Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Sheikh Murshid on 26 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE (NW)-II: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
Session Case No. 1199/10
Unique Case No. ID No. 02404R0177302009
State Vs. (1) Sheikh Murshid
S/o Sheikh Jaffar
R/o C Block, CD Park,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Nasruddin @ Baba
S/o Salimuddin
R/o NI 38/161, CD Park,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Rafiqul
S/o Sheikh Zakir
R/o B-7/343, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Rafiqul
S/o Sheikh Rehman
R/o B-7/257, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 98/2009
Police Station: Swaroop Nagar
Under Section: 392/394/397/411 IPC
St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.1
Date of committal to sessions court: 10.3.2010
Date on which orders were reserved: 21.3.2011
Last date for filing written synopsis: 21.4.2011
Date of Judgment: 26.4.2011
JUDGMENT (ORAL):
As per the allegations, the present accused persons i.e. Sheikh Murshid, Nasiruddin @ Baba, Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery by removing the mobile and Rs.1,000/- from the person of complainant Mohd. Furkan. It is also alleged that the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman used a desi katta at the time of committing robbery.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2009 ASI Shyam Sunder along with Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Manoj Kumar were on patrolling duty on Burari Road when one boy came running from Swaroop Nagar towards JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy and on suspicion ASI Shyam Sunder stopped the said boy whose name was revealed as Sheikh Murshid. At the same time another boy namely Mohd. Furkan came there and produced one boy whose name was revealed as Nasruddin. Mohd. Furkan informed the police that at about 4:30 pm he was going to his house on foot from Swaroop Nagar and when he reached near the Liqour Shop Burari Road, Delhi St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.2 suddenly four boys encircled him and started searching his pockets. When he resisted, one boy slapped him and showed him a desi katta. In the meanwhile the second boy took out his purse from the pocket of his pant; third boy removed his mobile phone make NOIKA and the fourth boy removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt. Mohd. Furkan also informed the police that thereafter two boys ran towards the open ground and the other two boys ran towards Burari Road. He chased the boy who had removed Rs.1000/- from his pocket and apprehended him. He identified the boy who had been apprehended by the patrolling party and on his personal search the mobile phone make NOIKA belonging to the complainant was recovered. During interrogation both the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin disclosed the name of the boy who had put the katta on the complainant as Rafiqul s/o Sheikh Rehman and the name of the boy who had removed the purse as Rafiqul s/o Sheikh Zakir.
On the basis of the complaint of Mohd. Furkan the present FIR was registered and both the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin were arrested on the same day i.e. 17.4.2009. On 16.11.2009 the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman was arrested by the officials of Police Station Bhalswa Dairy under Section 41.1 Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which information was given to the investigating officer of this case after which the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman was arrested in this case. Further, on 22.12.2009 pursuant to a secret information the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.3 was arrested. After completion of the investigations all the four accused were charge sheeted.
CHARGE:
This court has settled the charges under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons namely Sheikh Murshid, Nasiruddin @ Baba, Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, a separate charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Rafiqul S/o Sh. Sheikh Rehman to which accused Rafiqul S/o Sh. Sheikh Rehman pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses as under:
Complainant/ victim/ eye witness:
PW3 Mohd. Furkan is the complainant/ victim in the present case who has deposed that on 17.4.2009 he was employed in a copper factory and was residing near Bhalaswa Dairy Gurudwara in his own house. According to him, on that day he was going on foot from Swaroop Nagar towards Bhalsawa and at about 4.00-4.30PM when he reached near Swaroop Nagar Theka four boys caught hold of him; one boy put a katta on him and also slapped him; the other boy St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.4 removed his purse from the backside pocket of his pant which purse containing Rs.8,500/- and some visiting cards; the third boy removed his mobile from the side pocket of his pant and the fourth boy removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt. The witness has further deposed that the said boys thereafter started running towards the Gurdwara side on which he also run before them and apprehended one of the boy who had removed Rs.1000/- from the pocket of his shirt. PW3 has testified that he also saw that three policemen were coming from the same direction in which the boys were running and one of the said boys who had removed his mobile was apprehended by them whereas other two boys ran away. According to him, he immediately went to the said policemen and handed over the said boy whom he had caught whose name he later on came to know as Nasruddin who was holding Rs.1000/- which he (accused) had removed from pocket in his hand which amount the witness removed from his hand and handed over the same to the policemen. The witness has further deposed that the name of the person who put the katta upon him was revealed as Rafiqul. He has also deposed that the purse was containing Rs.8,500/-, his photograph and some loose papers. The witness has correctly identified the accused Nasiruddin by pointing out towards him as the boy whom he had apprehended and the accused Sheikh Murshid as the boy who had been been apprehended by the police while running away. However, he could not identify the other two boys who had run away since according to St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.5 him it had become dark. The accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Zakir were put to this witness in the court but the witness failed to identify them. He has proved his statement recorded by the police which is Ex.PW3/A. According to him, the aforesaid Rs.1,000/- which were in the denomination of Rs.500/- were sealed and taken in to possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and the mobile phone was also sealed by the investigating officer and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He has also proved that the accused Nasruddin was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/C and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/E. He has also proved the arrest memo of accused Sheikh Murshid which is Ex.PW2/D and his personal search memo which is Ex.PW2/F. The witness has also deposed that efforts were made to trace the remaining two accused persons but till then they could not be apprehended. He has testified that he had purchased the aforesaid Nokia mobile phone from some boy who was resident of Bhagpat but he could not produce any bill or documentary proof regarding the purchase of the said mobile and SIM. He did not know anything about the remaining two accused persons as to when they were apprehended. This witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. two currency notes of denomination of Rs 500/- each taken from the hand of accused Nasruddin which are Ex.P1 collectively and the NOKIA mobile phone Model 1600 taken from St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.6 the accused Sheikh Murshid which is Ex.P2.
