weapon was used by accused for shooting the injured person in this case also. For that, it is crucial to deliberate upon the identity of accused or whether it is established at all in the present case.
SC No. 990/2016State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 40/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:57:36 +0530 Identity of the accused
58. PW5 who received the information regarding the shooting of the injured in the present case in the police control room recorded this information vide Ex.PW5/A. At the very outset, it is noteworthy that this witness has stated that the caller did not mention the name of the shooter. He also deposed that information was regarding the brother of the caller being shot. From the testimony of this witness, it appears that the brother of injured Rashid had made the PCR call. However, no such 'brother' of the accused has been examined as a witness. Even PW17 i.e. SI Rohit, the IO has deposed that DD No.8A vide which the information regarding the shooting was recorded does not mention the name of the shooter. The IO also admitted that he had not investigated about the name of the caller. PW17 rather states that it was the brother of the wife of the accused who had made the PCR call. This person, who was examined as PW9 has not made any deposition in this regard. Rather, he categorically stated that he has deposed only as per the instructions of his sister.
59. In this respect, the testimony of PW15 i.e. injured Rashid is most crucial. It is noteworthy that in his examination in chief, he names the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. However, in his cross examination which was recorded on the very same day, he has explained that he came to know about the name of the accused as the shooter from the beggars who were present at the spot at the time of the incident. Now as per the injured himself i.e. PW15, he heard the beggars shouting the name of accused i.e. Saleem, Saleem!. However, the question that arises is that were the beggars of the area familiar with the name of the accused. How did they know about his identity? Was he SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 41/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH KUMAR by SUMEDH SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:57:47 +0530 famous amongst the beggars? None of these beggars have been examined as a witness in the present case. The IO admits the same. Moreover, the PW15 has also submitted that he called his children and made call on 100 number. This is in contradiction with the testimony of PW5 who received information about the brother of caller being shot rather than the caller being shot himself.
60. So far as PW11 who was also later on examined as PW16 is concerned, she is the wife of the injured and she only heard about the name of the accused from the injured himself. She is not an eye witness to the incident. Thus, her version regarding the involvement of the accused is hearsay at the most.
61. Likewise, PW9 who is the brother of the wife of the injured only apparently took the injured to the hospital. He was also told about the involvement of the accused by his sister who is the wife of the injured. Thus, his version regarding involvement of accused is also hearsay. Notably, PW15 also deposed that the bullet which was shot at him, is still inside his body. The doctors concerned chose not to extract the bullet. Otherwise this bullet could have been forensically examined and compared or matched with the weapon of offence allegedly recovered from the accused. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Therefore, the identity of the accused could not be established in this manner also.
62. The IO PW17 casts even a greater doubt on the identity of the accused in the present case as he submits that the beggars present at the spot only heard the noise of the shot. Thus, as per the IO, even the beggars did not see the accused shoot the injured. This goes a step SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 42/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:57:56 +0530 ahead in creating doubt against any theory of guilt of the accused as compared to the testimony of PW15.
63. PW15 also waters down the version of the prosecution regarding the motive of commission of offence. He categorically stated only on suggestion given by the APP that he had a quarrel with the sister of the accused. Whereas according to the wife of the accused, the motive for commission of the offence was her apparent affair with the injured. PW15 had no knowledge about this alleged suspicion. Thus, there is doubt regarding the motive of commission of offence. PW15 goes further in casting a shadow of doubt on the identity of the accused in the present case by stating that he could not see the shooter as the shooter approached him from his back. This aspect is corroborated by medical evidence on record which shows that the injured was infact shot at from his back side. When a categorical question was put to the injured that whether he stated the truth in his examination in chief about the involvement of the accused or whether he deposed correctly in his cross examination regarding hearing of the name of the accused only from the beggars sitting in the area, the injured chose to categorically clarify that the version given by him in his cross examination is correct. Thus, by no means can PW15 be relied upon to establish the identity of accused as shooter in the present case.
Role of co-accused Musharraf
64. The co-accused Musharraf has been charged with harboring accused Saleem Allahdiya after the commission of the offence. In this regard, there are various questions which arise after deliberating upon the testimonies of PW6, 12 and 17. Most of the questions remain SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 43/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:58:04 +0530 unanswered.
