Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Kadir on 3 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27649/2016)
FIR No. 364/2014
Police Station Sadar Bazar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 302 IPC
Charges framed against accused 302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
Mohd. Kadir.
State Versus Mohd. Kadir,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Anzar,
R/o H. No. 7429, Naseem Ka Makan
Kasab Pura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Permanent Address:-
Village Shobhan, PS: Simri,
District Darbhanga, Bihar.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 15.12.2014
Date of Arguments 29.05.2024
Judgment reserved on 01.06.2024
Judgment pronounced on 03.06.2024
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd. Kadir is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. The story of the FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 1 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
prosecution is that on 09.09.2014 at about 07:25 pm in front of H. No. T-273, near Khatta, Qasab Pura, Sadar Bazar accused Mohd. Kadir committed murder of Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. Further on the aforesaid date, time and place accused Mohd. Kadir used one knife for the commission of murder of Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and on 10.09.2014 the said knife was got recovered by accused from Khatta near Electric Transformer, Qasab Pura, Sadar Bazar.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 09.09.2014 at about 07:37 pm, on receiving information from Command Room (PHQ) regarding slitting of neck of a person near Khatta, Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, PW- 22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar reached at the spot of incident where PW- 18 SI Kuldeep and Ct. Sanjay were already present alongwith beat staff, pursuant to receiving of DD No. 23A and one dead body of male was found lying there of which throat was slit. During inquiry the name of deceased was revealed as Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and one person was also found lying on the ground in unconscious state at the spot of incident and whose name was revealed as Mohd. Kadir and the police officials came to know that Mohd. Kadir had committed the murder of the deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola by slitting his throat during scuffle. Thereafter PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar shifted the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital through PCR Van and recorded the statement of complainant PW-1 Mohd. Yunus, who was the eyewitness of incident. PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar got inspected the spot of incident through Mobile Crime FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 2 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
Team. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of eyewitness/complainant PW-1 Mohd. Yunus, Ex. PW-1/A, PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar prepared Rukka, Ex. PW-22/A and got the present FIR registered under Sec. 302 IPC at PS Sadar Bazar through PW-16 HC Hari Singh. After registration of FIR, IO prepared site plan Ex. PW-22/B at the instance of eyewitness/PW-1 Mohd. Yunus, lifted the blood stained earth control, one slipper of deceased and one pair of slippers from the spot. He also lifted the blood stained earth control and earth control from nearby shop no. 6367 in the name of M/s Sagar Furniture, where accused had hidden himself after committing murder of deceased. During investigation, IO also recorded statement of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad, another eyewitness of incident and seized his blood stained clothes. Thereafter Ct. Mustaq brought accused Mohd. Kadir to the spot from hospital after his medical examination and handed over the MLC and blood sample of accused to the IO, who seized the same. IO interrogated accused and arrested him in this case, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. IO also got recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife from near the spot at instance of accused. IO also seized the blood stained clothes, which were worn by accused at the time of commission of offence. He also got preserved the dead body of deceased at Mortuary, got conducted the postmortem and after postmortem dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased. IO also seized blood stained clothes, slipper and blood sample of deceased with sample seal of hospital. During investigation, IO obtained subsequent FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 3 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
opinion with respect to weapon of offence, sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion, got prepared scaled site plan, collected PCR forms and recorded statement of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. After obtaining FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
3. Vide order dated 0 8 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 4 , copy of the charge-sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 1 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 4 , the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
4. Vide order dated 10.02.2015 the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 302 IPC against accused namely Mohd. Kadir. Additional charges under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act were also framed against the accused, vide order dated 06.04.2018, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. PW-1 Mohd. Yunus is the complainant/eyewitness of the alleged incident. He deposed that he along with deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola used to work as labourer in Meat Godown. He further deposed that on 09.09.2014 at about 07:00 pm when he returned to godown, he saw that accused Mohd. Kadir was quarreling with deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and Naseer was FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 4 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
also standing there. He further deposed that he and Naseer intervened and got them separated. He also deposed that after 10- 15 minutes, accused returned back to spot of incident and caught hold of deceased from his back and immediately took out a knife (chhuri) and slit his throat from the front portion. He further deposed that consequent upon slitting the throat by accused, Bhola profusely bled from his throat and blood sprinkled on the clothes of Naseer also and accused fled away towards Kabro Wali Gali and they raised alarm Pakado-Pakado. He further deposed that accused was apprehended by some public persons and he was brought back to the spot where he was beaten also. He also deposed that deceased fell down in front of godown and he expired immediately and somebody called at 100 number. He also deposed the police arrived at the spot and recorded his statement, Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that dead body of deceased was shifted to the hospital and IO arrested accused on the same day at about 12:30 am in night. He also proved arrest memo, Ex. PW-1/B and personal search memo, Ex. PW-1/C for accused. This witness was cross- examined at length on behalf of accused. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that at the time of quarrel, workers and owners of the adjoining godowns had also come to the spot and they tried to pacify the quarrel between deceased and accused. He deposed that at the time of quarrel, both accused and deceased were loudly abusing each other. He also deposed that accused came from the back side and suddenly attacked deceased and ran away towards Kabro wali gali. He denied the suggestion that he had not FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 5 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
seen the face of assailant as he was alleged to have attacked from behind and left immediately. He also admitted that neither he nor Naseer called at 100 number. He also deposed that he did not know the name of the public persons who had apprehended the accused on the spot and he and Naseer had chased the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused had abused him and Naseer on number of occasions when they had manhandled him or due to this reason they had falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
7. PW-2 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 09.09.2014 he delivered the copies of present FIR to the Joint CP Central Range, DCP North and office of Ld. Area Magistrate. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not obtain any receiving from the concerned officer to whom he had delivered the copy of FIR.
8. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem deposed that on 09.09.2014 at about 07:00 pm, when he was going to his house and reached near Khatta, Kasabpura, he heard some noise and saw many public persons were gathered there. He further deposed that he noticed that two persons were lying on the ground and blood was also lying near the said persons. He also deposed that public persons were saying that one boy had been stabbed in his stomach. He also deposed that he immediately made call at 100 number from his mobile bearing no. 9211688167 and left for his home. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he could not notice the injuries in the stomach of the abovesaid persons because he was on his two- wheeler and was moving towards his house. He denied the FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 6 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
suggestion that he had not seen the abovesaid two persons lying at the spot with his own eyes. He further deposed that he told his abovesaid mobile number to the police during recording of his statement. This witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-3/D where this fact was not mentioned.
9. PW-4 ASI Amar Nath, is the Duty Officer who proved DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-4/A regarding cutting of neck of a person, at Kasabpura, in front of Kuresh Nagar near Khatta and DD No. 24, Ex. PW-4/B regarding stabbing of a person near Khatta, Kasabpura. He also proved copy of FIR No. 364/2014, Ex. PW-4/C, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-4/D and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-4/E. In his cross- examination, he admitted that phone number of the caller was mentioned in both the DDs.
10. PW-5 Ct. Mushtaq, deposed that on 09.09.2014, he along with ASI Mohd. Saleem, HC Hari Singh and Ct. Debu Singh was on patrolling duty and during patrolling, he received information regarding quarrel. He further deposed that after receiving information, he reached at the spot i.e. H. No. T-273, in front of Khatta, Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar where a dead body of a male was lying at the side of road, whose name was revealed as Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and another person was also lying there in unconscious condition, whose name was revealed as Mohd. Kadir. He further deposed that he came to know that Mohd. Kadir had killed the deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and public persons had given FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 7 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
beatings to him. He further deposed that he along with PCR officials took the accused Mohd. Kadir to Hindu Rao Hospital where accused was examined vide MLC No. 6284/14 and doctor handed over blood sample of accused to him. He also deposed that after medical examination, he along with accused came back to the spot and where IO arrested him and seized his blood sample. He proved the seizure memo of blood sample of accused, arrest memo and personal search of accused as Ex. PW-5/A, PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that at about 07:45 pm, he along with PCR officials took the injured to the hospital from the spot and the injured was unconscious at the said time. He also deposed that injured regained consciousness after about one and half hours of his reaching at the hospital. He also deposed that he had not produced the public person who disclosed that accused had slit the throat of deceased to the IO when he first visited the spot.
11. PW-6 Ct. Sudesh Kumar is the Photographer at Mobile Crime Team, Central. He proved 20 photographs of scene of crime from different angles as Ex. PW-6/1 to Ex. PW-6/20. He also proved the negatives as Ex. PW-6/21 to Ex. PW-6/40. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had photographed the proceedings of lifting the exhibits from the spot. He denied the suggestion that he along with other officials had not visited the spot on that day or that he had not taken any photographs of spot.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 8 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
12. PW-7 Ct. Surender Pal, deposed that on 14.11.2014, he received 12 exhibits vide RC No. 63/21/14, Ex. PW-7/A along with duly filled up FSL Form, Ex. PW-7/B from MHC(M) and he deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide receipt/acknowledgment Ex. PW/7/C. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that when he took the pullandas from the Malkhana Moharar, the pullanda was not properly sealed. He also denied the suggestion that he tempered the pullanda before depositing the same at the office of FSL.
13. PW-8 Ct. Sanjay, deposed that on 09.09.2014 on receiving call by SI Kuldeep, he along with him reached at the spot of incident. He further deposed that on instruction of SI Kuldeep he shifted the dead body to Subzi Mandi, Mortuary where Mst. Hamida, wife of deceased and Abdul Hafiz, son of deceased identified the dead body of deceased, in presence of IO. He further deposed that IO got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to the heirs of deceased. He also deposed that the concerned doctor handed over a pullanda of clothes and chappal of deceased along with blood sample of deceased and he handed over the same to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember as to who told the IO about the name and address of deceased and accused. He also deposed that SI Kuldeep had directed a person to whom he did not know, to lift the exhibits from the spot and the said person FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 9 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
was not in police uniform. He denied the suggestion that he along with SI Kuldeep had not visited the spot that is why he was unable to tell the name of the person who disclosed the name of deceased and accused.
14. PW-9 SI Nisar Ahmad, deposed that on 17.10.2014 he took the pullanda of knife along with letter of SHO, Ex. PW-9/A to Subzi Mandi Mortuary for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He further deposed that concerned doctor checked the abovesaid weapon and document and gave his subsequent opinion Ex. PW-9/B and thereafter he came back to PS and handed over subsequent opinion to the IO and pullanda of knife to MHC(M). In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was out of room of doctor when the doctor examined the weapon and put his opinion about the same.
15. PW-10 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, is Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-10/A. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had prepared the above said site plan in his office. He denied the suggestion that on 26.11.2014 he had not visited the spot along with IO and he had not prepared his rough notes and measurements of the site plan at the spot.
