Delhi District Court
Wildlife vs Tausif Ahmad on 30 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK MITTAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (SPECIAL ACTS) CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI WILD LIFE VS. TAUSIF AHMED CC No. : 514842/2016 CNR No. : DLCT02-002005-2015 Date of Institution : 16.09.2015 Name of the complainant : SI Rajender Kumar Name of accused : (i) Tausif Ahmed, S/o Mohd. Ashraf R/o Village Dugga, District Doda (J&K)
(ii) Dawood Ameen S/o Mohd.
Ameen R/o Village Dugga, District Doda J & K. Offence complained of : U/s 39/49/49 (B)/(i)/51 The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of judgment : 30.11.2024 Final Judgment : Acquittal Brief facts and reasons for decision of the case:-
1 That the complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 39/49/49 (B)/(i)/51 The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the accused persons . Present complaint was filed through SI Rajinder Kumar. 2 That on 21.07.2015 a raid was conducted by AATS, District East, Delhi, Delhi Police and two leopard skins contained in a green coloured bag were seized vide seizure memo dated 21.07.2015 upon search of car No.JK06-7182 while passing by DDA Office, CC No.514842/2016 Page no.1 to 34 Surajmal Vihar and on failure to produce any legal source of procurement and a license or an authority to deal in those skins.
That a case was registered vide FIR No.508/2015 dated 21.07.2015 at PS Anand Vihar on the basis of tehrir drawn after those skins were identified as leopard skins vide identification memo dated 21.07.2015 by Paramvir Singh, Wildlife Inspector who was telephonically called at the spot on recovery of the skins. That the car used by accused persons was also seized vide memo dated 21.07.2015 and accused persons were arrested vide memo dated 21.07.2015 in connection with offence arising out of seizure of those skins and site plan of the spot was also prepared. That accused persons were produced before the court on 21.07.2015 and they were remanded to judicial custody and seized skins were allowed to be sent to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun vide order dated 21.07.2015. In police custody accused Tausif Ahmed was taken to Jammu but no recovery of any animal article or arrest of any person was affected. The scientific analysis report from Wildlife Institute of India has been received. The leopard is specified in Schedule-1 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 at Serial Number 16b and thus accused have contravened the provision of Section 9/49 and 48B(1) read with Section 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 punishable under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
3 After filing of the complaint, accused no.1 & 2 were summoned and thereafter, in pre charge evidence was led. The charge was framed against both the accused under Section 49/51 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The complainant has examined six witnesses who have deposed as:-
CC No.514842/2016 Page no.2 to 33
3.1 CW1 HC Dharmender deposed that on 21.07.2015 he was
posted at AATS, East and at around 8.00 AM one secret information was received by SI Rajender in office. The information was regarding two persons, native of J & K would come in a white Alto card having registration number of J & K at Suraj Mal Vihar Authority around 9.00 -915 AM for selling skin of leopard. Raiding party including SI Rajender, SI Rahul, ASI Rajveer, HC Banveer, Ct. Mahak Singh, Ct. Devender, Ct. Ramgopal, Ct. Rajeev, secret informer and me was constituted and after departure entry we reached at the spot and took the position and started waiting for the arrival of accused persons. SI Rajender asked the passerby to join the investigation but not had agreed. At 9.30 AM a car came from the director of Karkardooma court and stopped at front of DDA office. One person came out of the car and started waiting for. SI Rajender gave signal to us on this I and Ct. Rajeev rushed towards the accused and apprehended him. SI Rajender alongwith other staff apprehended the other persons who was sitting inside the car. On search of the car a green colour bag was recovered. On checking, it was found containing two leopard skin. Information was given to Wild Life Officials. From Wild Life Department Inspector Parmveer Singh came at the spot, he prepared the indentification memo and told us that skin is original. The skin was also measured. The skin was taken into police possession after sealing the same with the seal of RBS and seal was handed over to him. Further, IO prepared a tehreer and handed over the same to Ct. Rajeev for registration of FIR, who got the FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. The name of the accused after investigation disclosed CC No.514842/2016 Page no.3 to 33 as Dawood Amin and Taushif Ahmed, witness correctly identified the accused persons. Leopard skin was seized vide seizure memo Ex. CW1/A, Alto car was seized vide seizure memo Ex. CW1/B, accused persons were arrested vide arrest Memos Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/E, their personal search was conducted vide Memos Ex. CW1/D and Ex. CW1/F respectively. IO also prepared site plan. Disclosure statement of accused Taushif Ahmed recorded Ex. CW1/G and accused Dawood Amit Ex. CW1/H. Case property was shown to the witness and after correctly identify the same got exhibited as Ex. P1 and P2 respectively.