65. It is the version of PW6 Ct. Krishan and PW12 HC Gajender that they accompanied the IO to apprehend the accused as per secret information received by the IO. Apparently, the information that was received was that the accused was hiding in the houses of PW4 Rani. However, it is the version of both these witnesses that the accused was not found there. Both these witnesses state that PW Rani was interrogated but did not disclose anything and from there IO chose to go to the house of Musharraf and it was the IO who called the secret informer to identify the house of said Musharraf. PW17 SI Rohit on the other hand deposed in this regard that it is PW Rani who told him that Musharraf resides near Photo chowk and the accused would be found in his house. However, interestingly neither PW6 nor PW12 who accompanied the IO have deposed in regard to the revelation made by PW Rani. They did not know why the IO chose to go to the house of accused Musharraf despite accompanying the IO all the time. They also did not depose regarding the fact that PW Rani told the IO about the whereabouts of the accused. Interestingly, even PW Rani has not deposed that she disclosed to the IO that the accused would be found in the house of accused Musharraf. Now it is a different matter that PW4 has resiled from her statement entirely and has not supported the case of the prosecution at all.
66. Be that as it may, this is not the only discrepancy concerning the apprehension of accused from the house of co-accused Musharraf. Now apparently, there are two site plans which have been filed on the record by the IO. One is regarding the place at which the shooting took place SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 44/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05 SETHI 16:58:12 +0530 and the second is regarding the place from which the weapon of offence was allegedly effected i.e. from the house of PW Rani. However, no site plan has been filed regarding the house of accused Musharraf from where the accused persons were apparently apprehended. It is stated by PW6 and PW12 that they were instructed to go to the roof of the neighboring house by the IO after they reached the house of accused Musharraf. However, it is not known whether the house of accused Musharraf was surrounded by other houses on one side, on two sides or three sides. Consequently, it is not known how the witnesses guessed as to the roof of which house should they go to. It is not as if they had seen accused Musharraf climbing the roof of his house. However, somehow coincidentally they guessed that they should choose a neighboring house and go to its roof. Again coincidentally, at that very time they managed to see accused Musharraf also on the said roof trying to climb over to the roof of another house. Again coincidentally, even the IO managed to reach the same roof at that very moment. Now, it is rather strange for all of them to move to the roof of the house of the neighbor of the accused without having any knowledge that accused Musharraf would actually be on the roof of his house or without even seeing him on the roof. How did they know that after they go to the roof, the accused persons would not escape from the door? How did they manage to leave the door unmanned? How did they know that the accused would choose to go to the roof at that very moment and that also to the direction where they were standing? Thus, there are various doubts regarding the apprehension of accused Saleem Allahdiya from the house of co-accused Musharraf and apprehension of co-accused Musharraf from his house itself.
SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 45/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date: 2026.05.05 SETHI 16:58:19 +0530
67. Moreover, section 212 IPC requires that a person should know that an offence has been committed and while having such knowledge he should harbor or conceal a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender. Even if it is assumed that accused Saleem Allahdiya was found in the house of co-accused Musharraf, nothing has been brought on record by prosecution to show that co-accused Musharraf knew that accused Saleem Allahdiya had committed an offence before he came to his house. As a matter of fact, as per PW6, the house does not even belong to accused Musharraf. It belongs to his father. PW12 even submitted that no document was prepared at the spot of arrest and all documents were prepared at the police station. Why?
No one knows. Thus, the benefit of all these doubts in this regard has to accrue to co-accused Musharraf.
Conclusion
68. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, what can be discerned is that one illegal firearm was recovered at the instance of accused Saleem Allahdiya. Apparently, this was the firearm used for shooting at the wife and mother in law of accused Saleem Allahdiya for which FIR No.86/2016 PS Jafrabad was registered. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the same firearm was used by the accused to shoot injured Rashid in the present case. Injured Rashid himself has been unable to identify the accused Saleem Allahdiya as the shooter. Therefore, the accused Saleem Allahdiya can only be convicted for offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act in the present case and must be acquitted of all other charges framed against him. It is clarified here that the accused Saleem Allahdiya was convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act in SC No. 990/2016 State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 46/47 PS Jafrabad Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.05.05 16:58:25 +0530 the other case for use of the firearm against his wife and mother in law, which is a separate offence. However, no such use of the arm could be established in this case against injured Rashid. Hence, for being found in the possession of the illegal firearm, the accused is being convicted for offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act only.
69. Further, so far as co-accused Musharraf is concerned, this court has already taken note of various doubts in the apprehension of this accused and the apprehension of co-accused Saleem Allahdiya from his house. Therefore, granting the benefit of these doubts to accused, this court acquits co-accused Musharraf for the offence punishable under section 212 IPC.
Announced in open Court
on the 5th day of May 2026 Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:
2026.05.05
SETHI 16:58:30
+0530
(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
Addl. Sessions Judge-05
Shahdara District
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 990/2016
State Vs. Saleem @ Alladiya
FIR No.: 136/2016 Page 47/47
PS Jafrabad