16. PW- 11 Smt. Hamida, is the wife of deceased who identified the dead body of deceased Shakir @ Bhola vide her statement, Ex. PW-11/A at mortuary and after postmortem, the dead body of her deceased husband was handed over to her vide FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 10 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
handing over memo Ex. PW-11/B. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had put thumb impressions on the above documents in the PS at the instance of IO.
17. PW-12 Sh. Abdul Hafiz, is the son of deceased who also identified the dead body of deceased Shakir @ Bhola vide his statement, Ex. PW-12/A at mortuary and after postmortem, the dead body of his deceased father was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex. PW-12/B. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had put his signature on the above documents in the PS at the instance of IO.
18. PW-13 Sh. Naseer Ahmad is the another eyewitness of alleged incident. He deposed that he and deceased Shakir were working as meat cleaner and used to live together at Godown of Kamil at T-273, Kasabpura. He further deposed that on 09.09.2014 at about 05:00-06:00 pm, accused Mohd. Kadir was quarreling with deceased Mohd. Shakir and he and Mohd. Yunus had pacified the matter and thereafter accused left the abovesaid place. He further deposed that after about 15-20 minutes, accused Mohd. Kadir came at the said godown and at that time he was standing alone outside the godown and Mohd. Yunus was also present there at a little distance of him. He further deposed that deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola was also present at a distance of 5-6 paces from him and he was talking with someone. He also deposed that accused Kadir came to Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and he slit his throat from front portion of Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola with Chhuri which FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 11 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
was in his hand and Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola fell down on the road. He further deposed that consequent upon the slitting of the throat by accused, deceased Bhola profoundly bleeded from his throat and blood sprinkled on his clothes. He also deposed that he was not in a position to speak anything and public persons apprehended the accused near a wooden godown in the gali and they brought the accused to the spot. He also deposed that he told the police in PS that his wearing clothes having blood stains of deceased were kept in a bucket at godown. He proved the seizure memo of his blood stained clothes as Ex. PW-13/A. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused. In his cross-examination he admitted that he, Mohd. Yunus and Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola had not informed the police regarding first quarrel. He also deposed that he did not remember about the wearing clothes and its colour worn by accused at the time of quarreling with Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. He also admitted that he had not chased the accused. He also admitted that neither he nor Mohd. Yunus had made a call to the police regarding the murder. He also admitted that he did not tell the facts of the case to the police. He denied the suggestion that accused Mohd. Kadir used to come in godown under influence of liquor prior to the incident and he used to demand flash (meat) from them. He also denied the suggestion that he was knowing the accused prior to the incident. He also denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused slitting the throat of deceased Mohd. Shakir with chhuri. He also denied the suggestion that at the time of handing over his above said clothes, Ex. P-4 (colly), the same were not FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 12 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
sustained with human blood. He also denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused with collusion of Mohd. Yunus and at the instance of police as the accused used to harass him and Mohd. Yunus and deceased on the demand of flash (meat).
19. PW-14 Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh, has conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. He proved his detailed postmortem report Ex. PW-14/A and opined that cause of death was Haemarrohage and shock consequent to cut throat injury to neck i.e. injury no. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also opined that injury no. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and all injuries were ante- mortem in nature and fresh in duration. He also proved his subsequent opinion, Ex. PW-9/B, regarding weapon of offence i.e. Knife, Ex. P-1 and opined that the injuries on the body of deceased could be possible with the abovesaid knife. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not corroborated or referred to the injuries found the deceased while giving opinion in regard to the use of weapon in his report. He also denied the suggestion that he had prepared postmortem report on the asking of IO.
20. PW-15 Dr. Manoj Kumar, has proved the MLC, Ex. PW- 15/A of accused Mohd. Kadir. He deposed that the injured was in drowsy disoriented state and after examination injured was referred to Ortho & Medicine Department for further examination. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 13 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
opportunity given to him.
21. PW-16 HC Hari Singh deposed on the lines of PW-5 Ct. Mushtaq. He narrated about the proceedings conducted by IO/ACP Anil Kumar at the spot. He deposed that on the basis of statement of eyewitness Mohd. Yunus, IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR at PS. He further deposed that he visited PS Sadar Bazar along with rukka and got the present FIR recorded and after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR to the IO at the spot. He also proved the seizure memos of blood stained concrete lifted from the spot as Ex. PW-16/A, seizure memo of blood stained earth control as Ex. PW-16/B, seizure memo of blood stained white colour slipper as Ex. PW-16/C, seizure memo of blood stained black colour slipper as Ex. PW- 16/D, seizure memo of blood stained clothes of eyewitness Nasir Ahmad as Ex. PW-13/A, blood stained concrete lifted from shop no. 6367 as Ex. PW-16/E and blood stained earth control lifted from aforesaid shop as Ex. PW-16/F. He also narrated about arrest of accused and proved his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-16/G, seizure memo of blood stained clothes of accused, Ex. PW-16/H, sketch of blood stained knife, Ex. PW-16/J and seizure memo of knife as Ex. PW-16/K. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was informed by the public at his beat duty about the incident. He admitted that he had not recorded the name or other details or the statement of the said public person, who informed him about this incident nor he had disclosed this fact to the IO. He also admitted FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 14 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
that accused Kadir was lying unconscious at the spot when he reached there and none of the police officials had tried to apprehend public persons who had given beatings to the accused at the spot. He denied the suggestion that witness Naseer Ahmad had not delivered his clothes to the IO on the spot or that he was deposing falsely in this regard.