3.1.1 During cross-examination witness stated that secret information was not passed in his presence. On 21.07.2015 I had reached AATS East office at 7.30 in the morning. I had seen the secret informer coming to the AATS East office at 8.00 am. The secret informer did not pass on the secret information in front of me. He passed on the information to SI Rajender in private. After receiving the secret information SI Rajender first informed all staff members including Banveer, Rajeev, Devender, SI Rahul, ASI Rajbir and other staff present in the office. SI Rajender then informed the inspector about the information from the secret informer at around 8.15 am. As per instructions of the inspector, SI Rajender constituted a raiding party and the raiding party left for Surajmal Vihar at around 8.30 am. I was part of the raiding party. We reached Surajmal Vihar from AATS East Office in 15 minutes at around 8.45 am. I was there when SI Rajender called Wildlife Inspector Paramveer Singh from his mobile after seizing the case property from the accused CC No.514842/2016 Page no.4 to 33 person. I do not remember whether SI Rajender already had the mobile number of Wildlife Inspector Paramveer Singh feeded in his phone or he took the number from someone else. Wildlife inspector Paramveer Singh had reached the place of seizure at 10.40 am. I do not know the place from where he had come. Thereafter, wildlife inspector Paramveer Singh checked the case property and prepared an inspection memo. Thereafter, SI Rajender prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Rajeev who went to PS Anand Vihar for registering an FIR. After Ct. Rajeev left for PS Anand Vihar, SI Rajender prepared a site plan. After Ct. Rajeev returned from PS Anand Vihar, SI Rajender arrested the accused persons. Ct. Rajeev had returned to the place of raid from PS Anand Vihar at around 12.30 pm on the same day i.e. 21.07.15. He has left for PS Anand Vihar for registering the FIR at 11.30 am. In the period between 10.40 am when Wildlife Inspector Pramveer Singh had come to the place of raid till 11.30 pm, SI Rajender had prepared the tehrir. After Ct. Rajeev returned from PS Anand Vihar, statement of WLI Paramveer Singh was recorded by SI Rajender after which WLI Paramveer Singh was relieved. I had put my signatures on seizure memo, arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure memo. SI Rajender had put the seal of RBS on the case property and handed over the seal to me. The person to whom the accused persons wanted to sell the case property was not found at the place of raid. IO searched about the prospective purchaser of the wildlife article, but none was found. I do not recall the name of the purchaser. The accused persons had informed CC No.514842/2016 Page no.5 to 33 the IO SI Rajender, in my presence, that the prospective purchaser was scheduled to meet him at the place of raid itself. I do not know whether IO SI Rajender had taken the phone number of the purchaser from the accused person and tried to locate the said person. I cannot differentiate a skin of a leopard with a cheetah or any other big cat, I can only presume. I did not directly received any information from secret information. One mobile phone was recovered from accused Tausif. No purchaser was found at the site. He deposed that he was not aware if any efforts were made to contact the prospective purchaser.
3.2 CW-2 SI Rajender Kumar deposed that on 21.07.2015, he was posted as SI at AATS, East District. One secret informer came and informed that two persons from J & K would come at Surajmal Vihar to sell leopard skins in a white coloured car. Further, he intimated Inspector K.G Tyagi about the same and immediately one raiding party was formed including him alongwith SI Rahul, ASI Rajvir, HC Dharmender, HC Banvir, CI Mahak Singh, Ct. Devender and Ct. Ramgopal. The said information was reduced in writing in daily dairy register at S.No. 4 as DD No. 4 Ex. CW2/A. He deposed that he alongwith secret informer and members of the raidign team reached at the spot in two private vehicles. We took our positions at the place situated behind Suramal Authority and in front of DDA office. He asked some passers by to join investigation but non agreed. After some time ar around 9.30 Am a white colour alto car car bearing No. J & K 67182 came from the direction of KKD courts and stopped opposite to DDO Office. One person came and started waiting for someone. Other person kept sitting CC No.514842/2016 Page no.6 to 33 inside the car. Secret informer pointed out towards them and told that these were persons for whom were waiting. The secret informer was relieved. Thereafter, after giving signal to the members of the raiding party, accused person standing in front of car was apprehended by HC Dharmender and Ct. Rajeev. Other members apprehended the persons sitting inside the car. After interrogation, name of accused standing in front of car was revealed as as Dawood and person sitting in the car was disclosed as Tausif Ahmed. After search of the car, one green bag was found lying containing leopard like skin. There WLI Paramvir was called, his number was obtained from the office of DO. The recovered skin was shown to the WLI Paramvir Singh, who prepared an identification memo and handed over the same to me. Both the skin were measured and put in the same bag and sealed with the seal of RBS. Seal after use was handed over to HC Dharmender. The skin and alto car were seized vide memo Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B respectively. Tahreer was prepared and handed over to Ct. Rajeev for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got FIR registered. Inspector Paramvir Singh was relieved after recorded his statement. Site plan Ex. CW2/B was prepared, original tehreer Ex. CW2/X, arrest memo and personal search of accused Dawood Amin Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D, arrest memo and personal search of accused Taushif Ahmed Ex. CW1/E and Ex. CW1/F. Disclosure statement of accused Taushif Ahmed Ex. CW1/G and Dawood Amit Ex. CW1/H. The seized car and articles were deposited in Malkhana. Medical examination of accused were got conducted. After taking remand case file of the present case was handed over to the official of Wild Life CC No.514842/2016 Page no.7 to 33 Department. Case property sent to the wild Life Institute Dehradun for expert opinion.
3.2.1 During his cross examination witness stated that it took them 8-10 minutes to reach Surajmal Vihar from AATS, East office. He stated that he could not tell the name of informer who have them the secret information. That Inspector K.G. Tyagi himself did not prepare the raiding party nor did he himself came for the raid. That it took them half an hour to leave from AATS East offie after receiving the information from the secret informer. That half an hour time was spent in official formalities. That after all this they left from AATS office for Surajmal Vihar at 8:30 AM. That witness had called Wild Life Inspector Paramvir Singh whose mobile number he had taken from wildlife office. That he had taken the number of wildlife office by dialing 100 number. That at 9:30 AM on 21.07.2015, after detaining the accused person he had dialed the 100 number and had not informed the Anand Vihar police station before conducting the raid. Witness denied the suggestion that he had detained the accused No.2 on 20.07.2015 from a hotel in Nizamuddin or that on 20.07.2015 he had taken the accused to an ATM from where money was withdrawn or that on 21.07.2015 he had taken the accused to Surajmal Vihar from were accused was detained or that witness had detained accused No.1 and two other persons on 20.07.2015 itself. Witness further stated that his role in the entire raid was receiving information from the secret informer, informing his superior, preparing the raiding party, detaining the accused persons, seizing the leopard skin from the accused CC No.514842/2016 Page no.8 to 33 persons, preparing seizure memo and filing and registering the FIR and conducting the investigation as IO of the case. Witness denied the suggestion that false case has been prepared by him.