With the permission of this court, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has examined the witness since he was resiling from his supplementary statement dated 30.11.2009 and 22.12.2009 and had also turned hostile on the identity of the accused Rafiqul, S/o Shekh Rehman and Rafiqul, S/o Sheikh Zakir which was permitted. During examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State this witness has denied that he had come to the court on 30.11.2009 wherein he identified the accused Rafiqul, S/o Sheikh Rahman in room No. 103, Rohini who was being produced in judicial custody as the boy who had put the katta on him and slapped him and thereafter ran away after the snatching incident. He has also denied that he had made his statement to the investigating officer in this regard which is Ex.PW3/PX1. He had denied that he was not identifying the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman deliberately in order to save him. The witness has denied that on 22.11.2009 he had gone to police station Swaroop Nagar and while he was coming back to his house and reached near the Police Station at about 10:30 PM one police official was going with a boy in the police station and he had identified him as the same person who along with his co-accused had committed robbery on the point of katta and took out purse from his pocket. PW3 has also denied that he had given his statement to the police to this effect also and that he had made his statement to the investigating officer in this regard which is Ex.PW3/PX2. He has denied that the St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.7 accused Nasiruddin and accused Sheikh Murshid had disclosed the name of their co-accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Zakhir and that he had given the aforesaid two names also in his statement which is Ex.PW3/A as disclosed by the accused Nasiruddin and accused Sheikh Murshid and on that day he was giving their names also deliberately in order to save them. He has further denied having stated to the investigating officer in his statement Ex.PW3/A that he could identify the remaining two accused persons who ran away from the spot if produced before him. The witness has been confronted with his earlier statements made to the police wherein the aforesaid facts are recorded but he has denied having stated to the police. He had denied that he was not giving this fact also to save the accused persons and that he was not identifying the aforesaid persons namely Rafiqul deliberately as he had been won over by them. The witness has admitted that he went to Tihar Jail to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings but the accused persons had refused to participate and therefore he came back.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the site plan Ex.PW3/DA was prepared in his presence near theka (near the spot). According to him, he had signed the aforesaid documents on the asking/ instructions of the investigating officer but he is not aware of the contents of the aforesaid documents being illiterate. The witness has testified that at the time of incident the said mobile phone St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.8 was in working condition and was having the SIM at the time of incident. He has admitted that the said phone was not having a SIM card when it was produced in the court and states that he does not know as to where the SIM of the phone had gone. He has denied the suggestion that he identified the accused Nasiruddin and Sheikh Murshid wrongly at the instance of investigating officer. He has also denied that the mobile and Rs.1,000/- have been planted upon the accused persons.