22. PW-17 SI Nagender Giri, is the In-charge Mobile Crime Team. He proved his report Ex. PW-17/A. In his cross- examination, he deposed that his report Ex. PW-17/A was prepared in his own handwriting after inspecting the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not received any information nor he prepared report Ex. PW-17/A.
23. PW-18 SI Kuldeep Singh, deposed that on 09.09.2014, on receiving DD No. 23A regarding slitting of throat, he along with Ct. Sanjay reached as the spot of incident i.e. T-273, near Khatta Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi where on dead body was found on the side of road. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, IO/SHO Anil Kumar also reached at the spot. He narrated about the proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot and proved seizure memos of exhibits lifted from the spot, seizure memo of slipper of deceased, seizure memo of slipper lying at the spot, seizure memo of blood stained clothes of eyewitness Nasir Ahmad, seizure memo of exhibits lifted from the shop no. 6367, Gali Kabro Wali where accused tried to hidden himself after slitting the throat of deceased and seizure memo of blood sample of accused. He also proved FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 15 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
arrest memo, personal search and disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Kadir. He also proved the seizure memo of blood stained clothes of accused, seizure memo weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered at the instance of accused and its sketch. He also correctly identified the accused and case properties during his examination-in-chief. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused. In his cross-examination he admitted that after reaching the spot, he did not make call to the Caller of DD No. 23A. He further deposed that IO did not record the statement of that person by whom, IO came to know about the name of deceased and accused in his presence. He admitted that no written notice was given to the public persons to join the investigation and their names and addresses were not recorded. He also deposed that while lifting the exhibits, its photographs were not taken. He also deposed that IO had not taken photographs at the time of recovery of clothes of Naseer Ahmad. He also deposed that accused was lying unconscious at the spot. He also deposed that the said unconscious person did not regain consciousness before he was sent to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not participated in the investigation and had signed all documents while sitting in the police station at the instance of IO.
24. PW-19 Ms. Pooja Shrotriya, has proved her detailed biological and serological reports as Ex. PW-19/A and Ex. PW- 19/B. In her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that exhibits mentioned in the report Ex. PW-19/A were not properly FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 16 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
examined by her. She also denied the suggestion that reports Ex. PW-19/A and Ex. PW-19/B were not prepared by her or that same were prepared by her associates or that she had only signed the same.
25. PW-20 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini has proved her detailed DNA Report Ex. PW-20/A (colly) and Allelic Data as Ex. PW-20/B. In her cross- examination she deposed that there is possibility that if the blood samples are contained in plastic jar, result may not be proper. She also admitted that human blood group 'B' may be of any other human being also. She denied the suggestion that she had not adopted proper procedure for examination of exhibits in this case.
26. PW-21 Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini has also proved proved her detailed DNA Report Ex. PW-20/A (colly) and Allelic Data as Ex. PW-20/B. In his cross-examination he deposed that there is possibility that if the blood samples are contained in plastic jar, result may not be proper. He also admitted that human blood group 'B' may be of any other human being also. He denied the suggestion that they had not adopted proper procedure for examination of exhibits in this case.
27. PW-22 ACP Anil Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 09.09.2014 at about 07:30-07:40 pm, on receiving information from Command Room (PHQ) regarding slitting of neck of a person near Khatta, Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar, FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 17 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
Delhi, he along with staff reached at the spot of incident where SI Kuldeep and Ct. Sanjay were already present alongwith beat staff. He further deposed that one person was found dead at the spot whose name was revealed as Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and one person was also found lying on the ground in unconscious state at the spot of incident and whose name was revealed as Mohd. Kadir. He further deposed that he shifted the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital through PCR Van and recorded the statement of complainant Mohd. Yunus, who was the eyewitness of incident. He further deposed that he got inspected the spot of incident through Mobile Crime Team and on the basis of statement of eyewitness Mohd. Yunus, he prepared Rukka and got the present FIR registered under Sec. 302 IPC at PS Sadar Bazar through HC Hari Singh. He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the spot of incident. He deposed about preparation of site plan, seizure of blood stained earth control, one slipper of deceased and one pair of slippers at the spot. He also deposed about seizure of blood stained earth control and earth control from nearby shop no. 6367 in the name of Sagar Furniture, where accused had hidden himself after committing murder of deceased. IO also deposed about recording of statement of Naseer Ahmad, another eyewitness of incident and proved the seizure memo of his blood stained clothes. He also proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure of accused Mohd. Kadir and got recovered one knife from near the spot, at instance of accused. He also also seized the blood stained clothes, which were worn by accused at the time of commission of FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 18 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
offence. He also obtained subsequent opinion with respect to weapon of offence, sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion, got prepared scaled site plan, collected PCR forms and recorded statement of witnesses. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached at the place of incident, 15-20 public persons were also present there. He also deposed that he made inquiry from only two persons who claimed themselves as the eyewitness of the alleged incident. He also deposed that he had not noted down the particulars of the other public persons. He also deposed that when the accused was brought at the spot from the hospital, public persons namely Naseer and Yunus were present there. He denied the suggestion that accused had not given any disclosure statement, that is why he did not get the signature of any public witness on the alleged disclosure statement of accused. He also deposed that place of recovery of knife was situated at about 30-35 steps away from the place of incident. He also denied the suggestion that he had not made the public person as a witness in the recovery and the seizure of aforesaid knife because the same was not recovered at the instance of accused and the same was planted. He also denied the suggestion that the clothes of the Naseer Ahmad was not seized by him on the day of the alleged incident whereas the same was collected subsequently and falsely planted in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that the blood stained clothes were planted upon the accused that is why no independent public witness with respect to the seizure of blood stained clothes of the accused.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 19 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
28. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the charges against him. He claimed that witnesses have falsely deposed against him because Mohd. Yunus and Naseer had quarreled with him on several occasions and on one occasion, he was under influence of liquor and he had demanded meat from them due to which they got falsely implicated him in the present case. He also claimed that he is innocent and IO has falsely implicated him in this case with collusion with Mohd. Yunus and Naseer Ahmad. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
29. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S. N. Shukla, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Mohd. Kadir.
30. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that complainant PW-1 Mohd. Yunus as well as PW-13 Naseer Ahmad who are the eyewitnesses of the incident have specifically deposed that accused Mohd. Kadir has committed murder of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. He also argued that there is complete consistency in the testimony of PW-1 Mohd. Yunus, PW-13 Naseer Ahmad and other prosecution witnesses. He also argued that the knife used in the commission of offence has been recovered at instance of accused and the accused had used the FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 20 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
same and the accused was not having any license or permit to retain the same. He also argued that the defence taken by the accused is vague and without any substance. He also argued that the all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence the accused should be convicted under all the Sections of law under which charges have been framed against him.
31. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that PW-1 Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are interested witnesses. He also argued that neither PW-1 Mohd. Yunus nor PW-13 Naseer Ahmad made call at 100 number after the incident and hence there is doubt whether these witnesses are the eyewitnesses of the alleged incident or not. He also argued that there is contradiction in the timings mentioned by PW-1 Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad. He also argued that no independent witness was joined in investigation at the time of recovery of the knife. He also argued that the blood stains found on the clothes of accused did not match with the DNA of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and hence FSL report is not in favour of prosecution. He also argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 21 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against him.
32. In the present case, charges under 302 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act have been framed against the accused Mohd. Kadir. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 22 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 23 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 24 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Section 25 of Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever--
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an 3 imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 5 which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with 7 imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 25 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.] [(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] (1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with 9 imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] [(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 11 [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 26 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub-section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 27 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 12 [two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 13 [two years].] [(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and includes any areas specified by notification under section 24A or section 24B.] (2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 28 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
ammunition or other arms--
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from the date of giving such information to such district magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station, in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.] (4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under sub- section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any person on its behalf has at any time has in his FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 29 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
possession or carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate or a person on its behalf, -
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),--
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 30 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
(8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
27 Arms Act: Punishment for using arms, etc. (1)Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 31 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
33. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused.
34. PW-1 Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are the star witnesses of prosecution who are the eyewitnesses of the alleged incident as per the prosecution story and hence their testimonies need to be appreciated as per the established principles of law. While appreciating the testimony of PW-1 Mohd. Yunus and PW- 13 Naseer Ahmad this court has to see whether the testimonies of both the abovesaid witnesses is consistent and whether the said testimonies have been corroborated by the prosecution by the circumstances or the connecting evidence.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 32 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
35. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that he alongwith Naseer and Mohd. Shakir was working as labourer at the godown of Kamil and on 09.09.2014 at about 07:00 pm, he saw that accused Mohd. Kadir and deceased Bhola were quarreling and PW-13 Naseer was also standing there and he along with Naseer intervened and got the accused and deceased separated and thereafter the accused left the spot. PW-13 Naseer Ahmad also deposed that deceased Shakir @ Bhola and PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus were working with him at the meat godown of Kamil at T-273, Kasabpura and on 09.09.2014 at about 05:00/06:00 pm accused Mohd. Kadir was quarreling with deceased Mohd. Shair and he along with PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus had pacified the matter and thereafter the accused had left the said place. Thus, there is complete consistency in the testimony of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad with respect to the same set of facts except the time. PW-13 Naseer Ahmad in his cross-examination deposed that he had no wrist watch at that time. As per the prosecution story, the first call at 100 number vide which DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-4/A was recorded and as per rukka, Ex. PW-22/A, the alleged incident took place at about 07:25 pm. If all the abovesaid facts and circumstances are taken together, it is clear that the incident took place after 07:00 pm. Thus, in these circumstances, the minor contradiction with respect to the time does not affect the case of the prosecution.
36. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that after 10-15 FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 33 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
minutes, accused returned back to the godown and at that time, Naseer and deceased were standing outside the godown. He further deposed that accused caught hold of deceased from his back and immediately took out a knife (Chhuri) and slit his throat from the front portion prior to their intervention. PW-13 Naseer Ahmad has corroborated the version of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus by deposing that after about 15-20 minutes, accused Mohd. Kadir came their godown and at that time he was standing outside the godown and PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus was also present there at a little distance and deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola was also present at a distance of 5-6 paces from him and accused Mohd. Kadir came and slit the throat from the front portion of Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola with the Chhuri which was in his hand. PW-14 Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh who proved the postmortem report of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola, Ex. PW-14/A deposed that there was cut throat injury present over the front of neck placed horizontally. Thus, there is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad regarding the same set of facts including the point of injury on the neck of deceased which has been corroborated by the medical evidence in form of postmortem report, Ex. PW-14/A.
37. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that consequent upon the slitting the throat by accused, deceased Bhola profoundly bleed from his throat and the blood sprinkled on the clothes of Naseer also. Similarly, PW-13 Naseer Ahmad also deposed that FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 34 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
consequent upon the slitting of throat by accused, deceased Bhola profoundly bleed from his throat and blood sprinkled on his clothes. As per the FSL Report, Ex. PW-20/A, blood was found on exhibits 5a & 5b i.e. on the shirt and baniyan of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad and as per FSL Report, Ex. PW-19/B, the blood on shirt of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad was human blood. Thus, PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have corroborated each other's version and same has further been corroborated by the scientific evidence in form of FSL Report, Ex. PW-19/B & Ex. PW-20/A.
38. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that after committing the offence, accused fled away towards Kabro wali Gali and accused was apprehended by some public persons and he was brought back to the spot and he was beaten also. PW-13 Naseer Ahmad also deposed that accused Mohd. Kadir along with Chhuri ran from the spot and public persons apprehended the accused near a wooden godown in the gali and thereafter he was brought to the spot. PW-5 Ct. Mustaq who reached at the spot after receiving the information regarding the incident deposed that accused was lying unconscious at the spot and he came to know that he had been given beatings by the public persons. Similarly, PW-16 HC Hari Singh, PW-18 SI Kuldeep and PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar have also deposed that the accused was lying unconscious at the spot and he was given beatings by public persons. PW-15 Dr. Manoj Kumar who proved the MLC of accused Mohd. Kadir, Ex. PW-
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 35 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
15/A deposed that the accused was brought to the Casualty of hospital with the alleged history of assault and hence the beatings given by the public persons to the accused at the spot have been corroborated. PW-15 Dr. Manoj Kumar further deposed that the accused was in drowsy and disoriented state. Thus, the version of PW-5 Ct. Mustaq, PW-16 HC Hari Singh, PW-18 SI Kuldeep and PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar that the accused was lying unconscious at the spot has been corroborated by medical evidence on record in form of MLC of accused, Ex. PW-15/A.
39. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have deposed that accused slit the throat of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and he was apprehended by public persons and was given beatings. They have further deposed that the accused was handed over to the police. PW-5 Ct. Mustaq, PW-16 HC Hari Singh, PW-18 SI Kuldeep and PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar have deposed that accused was found lying unconscious at the spot. Accused has not taken any defence as to how he was present at the spot of incident, how he sustained injury on his body and how he was lying unconscious. As per the contents of PCR form, Ex. PW- 22/D filled on the basis of information received from PCR officials who took the accused to the hospital, 'inj leker hosp ja rahe hai.... ye sharabi hai drama kar raha hai jisko HRH hosp. mein nashe mein admit kara diya..... isne dusre aadmi ko jaan se maar diya hai'. As per the MLC of accused, Ex. PW-15/A there was smell of alcohol from accused. Thus, the prosecution has proved that FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 36 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
accused had consumed alcohol and he was given beatings by public persons and hence he was lying unconscious at the spot of incident. Accused has not taken defence that the alcohol was administered to him by someone else. Under Sec. 85 of Indian Penal Code, the voluntarily intoxication is not a defence. Moreover, the intoxication must be such that by reason of intoxication, the person becomes incapable of knowing the nature of act or that the act he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. In the present case earlier a quarrel took place between accused and deceased and after sometime he returned back to the spot and attacked the deceased and hence the accused was fully aware as to what he was doing.
40. PW-17 SI Nagender Giri has proved Crime Team Report, Ex. PW-17/A and PW-6 Ct. Sudesh Kumar has proved the photographs of spot of incident exhibited as Ex. P-6/1-20. The Crime Team Report, Ex. PW-17/A and the photographs of spot of incident are consistent with case of the prosecution wherein the condition of deceased and the surrounding circumstances including the furniture shop are visible in the same condition as deposed by PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus, PW-13 Naseer Ahmad, PW-5 Ct. Mustaq, PW-16 HC Hari Singh, PW-18 SI Kuldeep and PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar.
41. The Chhuri/knife, Ex. P-1 used in the commission of offence has been recovered at instance of accused and has been seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/K. The accused in his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-16/G disclosed the fact that after FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 37 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
slitting the neck of deceased, he threw the knife/chhuri near the Electricity Transformer near the spot of incident. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus, PW-13 Naseer Ahmad or any other prosecution witness have not deposed as to where the accused had thrown the said knife or Chhuri. Thus, the prosecution witnesses as well as the IO and other Police Officials had not knowledge about the spot where the knife, Ex. P-1 was thrown by the accused and it was only within the knowledge of accused only and the same has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused. The fact of throwing the knife/chhuri at a particular spot and getting recovered the same is a relevant fact under Sec. 27 of The Indian Evidence Act. As per the FSL Report, Ex. PW-20/A, blood was found on exhibit 10 i.e. knife and as per FSL report, Ex. PW- 19/B, it was human blood. Though, the DNA could not be extracted from the blood on knife due to degradation as per FSL report, Ex. PW-20/A.
42. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have specifically deposed that the accused had used the knife to slit the neck/throat of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. The recovery of knife/chhuri, Ex. P-1 used by accused has been duly proved by the prosecution. PW-14 Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh has proved his subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence i.e. knife vide his report, Ex. PW-9/A along with diagram of knife, Ex. PW-9/B and has deposed that the said injury on the body of deceased could be possible with the said knife. Thus, the use of recovered knife, Ex.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 38 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
P-1 in the commission of offence has been duly proved by the prosecution.