3.3 CW-3 SI Rahul deposed that on 30.07.2015 he was posted as SI at AATs, East District. The case file was handed over to him for further investigation. He alongwith Ct.Mehak Singh reached at Tis Hazari Courts and moved an application Ex. CW3/A for production warrant of accused Taushif Ahmed on 29.07.2015 and 05 days PC remand Ex. CW3/B. Disclosure statement of the accuse Taushif recorded Ex. CW3/C. Further, witness stated that he took permission from Sr. officers to take accused to Jammu and Dehradhun as he has disclosed about the involvement of one person namely, Ashiq to search this person. He further deposed that he alongwith sealed case property and Ct. Mehak Singh, Ct. Rajiv and accused departed for Dehradun. Ct. Mehak Singh deposited the case proeprty at Wildlife Institute, Dehradun on 31.07.2015 and handed over acknowlement receipt. His statement was recorded. Further he deposed that he alongwith Ct. Mehak went to Jammu Bus Adda, PS Badi Brahmni and village Ismailpura but he could not be bound. Further, on 04.08.2015, accused Taushif Ahmed was produced before the court and was sent to JC. He further deposed that his application for transferring the case file to the Wild Life Department Ex. CW3/D. 3.3.1 During his cross examination by accused No.1 CW-3 stated that he did not directly receive any information from secret informer, it was received by SI Rajender. That the case property was sealed by SI Rajender in his presence.
CC No.514842/2016 Page no.9 to 33 That no public persons were present at that site at the time of sealing of case property. CW-3 deposed that raiding party included officials namely SI Rajender, HC Dharmender, ASI Rajvir and HS Banvir, Ct. Mahek Singh, Ct. Rajeev, Ct. Ramgopal and himself. He further stated that he did not remember who was driving the police vehicle and that he did not know if any mobile phone was recovered from accused Tausif as he did not prepare the seizure memo. That accused were apprehended from near DDA Office, Surajmal Vihar Authority at around 9:30 AM. That arrest was made by SI Rajender. Further that a site plan was prepared by SI Rajender. Witness stated that DD entry was also made at the time of departure from AATS office by SI Rajender. CW-3 in his cross stated that the assistance of local police was not taken. That pullanda was prepared by SI Rajender at the site. That accused were apprehended from car. Witness stated that he did not know about the owner of the car, RC of the car. That accused No.2 was seen getting down from the driving seat of the car. Witness further stated he did not know who filed the charge sheet. That he did not know to whom the case property was handed for further action. That accused persons had gone to the site for selling of case property. That no purchaser was found at the prospective purchaser. Voluntarily witness stated that IO can tell. CW-1 stated that he could not tell why SI Rajender did not wait for prospective purchaser to appear at site. CW denied the suggestion that accused No.1 did not have any involvement and the entire sequence of events was fabricated or that accused No.1 was unable to understand allegedly recorded CC No.514842/2016 Page no.10 to 33 disclosure statement of accused No.1 were not spoken by accused No.1. It is further denied by CW-3 that case property was not recovered from accused No.1 or that accused No.1 Tausif was not arrested / apprehended from Surjmal Vihar or that accused No.1 was apprehended / arrested from Jama Masjid area.
During his cross examination by accused No.2 CW-3 stated that SI Rajender informed him about conducting the raid at about 8:00 - 8:15 AM on 21.07.2015. That by 8:30 AM they left for conducting the raid. That they reached the site of raid in 5-7 minutes in time. That they left from AATS and reached the site of raid i.e. Surajmal Vihar Authority in 5-7 minutes. The distance between AATS East Office and Surajmal Vihar Authority is one kilometer approximately. That at around 9:30 AM a white Alto Car bearing registration number of J&K reached the site. That his only role in raid to assist SI Rajender in conducting the raid. CW- 3 further stated that he was working at AATS office since February 2015 until January 2016. hat AATS stands for Anti Auto Theft Squad. That upon the sensitivity of the information senior officers decide whether to involve local police or not. That senior officers may be of the rank of Inspector, ACP, DCP. That at the time the senior most designated to AATS was of the rank of inspector. CW-3 denied the suggestion that accused was already arrested by AATS team on 20.07.2015 and he has been later on shown as arrested on 21.07.2015 by making false entry and manipulating the records. Witness further denied that on 20.07.2015 at around 8-9 PM in the evening and later on CC No.514842/2016 Page no.11 to 33 during the detention of the accused Dawood Ameen or other days, the AATS team including CW-3 took the accused forcibly to ATMs and got an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- approximately withdrawn from the HDFC and SBI Bank account of the accused. CW-3 further denied that before conducting the alleged raid on 21.07.2015 the accused persons were forcibly taken to DCP office from AATS Anand Vihar, Delhi or that CW-3 was deposing falsely. 3.4 CW-4 Ct. Mahak Singh has deposed that on 30.07.2015, he was posted as Constable at AATS, East District. That on that day he along with SI Rahul joined the investigation of the present case and went to Tis Hazari Court, where IO Rahul had moved an application for production warrant against accused Tausif Ahmed. That five days police custody remand of accused Tausif Ahmed was obtained. CW-4 further deposed that they took the accused Tausif Ahmed at AATS office and interrogated him. That IO recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex. CW 3/C of accused Tausif Ahmed. That CW-4 gave custody of accused to Constable Rajiv. That thereafter, he went to PS Anand Vihar for taking the case property and from there he took the custody of case property and returned at AATS office. Further that he along with sealed case property SI Rahul, Constable Rajiv and accused departed for Dehradun for submitting the case property as well for searching the co- accused namely Ashique. Thereafter, CW-4 deposited the case property in Wildlife Institute, Dehradun and handed over acknowledgement slip to SI Rahul and IO recorded statement of CW-4 in this regard. Thereafter, they moved for Jammu and reached police station Jammu Bus Adda on 01.08.2015. CW-4 CC No.514842/2016 Page no.12 to 33 stated that they searched for above mentioned Ashique but he could not found. Thereafter, they reached at PS Badi Brahmni and they searched there and also at Village Ismailpura, but he could not be found, then they returned to Delhi. That on 04.08.2015 accused Tausif Ahmed was produced before the court and was sen to JC.