Police/ official witnesses:
PW1 HC Rang Bahadur is the Duty Officer who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A. He has not been cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
PW2 HC Manoj has deposed that he was posted as Constable on 17.04.2009 at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day he along with const. Dharmender and ASI Shyam Sunder were on patrolling duty in the area. According to him, at about 4:40 p.m. when they reached near the Liquor Theka, Burari Road, one boy came running towards them from the Swaroop Nagar side and getting suspicious they stopped him and interrogated him. He has deposed that in the meantime another boy came whose name was later on known as Mohd. Furkan along with another boy whom he had apprehended alleging that the said boy alongwith four other boys had committed a snatching incident with him and had taken away his St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.9 purse containing Rs.1000/- and a mobile phone NOKIA. The witness has deposed that on enquiry they came to know the name of the said boy apprehended by Mohd. Furkan as Nasruddin and when they conducted the casual search of Nasruddin they recovered two currency notes of Rs.500/- each (total sum of Rs.1000/-). He has deposed that Furkan also pointed out towards the other boys whom they had stopped and stated that he was one of the other boys who had snatched away his mobile phone on which they conducted the search of the said boy whose name they came to know as Sheikh Murshid and his search revealed a mobile phone make NOKIA which was duly identified by Mohd. Furkan. The witness has also deposed that ASI Shyam Sunder tried to join four to five public witnesses in the investigations but they left without telling their names and identity after which the investigating officer without wasting any time converted the currency notes and the mobile phone into two separate pulandas with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of SSY. He has testified that the investigating officer thereafter prepared the seizure memos of the same which are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B after which ASI Shyam Sunder recorded the statement of complaint Mohd. Furkan on basis of which he prepared rukka which he handed over to him for taking the same to the Police Station for registration of FIR. According to him, he took said tehrir to the Police Station and handed over the same to the Duty Officer and after getting the FIR registered, took the copy of the FIR and original tehrir St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.10 which he handed over to SI Rajender in the police station itself. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he and SI Rajender went to the spot where ASI Shyam Sunder handed over various documents, both the accused and the pulandas to SI Rajender who prepared the site plan at the instance of Mohd. Furkan. According to him, SI Rajender interrogated the accused and arrested both accused Nasruddin and Sheikh Murshid vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D and thereafter conducted the personal search of both the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively. He has further testified that both the accused persons also made their disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer which are Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively. According to him, both the accused disclosed that there were two other boys who had committed the snatching incident but he does not recollect the names of the boys as disclosed by the accused but states that they were both residents of B-7, JJ Colony, Bhalsawa Dairy, Delhi. He has also deposed that thereafter they accompanied these two accused to B-7, JJ Colony, Bhalsawa Dairy, Delhi but could not find anybody and thereafter the investigating officer recorded another statement of Mohd. Furkan and also recorded statement of other police officials including this witness and thereafter they returned to the police station. According to PW2, the pullandas were deposited in the malkhana and the accused were handed over to him and Ct. Dharmender with the directions to take them to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital for getting their St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.11 medical conducted. He has deposed that they took both the accused to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital and after getting their medical examination conducted they took them back to Police Station Jahangir Puri and lodged them in the lock-up. He has correctly identified both the accused persons Nasruddin and Sheikh Murshid and the case property i.e. two currency notes of Rs.500/- each which are Ex.P-1 collectively and one black colour mobile phone of NOKIA 1600 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Sheikh Murshid which is Ex.P-2.
This witness was re-examined on the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State on the aspect of the names of other two accused, during which the witness has admitted that the names of other two accused as disclosed by the accused Nasruddin and Sheikh Murshid was Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rahman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Jakir.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied that no disclosure was made by the accused persons and the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rahman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Jakir have been falsely implicated at the instance of the investigating officer. He has admitted that both the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rahman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Jakir were not arrested in his presence and he was not in a position to identify them. According to him, he did not make any individual entry of departure for patrolling but it was lodged by ASI Shyam Sunder vide DD No. 23A. He has admitted that he did not disclose to the investigating officer St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.12 regarding the DD No.23A but has denied that there was a residential area around the Theka. He has admitted that a large number of public persons were present around the theka and the staff of the liquor shop was also present when the theka was opened. According to him, he met Mohd. Furkan at about 4.45PM and at that time the theka was open. He has admitted that prior to conducting the search of both the accused no public persons were joined by the investigating officer but has denied that the investigating officer did not ask any public persons to join the investigation at any time and states that the investigating officer did not give any notice to any public person for their refusal to join the investigations. The witness has deposed that the investigating officer did not make any request to the staff of the theka to join the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that he was known to Mohd. Furkan prior to the incident or that he was a stock witness of the police. According to him, the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement were all recorded in the handwriting of the investigating officer and he only signed as a witness but he could not tell the contents of all these documents. He has deposed that the documents were prepared by the investigating officer while standing towards one side of the theka along the wall by taking its support. He is not aware which family members of both the accused were informed regarding their arrest and by whom. According to the witness, he along with Ct. Dharmender, SI Rajender and both the accused and the complainant had gone to B-7, JJ St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.13 Colony, Bhalaswa, Delhi and they did not go to any particular house and B-7 JJ Colony and the accused persons had simply taken them around the area and stated that they could identify other accused persons. The witness has also deposed that the investigating officer did not make any enquiry in his presence from the other Jhuggi dwellers regarding both the other absconding accused. PW2 has further deposed that the complainant did not give them the details of the IMEI number of the mobile and he is not aware if the investigating officer had seized any bill regarding the purchase of the said mobile from the complainant. He has admitted that the complainant did not give them any identification mark on the currency notes so as to identify if the currency notes recovered from the accused persons. He is not aware if the mobile which was recovered from the possession of accused contained a SIM card and does not recollect if the complainant had informed about the mobile connection number of the mobile phone. The witness is also not aware if the investigating officer had made any enquiry regarding the SIM card or the call details in order to ascertain the correctness of the allegation of the complainant. According to PW2 HC Manoj, they went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital in a TSR and not in an official vehicle but he had not taken any reimbursement from the department regarding the TSR fare nor he made any ravanagi (departure) while taking the accused to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial hospital. He has denied the suggestion that all the St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.14 documentation was done while sitting in the police station and the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.
