Delhi District Court
State vs . Imran Ahmed on 12 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT :
ROHINI : DELHI
STATE Vs. IMRAN AHMED
FIR No. 515 /2016
PS Maurya Enclave
State
Vs.
Imran Ahmed & Anr.
(a) Session Case SC 57/2017
No.
(b) Date of offence 13.10.2016
(c) Accused 1. Imran Ahmed S/o Sh. Md. Israr R/o
C-115, JJ Colony, Bindapur, Delhi
2. Mohit Garg S/o Sh. Ramesh Garg
R/o E-71, JJ Colony, Bindapur, Delhi
(d) Offence u/s 365/394/482/397/34 IPC & 25/27
Arms Act.
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final Order Accused is acquitted for the offence
u/s 365/394/482/397/34 IPC & 25/27
Arms Act.
(g) Date of 28.01.2017
institution
(h) Date when 12.05.2023
judgment was
reserved
(i) Date of 12.05.2023
judgment
Digitally signed
JUDGMENT' BABRU by BABRU
BHAN
BHAN Date:
2023.05.19
10:30:01 +0530
State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 1 of 14
BRIEF FACTS
1. On 13.10.2016, Nitin Chopra, PW6 was going from Gurgaon to Murthal. At About 12.00 midnight, when he reached near Power House Red Light, Outer Ring Road, he saw that five / seven boys on motorcycle were giving beatings to a boy and were trying to drag him in a Santro car. After a brief struggle, they put the boy in the car and sped away towards Madhuban Chowk. Nitin Chopra made a PCR call and informed the incident to the police.
2. The aforesaid PCR call was transmitted to PS Maurya Enclave, where it was recorded in form DD No.2B Ex. PW1/1 by W/Ct. Sheela Devi PW1.
3. The call was assigned to SI Amit Rana PW17, who alongwith Ct. Yadvender PW14 reached the spot, where he found that a motorcycle was lying on the road. He enquired about the incident and learnt that a silver colour Santro car bearing no.2179 had hit the motorcycle. Thereafter, the assailants took two motorcycles riders towards Lancers Convent School. In the meanwhile, Ct. Mann Singh PW7 deployed on ERV reached alongwith SI Vishram, Ct. Rajender PW11 and Ct. Praveen PW15, who were on patrolling duty also reached at the spot. On receipt of information regarding the direction in which the assailants had fled, SI Amit Rana left towards Lancers Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.05.19 Date:
10:30:14 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 2 of 14 Convent School, leaving Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Praveen on the spot.
4. When the police party reached near Neelkanth Apartment, they noticed a car of the specified description parked in the service road. On seeing the police party, two of the occupants of the car attempted to abscond. However, they were overpowered with the help of Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Yadvender PW14. The two boys who were sitting on driver's seat and the other front seat revealed their names as Imran Ahmed and Mohit. Their search was conducted and one pistol made in England was recovered from their possession. SI Amit Rana prepared the sketch of the pistol Exs. PW7/2 and PW7/3. Both these documents have been signed by Ct. Mann Singh PW7. The pistol was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. IO noticed that registration number of the car on the front and rear number plate were different. The number on the front number plate was 6006 whereas the number on the rear number plate was 2179. The photographs of the number plates were clicked by Crime Team and same have been filed before the court as Exs. PW14/1A to PW14/16A. Two more persons were found sitting on the rear seat, who revealed their names as Moharram and Ahmed Ali. Subsequently it was revealed that they had been kidnapped by the assailants.
5. SI Amit Rana recorded the statement Ex. PW2/A of Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN 2023.05.19 Date:
State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. 10:30:21 +0530 Page No. 3 of 14 Moharram. He prepared rukka on the said statement and handed over the same to Ct. Mann Singh PW7. ASI Ram Samujh PW13 was discharging duties of Duty Officer at PS Maurya Enclave that day. On the basis of rukka, he registered the FIR Ex. PW13/A and made a corresponding endorsement Ex. PW13/B beneath the rukka. PW13 has also issued certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW13/C in support of the FIR.