3.4.1 CW-4 during his cross examination by accused No.2 stated that SI Rajender asked him to join the raid at about 8;30 AM. That after informing, SI Rajender briefed the entire raiding party about the raid which took 10 minutes and they left AATS East office at 8:30 AM. That they reached the Surajmal Vihar at around 9:15 AM and it took them around 45 minutes to reach Surajmal Vihar from AATS East office. CW-4 stated that he had no role to play in the investigation and other legal procedure after detention of the accused. That either Constable Rajiv or Dharmender had taken the sealed case property from Surajmal Vihar to Anand Vihar police station. CW-4 further deposed that he did not go along with either Rajiv or Dharmender for taking the seal case property to Surajmal Vihar to Anand Vihar police station. CW-4 stated that his role was limited to stop the public from interfering in the raid and seizure. That after detention at Surajmal Vihar, both accused persons were brought to AATS East office. That they were brought to the AATS East Office by the entire raiding party. That after reaching AAT19.11.2024S East office post raid, CW-4 did not know anything more in relation to the investigation or registration of FIR or any other such thing. That CW-4 did not know if the case property was brought to AATS East CC No.514842/2016 Page no.13 to 33 office along with the accused persons. CW-4 stated that after the raid was over he did not play any role in relation to taking or giving the custody of the case property to any officer or authority. That on 30.07.2015, he had gone to Dehradun along with SI Rahul, Ct. Rajiv and accused Tausif Ahmed. That they had taken the custody of accused Tausif from the lock up at Tis Hazari Court on 30.07.2015 and thereafter they took the accused Tausif to AATS East office and recorded his disclosure statement and from there he went to Anand Vihar police station where he took the custody of the case property. That on 30.07.2015 at around 11:00 PM they reached the Dehradun and on the next day CW-4 handed over the custody of sealed case property to Wildlife Institute and on 31.07.2015 they left for Jammu along with accused Tausif and reached Jammu at late in the night on 31.07.2015. CW-4 stated that the purpose for visit to Jammu to detained the accused Ashique who according to accused Tausif was supplier of leopard skins. CW-4 denied the suggestion that he had detained the accused No.2 on 02.07.2015 from a hotel in Nizamuddin or that on20.07.2015 he had taken the accused Dawood to an ATM near AATS office where money was withdrawn. Witness further denied that on 21.07.2015, he had taken the accused to Surajmal Vihar from where he was detained or that CW-4 had detained accused No.1 and two other persons on 20.07.2015 itself or that false case has been prepared by him and deposed falsely.
3.5 CW-5 Sh. C.P. Sharma deposed that on 31.07.2015, he was working as Senior Technical Officer, Wildlife Institute of India.
CC No.514842/2016 Page no.14 to 33 That a letter from SHO PS Anand Vihar was received in his institute in the name of Director, Wildlife Institute of India sent in accompaniment of a sealed green colour bag bearing seal of court. That he received the said sealed bag from competent authority and marked the said bag as F-3067 said to contain biological material for species identification. That after verifying the seal on the bag with the reference seal provided, he found them correct. Thereafter, CW-5 opened the bag and found two skins inside which were marked as F-3067/1-2 and F-3067/2-2 and analyzed both the skins based on morphological feature, blotching pattern and microscopic analysis of the hair present on the skins and compared the findings with that of reference material and concluded that both the skins marked as F-3067/1-2 and F-3067/2-2 are of leopard (Panthera pardus). That CW-5 prepared the analysis report Ex. CW 5/A and thereafter said report along with case property sealed with the seal of WIL was sent to SHO PS Anand Vihar.
3.5.1 CW-5 during his cross examination stated that he had done MSC in forensic science from Punjabi University, Patiala along with he had undergone training for identification of wildlife part and products from various National and International Institutions including National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Ashland, Oregon, USA. CW- 5 admitted the suggestion that there is no training certificate along with the lab analysis report. Witness stated that he did not remember how many seals were affixed on the bag when he received the same at the office. That skins were very well preserved. Witness stated that skins were very well preserved, however could not tell how old the skins were CC No.514842/2016 Page no.15 to 33 when he received. That on the back of the skin turmeric like substance was present, but they did not analyzed the same. That the reference material are those skins and hair samples which were provided to them by various state forest departments and concerned authorities for study and matching purpose. That the authority letter which signify the receipt of reference material from the various authorities is not mentioned in the report. CW-5 denied the suggestion that morphological features of the leopard skin and blotching pattern has similarity with the skin of other species or that he was not competent to analyze the case property or that he deposed falsely at the instance of IO. 3.6 CW-6 Sh. Paramvir Singh deposed that on 21.07.2015 he was posted as Wild Life Inspector at Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, Government of NCT of Delhi. That on that day he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from SI Rajender Kumar, AATS, East subsequent whereto he rushed near DDA office, near Surajmal Vihar Transport Authority. That he reached there at about 10:40 AM. That on the spot SI Rajinder Kumar and accused persons namely Tausif Ahmed and Dawood Ameen were already present there. That SI Rajinder kumar took out two wild animal skins from a green colour bag which was lying on the ground near the accused persons. That he identified both the skins to be of leopard a scheduled animal specified at serial number 16B in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protectin) Act, 1972. CW-6 stated that he prepared an identification memo Ex. CW 6/A and also identified the case property Ex. P-1 and Ex. P- 2 during recording of his testimony. CW-6 deposed that he CC No.514842/2016 Page no.16 to 33 could identify skins of wild animals out of his experience and identification. That SI Rajinder recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in terms of Rule 49 of Delhi Wild Life (Protection) Rules, 1973 and further stated that he was competent to file a complaint under Section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Rules, 1972 in this court of law. That on receipt of documents pertaining to this case from SI Rajinder Kumar he filed the complaint Ex. CW 6/B bearing his signature.