PW4 Const. Mehtab Singh has deposed that he was posted as Naib Court in the court of Ms. Vananda Ld. M.M. Room No. 102, Rohini Courts on 16.11.2009 and on that day investigating officer had produced the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Remhan in a kalandra under Section 41.1 Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Ms. Vandana, Ld. M.M. He has testified that after taking permission from the hon'ble court the said accused was arrested by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW4/A. According to him, the accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW4/B. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that a large number of public persons were present outside the court but states that the investigating officer did not ask any public person to join the investigations. He has denied that the arrest of the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman was not made in the court premises and therefore, no public person had been cited as a witness on the arrest memo and the disclosure statement. He has also denied that accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman did not make any disclosure statement in his presence.
PW5 Const. Parveen has deposed that on 22.12.2009 he was posted at Police Station Swaroop Nagar and on that day one secret informer came to the police station and informed the St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.15 investigating officer that the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir had come to his house on which information he along with investigating officer SI Rajender Singh and the secret informer reached at the house of accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir at B-7/343, J.J. Colony, Bhalswa Dairy. He has testified that at the instance of secret informer the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir was apprehended and was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/A and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW5/B. According to him, the accused was interrogated who made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW5/C. The witness has deposed that the accused led the police party near theka sharab in front of gas godown, Swaroop Nagar Road, Burari and pointed out the spot where he along with his associates committed robbery on the point of katta and a pointing out memo to this effect vide Ex.PW5/D was prepared. He has correctly identified the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir in the court.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on 22.12.2009 at about 10:30 p.m. He has admitted that the exact address was not mentioned in the memo Ex.PW5/A in the relevant column of place of arrest and that that there was over writing on the top of the memo Ex.PW5/A at point B and there were no initials of the person who made the overwriting. The witness has further admitted that the name of the person as Rabia was mentioned in the relevant column to whom the information of arrest was given, but her complete address St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.16 and phone number was not mentioned. He has also admitted that there is one signature purporting to be of one Furkan. The witness has also denied that the investigating officer did not give information of arrest of accused to any person and has admitted that the place of arrest of accused was thickly populated area and states that no public person was available there at that time, therefore, the investigating officer could not call any public person. According to him, the investigating officer did not join any public person from the way to the spot after receiving the information and they came back to the police station at about 10:30 p.m. He has further deposed that after the arrest the accused took them to the spot where they remained for about five minutes and they both along with the accused went to the spot on one bike. He does not remember the number of the bike of the investigating officer and being driven by the investigating officer and the accused was sitting between him and the investigating officer. He has denied that entire writing work was done while sitting in the police station or that accused had been lifted from his house.