43. The sketch of knife, Ex. PW-16/J has been proved by PW-16 HC Hari Singh as well by PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar. As per the sketch of knife, Ex. PW-16/J, the total length of knife was 18 centimeters and the width of knife was 4.5 centimeters. As per Notification No. F.20(46)/64-Home, dated 12.08.1964 issued by Delhi Administration, a sharp edged weapon with blade of more than 6 inches long or 2 inches wide in public places falls within the definition of Arms under Sec. 2(c) of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. Since the length of recovered knife, Ex. P-1 is more than six inches, it falls with the purview of abovesaid notification of which judicial notice can be taken under Sec. 57 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and hence it also falls within the definition of Arms under Sec. 2(c) of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. The prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 25 & 27 of The Arms Act by proving the possession as well as the use of knife, Ex. P-1 by the accused in the commission of offence.
44. PW-20 Ms. Poonam Sharma and PW-21 Dr. Naresh Kumar have proved the FSL report, Ex. PW-20/A along with the allele data, Ex. PW-20/B. As per the FSL report, the blood was detected on exhibits 1 (concrete material), 2 (concrete material), 3 (blood stained chappal of deceased), 4 (blood stained slipper of accused), 5a (blood stained shirt of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad), 5b (blood FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 39 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
stained baniyan of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad), 6 (concrete material), 7 (cemented material), 8 (blood sample of accused Mohd. Kadir), 9a (pant of accused Mohd. Kadir), 9b (t-shirt of accused Mohd. Kadir), 10 (recovered knife), 11a (baniyan of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola), 11b (Kurta of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola, 11c (lungi of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola), 11d (chappal of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola) & 12 (blood sample of deceased). As per the FSL report, Ex. PW-20/A, the DNA of accused matched with the DNA of exhibits 3 i.e. blood stained chappal of deceased, 11a i.e. baniyan of deceased and 11c i.e. lungi of deceased. However, DNA could not be generated from exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11b, 11d due to degradation. The DNA of deceased did not match with blood found on exhibits 9a & 9b i.e. pant and T-shirt of accused Mohd. Kadir. It has been argued on behalf of accused that since the DNA of blood found on the pant and T-shirt of accused has not matched with the DNA of deceased, the accused has not committed the offence of murder of deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses including eyewitnesses PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have deposed that the blood stains of deceased also fell on the clothes of accused. As per the testimonies of witnesses, the accused slit the throat of deceased and ran away from the spot and the blood stains of deceased sprinkled only on the clothes of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad and as per FSL report, Ex. PW-20/A blood has been found on the clothes of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad. PW-15 Dr. Manoj Kumar has proved the MLC of accused, Ex. PW-15/A. As per the MLC of FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 40 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
accused, PW-15/A , there was lacerated wound on the right hand of accused when he was taken to the hospital. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and other prosecution witnesses have also deposed that accused was given beatings by the public persons as per PCR Form, Ex. PW-22/D also, the accused was injured. Thus, in these circumstances there is strong possibility that the blood of accused must have sprinkled on his own clothes for which DNA test of the blood of accused has not been got conducted. Thus, in view of the injury on the person of accused himself in form of lacerated wound, the non-matching of the DNA of deceased with the blood found on the clothes of accused does not create any doubt in favour of accused. Thus, the said fact is neither in favour of accused nor in favour of prosecution. Moreover, FSL report is only an expert opinion which is corroborative in nature and as per the established principles of law same cannot be accepted by discarding the testimonies of eyewitnesses, PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad.
45. During the arguments, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused has taken the defence that there was no motive for the commission of offence and hence the alleged offence has not been committed by him. Contrary to this, in the cross-examination of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus, accused has taken the defence that on a number of occasions, Mohd. Yunus, deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and Naseer Ahmad had given beatings to the accused as he used to demand meat from them under influence of liquor. Similar FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 41 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
defence has been taken by the accused in the cross-examination of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad. Both the abovesaid witnesses have denied the said fact. Accused has not examined any defence witness nor he has proved that he used to demand meat from PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus, deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad. Thus, the defence taken by the accused is vague in nature and hence is not reliable.
46. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have deposed that 15-20 minutes before the murder of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and deceased. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the said quarrel was the motive for the commission of murder of deceased by the accused. Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive is the moves a man to do a particular work. Generally there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant.
47. The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof however it is an corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to consider deeply. The present case is based on circumstantial FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 42 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
evidence and in case of circumstantial evidence, the proving of motive of the commission of offence by the prosecution is necessary. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
48. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 SCC 654 observed as under:-
"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relies upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 43 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."
49. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233 observed as under:-
"7.... The motives may be minor but nonetheless they did provide occasion for attack on the deceased by the appellants. That apart, even in absence of motive, the guilt of culprit can be established in a given case if the other evidence on FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 44 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
record is trustworthy in the absence of proof of motive has never been considered as fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found reliable".
50. In the present case, the accused has failed to show that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to his continuous demand of meat from PW-1 Mohd. Yunus, PW-13 Naseer Ahmad and deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad have specifically deposed that a quarrel had taken place between accused and deceased 15-20 minutes before the incident and they had separated them. Both the abovesaid witnesses have also deposed that thereafter accused left the spot and returned back after about 15-20 minutes and slit the throat of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola. Thus, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court is of considered opinion that the accused attacked the deceased with Chhuri due to the previous quarrel is took place between them on the same day and same was the motive for the commission of offence.