3.6.1 During his cross examination CW-6 deposed stated that he reached at about 9:45 AM in the office on the day of receipt of call from SI Rajinder Kumar. That he had not informed his senior officers regarding the receipt of call. That he received the call on his official mobile phone. That CDR of his official mobile phone has not been filed along with the present complaint. That his departure entry was made in the movement register, however, the copy of the relevant entry in the movement register has not been filed with the present complaint. CW-6 stated that he went tot he above mentioned spot on an auto. That he left his office at about 10:00 AM and reached at the spot at about 10:40 AM. That skins were in the bag which was lying near the accused persons. That his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot. CW-6 further stated that in his presence IO had not joined any public person. That he had not taken the photographs of the skins at the spot. Witness stated that he is a Law Graduate and also possessing post graduate degree in Ecology & Environment. That he remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes. That he had not put any signature on CC No.514842/2016 Page no.17 to 33 the skins, however, in voluntarily stated that as those were uncured skins. CW-6 admitted that Ex. CW 6/A does not bear signatures of SI Rajinder Kumar and accused persons. That when witness left the spot SI Rajinder Kumar remained at the spot. Witness denied the suggestion that no such proceedings as above mentioned ever took place in his presence or that the accused persons were not present at the spot or that he was not competent to analyze the case property. Witness further denied the suggestion that he was not competent to file the complaint or that deposed falsely at the instance of IO.
4 Accused in his defence examined six witnesses as follows:-
4.1 DW-1 Dawood Ameen deposed that on 18.07.2025 he left from Jammun to Delhi in his alto car No.JK067182. That in Jammu itself Tausif Ahmed and two of his friends stated that they too had some work in Delhi and therefore they requested to come along with DW-1 in his car. DW-1 stated that he only knew Tausif Ahmed and Yasir Hussain from amongst those people, as Tausif is his cousin and Yasir is his brother in law (jijaji). That they had one big bag and two small bags as their luggages. That DW-1 did not enquire as to what was in the bag and even did not enquire about the work they had in Delhi. It is further deposed that DW-1 had to visit his cousin Shahid Hussain Shah in Delhi at his residence at Shakarpur, Delhi. That he had promised that he would get some employment in Delhi, as he was working there from last 15 years. It is further deposed that they reached Delhi on 19.07.2015 in the afternoon and went to Nizamuddin to look for a hotel, so as to stay for a night as all four of them were tired and DW-1 requested by Tausif to join them for dinner. That in the evening of 19.07.2015, they checked into hotel CC No.514842/2016 Page no.18 to 33 Rajdoot in Jangpura, however, witness did not remember who out of Tausif or Yasir had given their identity card for booking the room in the said hotel. That DW-1 stayed in the hotel after checking in, but Tausif and Yasir and other went out. That on the next date i.e. 20.07.2015, Tausif took the keys of car of DW-1 and went outside along with others and when they left in the morning, DW-1 slept again and wok up when he found Tausif, Yasir and some people had come to the room and one of those unknown persons caught hold DW-1 by his collar. DW-1 asked the person who he was to which he stated that he was a police officer from AATS and also showed him his identity card. That the police officer AATS took DW-1, Tausif, Yasir and other to AATS office, Anand Vihar on 20.07.2015 at around 12:30 PM. That DW-1 was beaten up by the police officer at AATS, Anand Vihar and the said police officers stated that whoever comes from Jammu & Kashmir is a terrorist either and further asked DW-1 to put his signature wherever they asked him to or they will frame DW-1 in some terrorist case. That they took ATM card of DW-1 and took him to ATM Center and at that time DW-1 was carrying ATM cards of SBI, PNB and HDFC Banks. However, DW-1 did not remember the account number of account in the said banks, however, on the day of evidence DW-1 brought original passbook of his bank accounts and stated bank account with State Bank of India with No.31083268790 and the extracts of statement containing the transaction of 21.07.2015 Ex. DW 1/1, extract of first page and page showing transaction dated 20.07.2015, 21.07.2015 and 22.07.2015 from PNB bank account No.6164000100042183 Ex. DW 1/2 and the third one extract of account statement of transaction dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 bearing seal and stamp of his banker HDFC and bank CC No.514842/2016 Page no.19 to 33 account No.50100102209923 along with first page of passbook Ex.