PW6 ASI Shyam Sunder has deposed that on 17.4.2009 he was posted at Police Station Swaroop Nagar and on that day he along with Const. Dharmender and Const. Manoj Kumar were on patrolling duty at Burari Road. According to him, one boy came running from Swaroop Nagar, towards JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy and on suspicion the said boy was stopped by him with the help of staff and interrogated whose name was known as Sheikh Murshid S/o St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.17 Sehikh Zafar. The witness has further deposed that he was interrogated and disclosed that he along with his co-accused committed robbery with Furkan from whose possession one mobile phone make Nokia was recovered. According to him, at the same time complainant Mohd. Furkan came there and produced Nasruddin @ Baba and Rs.1,000/- stated to be recovered from Nasruddin. He has proved that the complainant Furkan had given his statement to him which is Ex.PW3/A on which he prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW6/A and sealed the aforesaid Rs.1,000/- with the seal of SSY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW2/A. He has also deposed that the aforesaid mobile phone was sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Dharmender. According to the witness, he sent the rukka to the police station through Const. Manoj Kumar who got the case registered and came back to the spot with copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over to SI Rajender Singh who came to the spot along with Const. Manoj Kumar. He has deposed that further investigations of this case were handed over to SI Rajender Singh and he handed over the accused persons, case property and documents to SI Rajender Singh who conducted the further investigation. The witness has correctly identified the accused Shiekh Murshid accused Nassruddin in the court as well as the case property i.e. two currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- recovered from accused St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.18 Nassruddin which are Ex.P-1 and the mobile phone make Nokia which is Ex.P-2 recovered from accused Murshid. He has not been cross-examined by counsel for the accused persons.
PW7 SI Rajender Singh has deposed that on 17.04.2009 he was posted at police station Swaroop Nagar and on that day he was present in the police station when further investigations of this case was handed over to him after which he along with Const. Manoj reached near Liqour theka, Burari Swaroop Nagar Road. According to him, ASI Shaym Sunder, Const. Dharmender, complainant Furkan and two accused persons namely Murshid and Nasruddin @ Bobba met him there and ASI Shyam Sunder handed over the aforesaid accused persons, the seizure memos, case property duly sealed with the seal of SSY. He has deposed that he received the copy of FIR and original rukka from duty officer and recorded the statement of ASI Shyam Sunder. He has proved having prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/DA at the instance of complainant Furkan and having arrested the accused persons namely Nasruddin and accused Sheikh Murshid vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D and personally searched the accused vide memos already Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively. According to him, he made efforts to trace the co- accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and accused Rafiqul S/o Sehikh Rehman but they could not be traced. He has testified that on the next day i.e. on 18.04.2009 both the accused persons were throughly interrogated who made their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW2/G St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.19 and Ex.PW2/H respectively. He has further deposed that both the accused had also disclosed their involvement in another robbery at the shop of goldsmith at Shani Bazar. The witness has testified that he got the call details of the mobile phone which was recovered in this case from accused Nassruddin which call details are Ex.PW7/A running into two pages. He has proved having taken the NBWs against remaining two accused persons and prepared the charge-sheet through SHO and filed the same in the court. He has also deposed that on 16.11.2009 he received an information from Police station Bhalswa dairy that the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman has been arrested by the official of police station Bhalaswa Dairy under Section 41.1 Code of Criminal Procedure and was being produced in the court on which he went to the Court No.103, Rohini Court in the court of Ms. Vandana, Ld. MM where the said accused was produced by the investigating officer of police station Bhalswa Dairy along with the kalandra under Section 41.1 Code of Criminal Procedure in muffled face. The witness has also deposed that after taking permission from the Hon'ble Court he arrested the accused in this case vide memo Ex.PW4/A and was interrogated and made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW4/B in the presence of Const. Mehtab, the Naib Court of that court. He has proved having made an application Ex.PW7/B for fixing the Test Identification Parade of accused. The witness has testified that on 27.11.2009 the Test Identification Parade of accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman was got St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.20 conducted vide Ex.PX1 collectively in which the accused had refused to participate. According to him, he moved an application for supplying the copy of Test Identification Parade proceedings which application is Ex.PW7/C which application was allowed and thereafter he got the copy of the same. The investigating officer has also deposed that on 30.11.2009 while the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman was being produced before the concerned court and the complainant Furkan was already present outside the court room. He has testified that the complainant Furkan had identified the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman as the same person who along with his co-accused persons had committed robbery with him. According to the witness, on 22.12.2009 he along with Const. Parveen were present near the police station when a secret informer met him and informed that another accused namely Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir was present in his house pursuant to which along with Const. Parveen reached at B-7/343, J.J. Colony, Bhalswa Dairy where the said accused met them outside his house. The witness has testified that the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir was identified by the secret informer who was apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/A and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW5/B. The investigating officer has further deposed that the accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW5/C pursuant to which the accused also took them to the spot where he (the witness) prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW5/D. St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.21 According to him, the accused was brought to the police station where complainant was already present who identified the accused as the same person who along with other co-accused committed robbery with him. He has proved having recorded the statements of the witnesses and has correctly identified all the accused persons who were present in the court.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that Ex.PW5/A did not bear his signature at the relevant place but states that his name is mentioned in column No. 8 of the arrest memo. He has further admitted that only the area as the place of arrest had been mentioned in column no. 5 of arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and the complete address. The witness has also admitted that he made efforts to trace the public witnesses but they were not ready and could not join the investigations. According to him, he did not give any notice to the public persons who refused to join nor take any legal notice against them. He has testified that the secret informer was on his own motorcycle accompanied them and he (the witness) was having his own motor cycle on which he and Const. Parveen reached the spot. He has further deposed that at about 9:45 p.m. they reached at J.J. Colony, Bhalswa Dairy where the mother of accused Rafiqul namely Phooljan was present in the house who came outside and he gave her the information of arrest of accused whose name was mentioned by him on the arrest memo and had signed the column no.9 of arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. The witness has admitted that the address of St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.22 Rabia and Phooljan was not mentioned by him in the relevant column but has denied that the accused was not arrested from the place stated above and states that the accused was arrested outside from his house. He has denied the suggestion that the entire writing work was done while sitting in the police station and that no disclosure statement was made by either accused or that he prepared the same of his own and the signature of police official was taken thereon later on. The witness has further denied that the complainant had not identified any of the accused or that the present case is false one and nothing happened with the complainant Furkan.