51. It has been argued by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are interested witnesses as they were working with the deceased in the same factory. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are not relative of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 45 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
Nothing has been brought on record by the accused that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are interested witnesses. The accused was apprehended by the public persons just after the incident from the spot near the spot of incident and he was handed over to the police. There is consistency in the testimonies of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad and on appreciation of the testimonies of these witnesses, it cannot be said that the abovesaid witnesses are interested witnesses. Even if it is presumed that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are interested witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as 'Kulesh Mondal Vs. State of W.B. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 578 has held as follows:-
" 10. We may also observe that the ground that the (witnesses being close relatives and consequently being partisan witnesses) should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC
364) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose. J. it was observed : (AIR p. 366, para 25) FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 46 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
'25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses required corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fact that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.'
52. Again in Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC
202) Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
" 14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 47 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial ap14 ptproach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence : but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
53. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are only the co-workers of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and they are not relatives of deceased. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused to prove the abovesaid witnesses are interested witnesses. Accused has also failed to establish that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus or PW-13 Naseer Ahmad had any previous enmity with him for which he can be implicated in a false case. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ' Kulesh Mondal (Supra)' & ' Masalti (Supra)', this court is of considered opinion that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are not interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be discarded only on the ground that they were working with the deceased in the said meat godown.
54. PW-22 IO/ACP Anil Kumar and other police witnesses have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them during the investigation of the present case. Prosecution has established that the investigation in the present case has been conducted as per law and the accused has failed to prove that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 48 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
55. It has been argued on behalf of accused that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad regarding the time and some other facts. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that the first incident of quarrel took place at about 07:00 pm while the incident of murder of deceased took place after 10-15 minutes. On the other hand PW-13 Naseer Ahmad deposed that the incident took place at about 05:00-06:00 pm. Thus, there is contradiction in the testimony of both the eyewitness with respect to the exact time of incident. The first call regarding the incident was received at the PS at about 07:38 pm, on the basis of which DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-4/A was recorded while the second information was received at the PS on the basis of call made by PW-3 Sh. Tasleem, on the basis of which DD No. 24A, Ex. PW-4/B was recorded at 07:40 pm. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus deposed that the second incident took place after 10-15 minutes of first incident. PW-13 Naseer Ahmad deposed that the second incident took place after 15-20 minutes after first incident. As per rukka, Ex. PW-22/A, the alleged incident took place on 09.09.2014 at about 07:25 pm. Thus, it is clear that the incident took place after 07:00 pm but before 07:38 pm. Thus, except the version of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad, there is complete consistency with respect to the timing of incident in the testimony of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus, timing mentioned in DD No. 23A, Ex. PW-4/A, DD No. 24A, Ex. PW-4/D, Rukka, Ex. PW-22/A and the PCR form, Ex. PW-22/D and hence the contradictions in testimony of PW-13 Naseer Ahmad with respect FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 49 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
to the time is a minor contradiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh cited as (1999) 8 SCC 649 observed as under:-
" 24. When an eye witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant detail. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Court should bear in mind that it is only when the discrepancy in the evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of version that the Court is justify in Jettisoning his evidence. But true serious view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of any incident (either as within the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
25. It is common practice in the Trial Courts to make out contradictions from a previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-
examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in the evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of Evidence Act provides for impeaching the credit of evidence by proof of an inconsistent FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 50 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
former statement. But a reading of Section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of witness."
56. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgement titled as Achara Parambath Pradeepan and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala 2007 (1) Crimes 54 SC has held that it would be too much to expect to any person to say anything in his statement before the police. To see a person by face is one thing but to know him by name is a different. Some improvements in the testimony of witness could not lead to rejection thereof in its entity.
57. The accused has brought some minor contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which are bound to happen in a criminal trial. The accused has failed to bring the material contradictions on record through which doubts can be created on the prosecution story. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgments titled as ' Rammi @ Rameshwar (Supra)' & 'Achara Parambath Pradeepan and Ors. (Supra)', the minor contradictions brought on record by the accused does not affect the case of prosecution on merits and the testimonies of eyewitnesses and other corroborative evidence cannot be discarded only due to the minor contradictions.
58. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 51 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
59. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 52 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the Cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it.
Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 53 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
60. In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
Thus, from the above said judgments, it is FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 54 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
61. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and have been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, medical evidence on record and the circumstances. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-1 complainant Mohd. Yunus and PW-13 Naseer Ahmad are witnesses of sterling quality and their versions are natural and they have withstood the test of cross examination.
62. The ingredients of offence punishable under section 302 IPC for the commission of offence of murder of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and under Sections 25 & 27 of The Arms Act, 1959 for the possession and the use of arms without permit or license have been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the accused Mohd. Kadir.
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 55 of 56 State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.
63. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case against accused Mohd. Kadir beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC for the commission of offence of murder of deceased Mohd. Shakir @ Bhola and under Sec. 25 & 27 of The Arms Act, 1959 for the possession and the use of arms without permit or license.
64. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Kadir is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 IPC & Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date:
Announced in the open court 2024.06.03
15:49:21 +0530
on 3rd day of June, 2024 (Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:03.06.2024
FIR No. 364/2014, PS Sadar Bazar, Page No. 56 of 56
State Vs. Mohd. Kadir.