DW 1/3. DW-1 further deposed that he was made to sit in the police van outside the ATM centers and money was withdrawn from bank accounts using his ATM cards using on 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015. DW-1 further deposed that he did not know who exactly went inside the ATM center to withdraw the money with his ATM cards. That on 21.07.2015 in the morning at around 9 to 10 AM, (exact time DW-1 did not remember exactly) all five of them i.e. DW-1 Tausif, Yasir and others were taken to some senior police officer's office and from there DW-1 along with others were brought back to AATS, Anand Vihar and from there they were taken to Tis Hazari Courts where they were made to sign on blank pages and on a cloth bag and in the evening they were sent to Tihar Jail. That before sending Tihar Jail, DW-1 was made to undergo medical examination and he was also made to write and sign statements as dictated to DW-1. 4.1.1 During his cross examination DW-1 stated that he did not remember the colour of the bags carried by the accused Tausif and other persons who accompanied him from Jammu to Delhi. That he could not say whether they were carrying green colour bag also. DW- 1 denied the suggestion that they were carrying green colour bag and the same was brought to Delhi or that he was having knowledge that what was in their bag and enquired the same from them about the contents of the bag or that at about 9:30 AM on 20.07.2015 he was not present in Hotel Rajdoot at Jangpura. It is further denied by the witness that he was present in front of DDA office, Near Surajmal Vihar Authority, Delhi on 21.07.2015 at about 9:30 AM or that he had withdrawn the money from bank accounts through ATM or that two leopard skins were recovered from his possession along with accused Tausif or that the seizure memo and other memos were CC No.514842/2016 Page no.20 to 33 prepared at the spot i.e. DDA Office, near Surajmal Vihar Authority, Delhi or that he was deposing falsely to save himself from criminal liability.
4.2 DW-2 Sh. Manoranjan Kumar Jha had brought the summoned record i.e. statement of bank account No.31083268790 in the name of Dawood Amin for the month of July 2015 i.e. starting from 01.07.2015 to 31.07.2015 Ex. DW 2/A. 4.3 DW-3 Sh. Sandeep Singh stated that he placed on record his authority letter issued by Deputy Circle Head, Circle Offie, Jammu dated 13.04.2023 Ex. DW 3/A and also placed on record the details of transactions and the corresponding certificate Ex. DW 3/B. 4.4 DW-4: Head Constable Pooja Rawal stated that she was present to depose on behalf of the Licensing Authority in the present matter and filed photocopy of her identity card Ex. DW 4/A. That vide letter dated 01.06.2023 status of license of M/s. Hotel Rajdoot situated at 13-B, Mathura Road, Jangpura, Block-C, Jangpura B, New Delhi-14 is given under the signature ACP/Hotel and in the said letter it is mentioned that the Lodging House has been cancelled vide order No.5222/Joint cp/Lic(H) dated 30.11.2022 Ex. DW 4/B and dentified the signature of Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ACP/Hotel as he was her superior officer.
4.5 DW-5: Sh. Shahid Hussain Shah deposed that he knew accused Dawood Ameen as he is the husband of his cousin sister. That they studied together in the same school. That as DW-5 was already in Delhi 2006, accused Dawood was in touch with him and requested him to search a job for him as CC No.514842/2016 Page no.21 to 33 well. That accused decided to come to Delhi from Jammu & Kashmir to search for his job after Eid in July 2015. That DW-5 received a call from the family of accused Dawood from Jammu & Kashmir and witness was informed that accused Dawood has been in the custody of AATS, Delhi. Thereafter, witness went to the Office of AATS, Anand Vihar, Delhi and met accused Dawood and thereafter, got the accused released on bail.
4.5.1 During cross examination DW-5 stated that he was 12th pass out in the year 2008 and did graduation from Delhi in the year 2015-16. That he was doing various private jobs like Citi Financial Bank, Dominos etc. and that he did not know whether accused was 12th pass out or not. That he requested for job of accused in Dominos as delivery boy. DW-5 admitted the suggestion that accused came on his assurance but did not came to meet him after reaching Delhi. That in July 2015 DW-5 was staying at Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj along with his cousin in a two room set rented apartment. That accused was having address of DW-5 to come to meet him upon his reaching in Delhi. That accused Dawood was also having his mobile number to contact him upon his reaching in Delhi. That DW-5 did not know why accused Dawood did not contact him upon reaching Delhi or did not call him. That he do not know the relationship of accused Dawood with accused Tausif and Yasir. DW-5 denied the suggestion that he did not gave any assurance to accused Dawood to come to Delhi for a job search and therefore accused Dawood did not contact him upon his reaching in Delhi or that DW-5 deposed falsely about the CC No.514842/2016 Page no.22 to 33 purpose of accused Dawood to visit Delhi for a job search in order to save him being his cousin. It is admitted by witness that the family members of accused Dawood had his contact number but they also did not inform him about the arrival of accused in Delhi till they got the call from AATS, Anand Vihar regarding the arrest of accused in the present matter. It is denied that the family members of accused did not inform him upon the arrival of accused in Delhi as accused Dawood was not called by him for any job in Delhi. DW-5 admitted that no date, time and place was fixed for interview for the job before the arrival of accused in Delhi, however, voluntarily stated that any day after eid was discussed. DW- 5 denied the suggestion that there was no discussion about job of the accused with any other person, therefore, no date and time for meeting was fixed or that any terms conditions for the job were deliberated upon. It is admitted that DW-5 did not receive any call from accused Dawood before he left for Delhi from Jammu & Kashmir and therefore witness was not aware about the mode of transportation used by accused or that whether he was coming alone or with friends or family members. It is denied by the witness that accused Dawood did not contact him before leaving from Jammu & Kashmir to come to Delhi as no discussion with accused for arrangement of a job in Delhi for him ever happened with him. It is admitted that DW-5 never made any complaint about missing of accused Dawood in Delhi till he was informed that accused Dawood was arrested by AATS, Anand Vihar, Delhi. It is further admitted that accused Dawood did not inform DW-5 about his arrival in Delhi CC No.514842/2016 Page no.23 to 33 while leaving from Jammu & Kashmir or after reaching at Delhi. It is denied that about 9:30 AM on 21.07.2015, accused Dawood along with his accomplice found in possession of two leopard skins in an Alto Car bearing Registration No. JK-06-7182. It is further denied that DW-5 had framed a concocted story regarding visit of accused in Delhi on his assurance for a job in order to save him or that accused was dealing with leopard skins along with other co- accused persons and that he was not in need of any job like that of a delivery boy in a food chain like Dominos or that witness deposed falsely.