Statement of the accused/Defence evidence :
After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Shiekh Mursheed has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police to solve the present case. He has further stated that he has been arrested on false allegations and nothing was recovered from or at his instance. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the accused and has stated that the case property has been planted upon him to falsely implicate him.
The accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman has similarly stated that he is innocent and has falsely implicated in this case by the police to solve the present case. According to him, nothing was St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.23 recovered from or at his instance and the case property had been planted upon him to falsely implicate him. He has admitted having refused to participate in judicial Test Identification Parade on the ground that his photographs were taken by the police officials and were shown to the witness prior to the Test Identification Parade. He has denied have made any disclosure statement.
Similarly the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, nothing was recovered from him or at his instance and the case property had been planted upon him.
The accused Nasruddin has also stated that he is innocent and was lifted by the police from his sister's house at Swaroop Nagar. He has stated that he been falsely implicated in this case by the police to solve the present case and nothing was recovered from or at his instance. According to the accused, the case property had been planted upon him to falsely implicate him.
All the accused persons do not wish to examine any witness in their defence.
FINDINGS I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the testimonies of the various witnesses.St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.24
Identity of the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin and allegations against them:
In so far as the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin are concerned, as per the allegations they had been apprehended at the spot itself. The complainant Mohd. Furkan (PW3) has duly identified the accused Nasruddin as the boy who had been apprehended by him at the spot and the accused Sheikh Murshid as the boy who was apprehended by the police while he was attempting to run away. As per the allegations of Mohd. Furkan on 17.4.2009 while he was going on foot from Swaroop Nagar towards Bhalswa at about 4:00 - 4:30 pm and reached near liquor shop, four boys caught hold of him. One boy put a katta on him and also slapped him, the other boy removed his purse containing Rs.8,500/- and some visiting cards; the third boy removed his mobile from the side pocket of his pant and the fourth boy removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt and started running towards Gurdwara side. According to Mohd. Furkan (PW3) he chased the said boys and apprehended one of the boy who had removed Rs.1,000/- from his pocket. The witness Mohd. Furkan has identified the accused Nasruddin as the boy who had removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt and when the said accused was apprehended the said amount was recovered from his possession which currency notes are Ex.P-1 (i.e. two currency notes of Rs.500/-). Further, the complainant Mohd. Furkan has St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.25 identified the accused Sheikh Murshid as the boy who was apprehended by the police while running away from whose possession the mobile phone make NOKIA-1600 was recovered which mobile phone is Ex.P-2. In his cross-examination the witness has stated that at the time of the incident the mobile phone was in working condition and was having a SIM card but now the phone does not have any SIM card. He has denied that the said articles had been planted upon the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin.