6. During further course of investigation, SI Amit Rana prepared the site plan of both the spots, which are Exs. PW17/B and PW17/C. Both the accused persons were arrested vide memo Exs. PW14/B and PW7/5. They were personally searched vide memo Ex. PW7/6. SI Amit Rana also recorded the disclosure statement Exs. PW7/7 and PW14/A of both the accused persons.
7. Both the injured were taken to BSA Hospital for medical examination. Dr. Mukta Mala PW12 has deposed that Dr. Rahul Gaba examined them. In MLC of victim Moharram, the attending doctor has recorded following injuries :
1. Nose bleeding present, blood clot but no active bleeding at the time of examination ;
2. Abrasion over right cheek measuring 2 cm X 1 cm ;
3. Abrasion over left hand 1 cm X 0.5 cm.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.05.19 10:30:28 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 4 of 14 Doctor has stated in his Court statement that patient Moharram was conscious and oriented and there was no history of loss of consciousness.
During medical examination, one abrasion measuring 1 cm X 1 cm was found on right forearm of patient Ahmed Ali. PW12 identified signatures of Dr. Rahul Gaba on MLCs of both the witnesses which are Exs. PW12/A and PW12/B.
8. Motorcycle, which was lying near elevated flyover in front of RU Block was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/1. Santro car used by the accused persons in commission of crime was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/4. The Santro car was sent for mechanical inspection and it was mechanically inspected vide memo Ex. PW17/D. The bike of the victims was mechanically inspected vide inspection memo Ex. PW17/E.
9. Both the accused persons were taken to the spots and the pointing out memo Ex. PW7/8 and Ex. PW7/9 were prepared at their instance.
10. The seized pistol was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Dr. Avinash Srivastava, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) FSL Rohini examined the pistol and opined via report Ex. PW10/1 that same was a firearm which fired successfully. After examination, remnants and exhibits were sealed with the seal of AS FSL BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2023.05.19 BHAN 10:30:35 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 5 of 14 and sent to the PS. Subsequently, Ms. Vijayanta Arya, DCP North-West accorded sanction u/s.39 Arms Act Ex. PW8/1 for prosecution of the accused for the offence under Arms Act.
11. On completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet accusing both the accused persons for offences u/s.365/394/397/482/34 IPC and u/s.25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
12. On 27.01.2018, both the accused were charged for offences u/s.365/394/482 r/w. Section 34 IPC. Accused Imran Ahmed was additionally charged for offence u/s.397 IPC and u/s.25/27 Arms Act. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
13. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Besides two victims i.e. PW2 Moharram and PW4 Ahmed Ali, remaining witnesses are formal witnesses who merely participated in formal process of investigation. Their respective brief roles have already been narrated in the forgoing discussion. Thus, reproduction of their testimony in detail can be avoided for brevity.
14. PW2 - Moharram has deposed that on 13.10.2016, at about 11.30 - 12.00 midnight, he was going on motorcycle alongwith his friend namely Ahmed Ali. He Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.05.19 10:30:42 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. +0530 Page No. 6 of 14 was carrying a cash amount of Rs.1 lac. A short after they left Sector-26, Rohini and proceeded towards Ring Road, some persons signaled them to stop. They did not stop the motorcycle and took U-Turn towards Sector-26, Rohini. When they were driving their motorcycle down the bypass flyover, the car following them hit them from rear side. As a result of collision, the witness fell down and suffered head injury. Thereafter, he fell unconscious. He has further deposed that when he regained his senses, he was present in a car alongwith Ahmed Ali and culprits. The culprits had muffled their faces with towels. This witness failed to recall the exact place where the car was stationed by the assailants. He has further deposed that police reached the spot and removed them to hospital. They went to PS from hospital. In PS, police obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Police did not reveal the contents of the said papers. This witness has failed to identify the culprits in the Court.