4.6 DW-6 Sh. Nadeem Ahmed stated that he had come on behalf of HDFC Bank Doda Branch and file his authority letter Ex. Ex. DW 6/A. Witness brought the account statement of Dawood Amin bearing Account No.50100102209923 for the period 01.07.2015 to 28.07.2015 and also brought the record of the ATM machine Ex. DW 6/B from which the alleged transaction took place.
5 I have heard the arguments and perused the record. 6 During final arguments, it is submitted by learned APP that present complaint was filed by complainant as both the accused were found in possession of two leopard skins kept in a alto car bearing registration number JK-6-7182 which was being kept by both the accused without having any licnese or authority for keeping those leopard skins. It is submitted that leopard is specified in Schedule-I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and accordingly contravened the provisions of Section 49 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and are liable for punishment under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is submitted that complainant has CC No.514842/2016 Page no.24 to 33 examined six witnesses, who have been consistent during their testimony. It is submitted that the evidence led by the complainant proves the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and both the accused are liable to be convicted and punished for offence under Section 49/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 7 Learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 have separately advanced their final arguments and opposed the case of prosecution. Both the counsels have filed written synopsis as well. It is submitted on behalf of accused No.2 that this case has been falsely filed by the police officers who had detained the accused persons on 20.07.2015 and kept the accused persons at Hotel Rajdoot. It is submitted that both the accused were subjected to physical assault by police officers and also have seized their ATM card and compelled the accused persons to withdraw funds from the account of accused No.2 and hand over the same to the police officers in bribe. It is submitted that all the proceedings conducted during the raid and investigation are fake proceedings. It is submitted that as the proceedings as stated above were fake, there is an inherent lacuna in the raid and procedure of investigation. It is submitted on behalf of both the accused that due to inherent defect the investigation from which an inference of fake raid and investigation can be drawn, the both accused are required to be acquitted. Briefly the submissions advanced on behalf of accused can be summarized as follows:-
7.1 It is submitted by learned counsel for accused persons that there is inconsistency in the testimony of complainant's witness regarding time taken in reaching the place of raid from the AATS Office. It is submitted that the inconsistency is apparent and became prominent as different witnesses have testified that it took CC No.514842/2016 Page no.25 to 33 from 5-7 minutes to 45 minutes in reaching the place of raid from AATS Office. It is vehemently submitted that this shows nothing other than story of going from AATS Office to place of raid was false and concocted.
7.2 It is further submitted that the story of prosecution is that accused persons were coming to a place near Surajmal Vihar to sell the leopard skin, however, surprisingly, the raiding team did not wait till the purchaser has arrived to purchase the leopard skin from accused persons. It is submitted that though the mobile phone of one of the accused was seized, however, no investigation in the call details has been conducted so as to verify as to the persons in whose contact the accused persons were immediately before the raid.
7.3 It is submitted that the story of prosecution that IO SI Rajinder has called the Wild Life Inspector Sh. Pramvir Singh from the spot is also false as IO SI Rajinder has given a different version of obtaining the number of Wild Life Inspector in his examination chief and in his cross examination in chief.
7.4 It is submitted that no public persons were made part of raiding team by the investigating officers, despite the fact that at the time of raid, the place of raid was a crowded place and DDA Office was also there. It is submitted that all the reasons for non joining an independent person are false and concocted as DDA officials, who are government officers / officials could not have denied becoming witness to the raid. It is submitted IO has not given any notice to the public persons, who have refused to join investigation at is request.
7.5 It is submitted that a strong inference to the effect that no CC No.514842/2016 Page no.26 to 33 raid was conducted can be drawn from the fact that seizure memo contains mentioning of FIR number and other details, though the seizure memo was prepared before registration of FIR. It is submitted that complainant witnesses during their examination have not explained as to how the FIR number has been written on the seizure memo, which shows that all the documents have been prepared without any raid or investigation just to implicate the accused persons.
7.6 It is further submitted that the fact that the accused persons have been implicated in false case can be proved from the fact that the complainant and the IO of the case is same person / officer despite directions of the superior courts that who avoid the prejudice to the right of accused and to ensure fair investigation, the complaint should not be investigating officer of the case.
8 From the consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and from the perusal of record, it is noted that the present complaint pertains to an incident dated 20.07.2015, regarding which the complaint was filed in court on 16.09.2015.
Though it has been vehemently submitted on behalf of complainant that case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant, however, the submissions advanced on behalf of accused also seem to be material. As far as contention of accused regarding their arrival in Delhi on 19.07.2015 and their alleged illegal detention and physical assault by police officers, the same has not been substantiated by any proof or evidence. The arrival of accused in Delhi on 19.07.2015, their stay at particular hotel and withdrawal of money by them from ATM does not, in the absence of booking of hotel by police officials or any CCTV footage of CC No.514842/2016 Page no.27 to 33 ATM showing accused along with the police officials or showing the police officials withdrawing money from account of accused, in any manner prove the allegations of alleged illegal detention and physical assault by police officers.