The testimony of the complainant Mohd. Furkan (PW3) finds due corroboration from the testimony of HC Manoj (PW2) who has similarly deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 14.7.2009 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Dharmender and ASI Shyam Sunder and at about 4:40 pm when they reached the liquor Theka, Burari Road one boy found running towards them from Swaroop Nagar side. Getting suspicion they stopped the said boy and interrogated him and in the meanwhile another boy came whose name was revealed as Mohd. Furkan (complainant) alongwith another boy whom he had apprehended alleging that the said boy along with four other boys had committing snatching with him and had taken away his purse containing Rs.1,000/- and a mobile phone make NOKIA. On inquiry the name of the boy who was apprehended by Mohd. Furkan was revealed as Nasruddin. PW2 HC Manoj has further proved that on conducting the casual search of Nasruddin two currency notes of Rs.500/- each were recovered and the complainant St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.26 pointed out towards the other boy whom they had stopped alleging that he was the boy who had snatched away his mobile phone. On inquiry name of the said boy was revealed as Sheikh Murshid and on conducting the personal search of the accused, one mobile phone make NOKIA was recovered which was duly identified by Mohd. Furkan. According to HC Manoj, ASI Shyam Sunder who was also present there tried to join four to five public person to join investigations but they left without telling their names and address. The said witness has duly proved the arrest and personal search memos and the seizure memos prepared at the spot. His testimony finds due corroboration from the testimony of ASI Shyam Sunder. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons have submitted that the entire case has been concocted and the mobile phone and Rs.1,000/- have been planted upon the accused person. They have pointed out that the place where the incident occurred, was a liquor Theka where a large number of public persons were present and there was sufficient opportunity for the investigating officer to have joined public persons at the time they conducted the search of the accused which they did not do for which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them.
I have considered the submissions made before me and also perused the testimonies of the members of the police party i.e. Ct. Manoj (now HC) and ASI Shyam Sunder (PW6) both of whom have specifically deposed that they had made attempts to join public St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.27 persons but they refused to join investigations. Even otherwise, the incident having occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no prior information, hence non joining of public persons is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin of snatching the mobile phone and Rs.1,000/- stand established.
Allegations against the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman:
The case of the prosecution is that there were four boys involved in the incident and It is wrong to suggest that as the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman who while committing the robbery upon the complainant Mohd. Furkan had used a desi katta and slapped him while his co-accused snatched Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of complainant Mohd. Furkan. The accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman has been charged of the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir are of removing the purse of the complainant containing Rs.8,500/- and committing robbery in furtherance of common intention along with Sheikh Murshid, Nasruddin and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman. In this regard, I may mention that both the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir were not apprehended at the spot. The only incriminating material against both the accused is their own disclosure statement after they were arrested by the police officers. No recovery has been effected from St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.28 them. The complainant Mohd. Furkan (PW3) has turned totally hostile on the identity of the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir. A specific suggestion has been made by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to him that he has been won over by the accused and hence, he was deliberately not identifying the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir in order to save them which he has denied. He has denied having told the name of the accused to the investigating officer. He has also denied that on 22.11.2009 he had gone to Police Station Swaroop Nagar and while he was coming back to his house and reached near the police station at about 10:30 pm one police official was going with a boy in the police station whom he identified as the co-accused in the robbery which boy was accused Rafiqul S/o Mohd. Zakir. He has further denied that on 30.11.2009 he had identified the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman in Room No.103, Rohini when he was being produced in judicial custody as the boy who had put the katta on him and slapped him and thereafter run away after the snatching incident. None of the members of the police party who was present at the spot have been able to identify the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir as they had not seen the incident and it was only disclosed to them that two other boys were also involved in the incident. In fact HC Manoj (PW2) in his examination-in-chief has not named the other accused and it was later on when the Addl. PP for the State put him a leading question that St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.29 after refreshing his memory he could disclose the names of other two boys as disclosed to him by the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin were Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman. Hence, the only material against the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman are the disclosure statement of the co-accused and their own disclosures. They have not been identified by the complainant Mohd. Furkan and I hold that he prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman.
FINAL FINDINGS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.303. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the identity of the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin. It stands established that on 17.4.2009 the complainant Mohd. Furkan (PW3) was going on foot from Swaroop Nagar towards Bhalswa Dairy and at about 4:00 - 4:30 pm when he reached near the liquor shop/ theka four boys caught hold of him. One boy put a katta on him and slapped him while one of the boy removed his purse containing Rs.8,500/- and some visiting cards; the third boy removed his mobile phone from the side pocket of his pant and the fourth boy removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt and thereafter all the found boys ran away. It stands established that the complainant Mohd. Furkan chased the said boys and succeed in apprehending the St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.31 accused Nasruddin who had removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt. It is also stands established that the accused Sheikh Murshid was apprehended by the patrolling party near the spot who was identified by the complainant as the boy who had removed his mobile phone make NOKIA 1600. The complainant Mohd. Furkan (PW3) has duly identified both the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin in the court and has also attributed the specific roles to them, an aspect which stands established.
The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
The complainant Mohd. Furkan has, however, not been able to identify the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman nor the allegations against them stand established and proved and the only evidence on record being their own disclosure statement nor followed by any recovery.