15. On being cross-examined by Ld. PP, attention of this witness was specifically drawn towards the accused persons, but he failed to identify them. He has also put- forth an explanation that he did not see their faces as it was dark at the time of incident. However, he admitted that culprits had robbed Rs.1 lac, SBI card, RC of motorcycle, cash of Rs.25,000/- and also looted Rs.10,000/- from Ahmed Ali. This witness also denied alleged recovery of pistol and four live cartridges from the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN Date:
State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. BHAN 2023.05.19 10:30:53 Page No. 7 of 14 +0530 possession of accused Imran.
16. PW3 Ct. Mukesh is attesting witness to the supplementary disclosure statements Exs. PW3/1 and PW3/2 of both the accused persons. Ct. Tulsi Ram PW16 has deposed in sync with Ct. Mukesh.
17. PW4 Ahmed Ali has deposed that in year 2016, he alongwith his friend Moharram were going from Bawana to Mall Road on a bullet motorcycle. At about 11.00 - 11.30 p.m., when they reached near Byepass, some persons signaled them to stop. Moharram turned back the motorcycle and proceeded on the wrong side. Soon thereafter, the car of the assailants chased and hit them from back side. They fell down and this witness also went unconscious. During cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion that culprits had forced them to stop the motorcycle on gunpoint. He also failed to recall that culprits had forcibly put them in the car. It is admitted that the assailants had robbed Rs.10,000/- from them. Further, he denied that police had apprehended the assailants. This witness also failed to identify the accused persons.
18. PW5 Ajit Kumar has deposed that he had purchased a Santro car bearing no. DL2C-W-6006 for Rs.80,000/-. He used this car for about 1-1.5 years. Since the car remained out of use for a long period, it developed some irreparable technical issues. Since accused Mohit was Digitally signed BABRU by BABRU BHAN State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr.
BHAN Date:
2023.05.19 Page No. 8 of 14 10:31:41 +0530 known to him, he sold the car to one Munna in Maya Puri for Rs.18,500/-. This witness denied having handed over the car to accused Mohit.
19. PW9 HC Virender had reached the spot and he is witness to the arrest, personal search and other recovery memos prepared by the IO at the spot.
20. The prosecution evidence was followed by statements of accused persons in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein both the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They were given opportunity to lead defence evidence, but they opted not to lead any defence evidence.
21. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that although both the eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution but the accused persons were apprehended at the spot. The arrest memo as well as all the recovery memos have been signed by the eye witnesses. The memos are sufficient to prove that accused persons had committed the offence. It is apparent on the record that the victims were subsequently won over by the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP has strongly argued that there is sufficient material on record to prove guilt of the accused persons even if the testimony of the eye witnesses is ignored.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU Date:
BHAN BHAN 2023.05.19 10:31:48 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 9 of 14
22. Per-contra, Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that the prosecution has projected a case that accused persons abducted the victims and committed robbery from them on gunpoint. Both the victims appeared as prosecution witnesses as PW2 and PW4, but they failed to identify the accused persons in the Court. They have also denied the recovery of the firearm from the accused Imran Ahmed. The contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsels is that in absence of the identification by the victims, the case of the prosecution shall always remain doubtful and no amount of corroborative evidence can be given preference over the testimony of the victims.
23. Arguments have been heard and record has been carefully perused. Now this Court proceeds with the final judgment.
24. As per the case of prosecution, Mahrum PW2 and Ahmed Ali PW4 were the two persons who were robbed and thereafter, abducted by the accused persons. So the testimony of Mahrum PW2 and Ahmed Ali PW4 can prove or disprove as to whether accused Imran and Mohit Garg were among the assailants and abductors or not. Mahrum PW2 has deposed in his court statement that it was night time and the assailants had covered their faces and therefore, he could not see the faces. He has failed to identify the accused persons in the court.