8.1 On consideration of record including the evidence of complainant's witness, it is noted that most of the submissions made by learned counsel for accused persons carry weight and substance in them. It is noted that different members of raiding team has testified different time taken in reaching the place of raid from the office of AATS. As per CW-1, it took 15 minutes to reach the place of raid, as per CW-2 (who was IO) it took half an hour to reach the place of raid, as per CW-3, it took 5-7 minutes to reach the place of raid, as per CW-4, it took 45 minutes to reach the place of raid, as per CW-6, it took 40 minutes to reach the place of raid. A minor difference in stating the time taken in reaching the office to place of raid does not make any difference, however, in the present case as the difference is more and runs from 5-7 to 45 minutes, the same become worth considering. Further, learned counsel for accused has also rightly pointed out that IO in his examination in chief has stated that phone number of Wild Life Inspector Paramvir Singh was obtained from his office by the DO who forwarded the same to him, however, during his cross examination, he has stated that he had taken the number of Wild Life Office by dialing 100 number and from where he had taken the number of Wild Life Inspector Paramvir Singh. Again the inconsistency in the cross examination of IO is important and worth noting as the same is related to the important aspect of the arrival of Wild Life Inspector / Wild Life Expert to the place of raid, especially CC No.514842/2016 Page no.28 to 33 when the very existence and conducting of raid has been challenged on behalf of accused persons. Further, it has been rightly pointed out on behalf of accused that the seizure memo contained the FIR number and other details, which was prepared prior to registration of FIR. The perusal of seizure memo Ex. CW 1/A, Ex. CW 1/B at least prima facie show the FIR number and other details of the case has been written by the same pen and the memo has been prepared in such a way that it appears after writing the FIR and other details the rest of the seizure memo has been written. It has not been explained anywhere on behalf of complainant as to how come the details of FIR has been mentioned on seizure memo, when the FIR has been registered after the preparation of seizure memo. Further, there seems to be substance in the submission of learned counsels for accused that there was no logic in raiding team not waiting for the prospective buyer to come to purchase the leopard skin from the accused persons, if the accused persons were actually gone at the spot to sell the leopard skins and to apprehend the accused persons even before the prospective buyer has come. It is worthwhile to point out that despite seizing the mobile phone of one of the accused no investigation seem to have been done with regard to the persons with which the accused persons were in touch immediately before the raid, which must have taken the IO to the prospective purchaser of the leopard skins, if accused were actually there to sell the leopard skins.
8.2 In addition to the defects in investigation mentioned above, two substantial defects in investigation pointed out by learned counsel for accused persons are Firstly, no public or CC No.514842/2016 Page no.29 to 33 independent witnesses have been joined at the time of raid and it is alleged that the same vitiates the prosecution against the accused persons. It is noted that the raid was conducted outside the DDA office at around 9-10 AM and accused were actually apprehended at 9:30 AM. It can not be believed that at that time public persons were not there as the officials / officers of DDA and the persons having work in DDA office, must also have started coming to the office at that time. Though learned counsel for accused have vehemently submitted that non joinder of public / independent person is in itself a ground for acquittal of accused and has relied upon judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in Hemraj vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 2110 and judgment of hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anoop Joshi vs. State (DRJ 1992[24]) and Pawan Kumar vs. Delhi Administration so as to seek acquittal of accused on the ground of only non joinder of public persons. However, this position of law has been explained by hon'ble Apex Court and hon'ble High Courts in number of judgments that mere non joining of public or independent witnesses shall not necessarily vitiate the prosecution or trial. Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Chand and Ors vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 3395 has quoted with approval the view of its earlier bench in Appabhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujrat wherein, it has been observed by hon'ble Apex Court:-
"The prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. EXperience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is CC No.514842/2016 Page no.30 to 33 inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether -in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties."
Accordingly, the court has to see whether despite non joining of independent witnesses, the evidence brought by the complainant are cogent, convincing, credit worthy and reliable. Secondly, it has been pointed out that the person who is complainant in the present case is also Investigating Officer of the case and it is alleged that the same vitiate the prosecution and trial against the accused. It is noted that as per the case of the complainant the secret information was given by the secret informant to SI Rajender, who at the instruction of the inchage of AATS has prepared the raiding party and had conducted the alleged raid on 21.07.2015. As per tehrir Ex CW 2/C SI Rajender was the complainant. The perusal of record shows that SI Rajender has not only been complainant in the present case but had also conducted the initial and most substantial portion of investigation. CW-7 SI Rajender has himself admitted in his cross examination that after conducting raid he had also detained the accused persons, seized the leopard skins, prepared seizure memo and conducted investigation as IO of the case. Surprisingly, the subsequent IO SI Rahul was also part of the raiding team. The learned counsel for accused has rightly relied upon the judgment of hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vikash Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi decided on 01.07.2024 whereby hon'ble High Court of Delhi has quoted the judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (2018)17 CC No.514842/2016 Page no.31 to 33 SCC 627 whereby hon'ble Apex Court in Para Number 30 has observed as follows:-
"30. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different two- Judge Benches of this Court, the importance of a fair investigation from the point of view of an accused as a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is considered necessary that the law in this regard be laid down with certainty. To leave the matter for being determined on the individual facts of a case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers, but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the courts in a state of uncertainty and confusion which has to be avoided. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof."
9 From the discussion on the different aspect of investigation and the raid conducted by the raiding party, there is no lacuna of doubt that investigation in the present case was faulty to such an extent that there are loop holes in the story of prosecution. Due to the inconsistent version of complainant's witness, incomplete investigation qua the subsequent purchaser, mentioning of FIR number etc. on the seizure memo, conducting of investigation by the complainant and the fact of non examination of independent witnesses, not only the complainant could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons, but impartial and unbiased manner of investigation could also not be proved. 10In view of above discussion, both accused persons are acquitted for CC No.514842/2016 Page no.32 to 33 the offence as alleged in the present case. Accused persons are directed to furnish their bail bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the court on the date fixed.
Announced in open court on this 30th November, 2024 Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.11.30 17:51:57 +0530 MAYANK MITTAL ACJM (Spl. Acts), CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI This judgment consists of 33 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CC No.514842/2016 Page no.33 to 33