St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.32This being the background, I hereby hold the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin guilty of the offence under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code and convict them accordingly. The accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Zakir is acquitted of the charges under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. He is directed to be released if not wanted in any other case. Further, the accused Rafiqul S/o Sheikh Rehman is acquitted of the charges under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. He is also directed to be released if not wanted in any other case.
Case be listed for arguments on the point of sentence at 2:00 pm. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 26.4.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.33 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II(NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1190/10 Unique Case ID No.:02404R0177302009 State Vs. (1) Sheikh Murshid S/o sheikh Jaffar R/o C Block, CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Nasruddin @ Baba S/o Salimuddin R/o NI 38/161, CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Rafikul S/o Sheikh Zakir R/o B-7/343, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi (Acquitted) (4) Rafikul S/o Sheikh Rehman R/o B-7/257, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi (Acquitted) FIR No.: 98/2009 Police Station: Swaroop Nagar Under Section: 392/394/397/411 IPC St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.34 Date of Conviction: 26.4.2011 Arguments heard on: 26.4.2011 Date of Judgment: 26.4.2011 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Sh. Kailash Madhukar Advocate for the convict Sheikh Murshid and Amicus Curiae for the convict Nasruddin. Both the convicts Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin are in judicial custody.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment 26.4.2011 the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin have been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, the accused Rafikul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafikul S/o Sheikh Rehman have been acquitted of the charges under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused Rafikul S/o Sheikh Rehman has also been acquitted of the charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.2009 the complainant Mohd. Furkan was going on foot from Swaroop Nagar towards Bhalswa Dairy and at about 4:00/ 4:30 pm when he reached St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.35 near Swaroop Nagar Theka four boys caught hold of him. One boy put a katta on him and slapped him while the other boy removed his purse from the backside pocket of his pant which purse was containing Rs.8,500/- and some visiting cards; the third boy removed his mobile phone from the side pocket of his pant and the fourth boy removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt. After committing robbery all the said four boys started running towards Gurdwara side on which the complainant Mohd. Furkan chased them and apprehended one boy who had removed his mobile phone whose name was later on revealed as Sheikh Murshid and another boy was apprehended by three policemen who had removed Rs.1,000/- from his pocket and his name was later on revealed as Nasruddin. Both the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin disclosed the names of their other two accomplices as Rafikul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Sheikh Rehman. The complainant Mohd. Furkan has duly appeared in the court and has correctly identified both the accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin as the boys who were apprehended at the spot. He has identified the accused Sheikh Murshid as the boy who had removed his mobile phone and the accused Nasruddin as the boy who had removed Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his shirt. He was, however, not been able to identify the accused Rafikul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafikul s/o Sheikh Rehman. On the basis of the testimony of the complainant Mohd. Furkan and also on the basis of the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, this court has held the St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.36 accused Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin have been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian penal Code and accordingly convicted. Further, the accused Rafikul S/o Sheikh Zakir and Rafikul S/o Sheikh Rehman have been acquitted of the charges under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused Rafikul S/o Sheikh Rehman has also been acquitted of the charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the convicts Sheikh Murshid and Nasruddin have vehemently argued that both the convicts are young boys and belong to very poor families. It is submitted that they have not been convicted in any other case so far. It is also submitted that both the convicts are in judicial custody for more than two years. It is requested that a lenient view be taken against both the convicts. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment to the convicts.
I have considered the submissions made before me. The convict Sheikh Murshid is a young boy of 25 years having a family comprising of parents, wife and one son. He is second class pass and is a Kabari by profession. He is involved in another case bearing FIR No. 69/09, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, under Section 394/397 IPC. The convict Nasruddin is also a young boy of 21 years having a family comprising of widow mother, wife and two daughters. He is fifth class pass and was doing work in a Kabari shop. He is involved St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.37 in four other cases i.e. FIR No. 153/10, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 392 IPC; FIR No.601/05, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 452/323/324 IPC; FIR No.69/09, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, under Section 392/394 IPC and FIR No.542/07, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.
Keeping in view the above background of the convicts, their young age and the fact that they have not been convicted in any other case; a lenient view is taken against them. I award the following sentence to the convicts:
The convict Sheikh Murshid is sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year (already undergone) and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two days.
The convict Nasruddin is sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year (already undergone) and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two days.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to both the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.38
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to both the convict free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 26.4.2011 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini
St. Vs. Shiekh Murshid Etc., FIR No.98/09, PS Swaroop Nagar Page No.39