Digitally signed by BABRUBABRU BHAN Date:
BHAN 2023.05.19 10:31:56 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 10 of 14
25. This witness PW2 was subject to cross examination by ld. Addl PP for state. During his cross-examination, he was again asked about the identity of the assailants by ld. Addl. PP. The witness again repeated that none of the culprit was present in the court. He again went to explain that since it was dark, he could not see their faces.
26. Making his statement on the same line, Ahmed Ali PW4 has also refused to identify the accused persons in the court. On being subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, the witness denied that two of the accused persons had been arrested by the police on the spot.
So both the eye witnesses have not identified the accused persons in the court.
27. While taking reference of arrest memo Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW7/5, Ld. Addl. PP for state has argued that both the accused persons were arrested in presence of PW2 and PW4 and this fact is evidenced by their signatures on both the aforesaid arrest memos. In light of the aforesaid attestation of PW2 and PW4 on the arrest memo of the accused persons, Ld. Addl. PP for state has raised the contention that both these witnesses were present on the spot and they have wrongly refused to identify the accused persons in the court as they have been won over.
BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2023.05.19 10:32:05 +0530 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 11 of 14
28. The arrest memo can only show that someone was arrested by the police. The identity of the person arrested has to be established through the testimony of the witnesses. Since both the attesting witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW4 have denied having witnessed the arrest of the accused persons and has also refused to identify them, the arrest memo shall not extend much benefit to the case of the prosecution.
29. Further, case of the prosecution is that accused Imran Ahmed was found in possession of a pistol which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. This recovery has also been denied by PW2 Moharram and PW4 Ahmed Ali. Ld. Addl. PP for State gave specific suggestions to both the witnesses regarding recovery of pistol and live cartridges. However, both the witnesses denied any such recovery in their presence.
30. Further, the factual story projected by the prosecution, prima facie appears to be unreliable and unnatural. The case is that the accused persons had robbed the victims as they were carrying Rs. 1 Lac with them. As per the version given, the assailants had robbed the said amount from the victims at the first spot only. Thereafter, they took the victims in their car and were subsequently apprehended from a place near NeelKant Apartment, Rohini. This court has failed to understand that when the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Date:
BHAN 2023.05.19 Page No. 12 of 1410:32:11 +0530 assailants had already robbed the victims, why they took them away with themselves. They could have left them then and there. Even further, if there was some reason to take the victims along, the assailants could have fled away to some lonely place. What was the purpose of parking the car near Neelkant Apartment which was not far away from the spot. So, the subsequent conduct of the accused persons is too unusual and unnatural to be relied upon.
31. To conclude, both the eye witnesses who are also the victims have denied the identity of the accused persons. They have also denied having witnessed any recovery from the accused persons. Further, the story of the prosecution that after looting the victims, the accused persons took them away to Neelkant Apartment from where they were apprehended does not appear to be reliable and convincing. It may be argued on behalf of the prosecution that police witnesses had arrested the accused persons on the spot and their testimony cannot be discarded merely because they belong to police force. This court is aware of the legal preposition that a witness cannot be discredited merely because he belongs to police force as there is no presumption in law that police witnesses are unworthy of credit. However, since the victims themselves have refused to identify the accused persons in the court and the story that the accused persons abducted the victims after looting them also remained unexplained, it would not be safe to convict the accused BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN 10:32:18 +0530 Date: 2023.05.19 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 13 of 14 persons merely on basis of the testimony of police witnesses. Reason being, since the case has not been supported by the victims, some element of reasonable doubt shall always remain there.
32. In view of the above, the accused persons namely Imran Ahmed and Mohit Garg are hereby acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
Accused persons directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount each in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court on BABRU by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2023.05.19 10:32:29 +0530 12.05.2023 ( BABRU BHAN) ASJ-03, N/W, ROHINI COURTS DELHI/12.05.2023 State Vs. Imran Ahmed & Anr. Page No. 14 of 14