Delhi District Court
State vs Sameer @Pachau on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
CNR No. DLSE01-004456-2022.
State
versus
1. Mr. Sameer @ Pachau
Son of Mr. Asgar Ali
Resident of O-310, Sundar Nagari,
New Delhi.
2. Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola
Son of Mr. Jabbar Khan
Resident of I-198, Sundar Nagari,
New Delhi.
Permanent address : 1082
Ward No. 1, Bawri Masjid,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
FIR No. 227 of 2021.
Under sections 307/34 of the IPC.
and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
PS : Lodhi Colony.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 28.03.2022.
Date of committal of the case : 11.05.2022.
Date of first hearing before the learned : 17.05.2022.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of framing of the charge : 08.06.2022.
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 05.12.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 30.03.2026.
Date of judgment : 30.03.2026.
Appearances : Mr. R. K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor (Officiating)
for the State.
Accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola
on bail with Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel,
Mr. Sandeep Kumar.
***********************************************************
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act.
PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 1 of 55 :-
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola, the accused persons, have been charge sheeted by Police Station Lodhi Colony for the offence under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
2. On the complaint of Mr. Mohd. Rafiq son of Mr. Mohd. Qadir, FIR bearing number 227 of 2021 was registered by the police of Police Station Lodhi Colony under sections 307/34 of the IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Charge sheet
3. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet for offence under sections 307/34 of the IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, which was filed against the accused persons in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 28.03.2022. Compliance of provision of section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was made. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2022 for trial being a sessions triable case for 17.05.2022.
Case of the prosecution
4. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.12.2021, on receipt of DD No. 56A, SI Deependra Kumar along with Ct. Praveen went to the spot at Jhuggi No. 49, Silver Oak Park, Near Jungpura, New Delhi. On the spot, the police did not find the complainant and Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 2 of 55 :-
the witnesses of the alleged incident and they came to know that the injured had already been removed to AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, they went to AIIMS Trauma Center and met Mr. Mohd. Rafiq and the injured Ms. Monu Begum was found unfit for statement. SI Deependra Kumar recorded the statement of Mr. Mohd. Rafiq. In his statement, Mr. Mohd. Rafiq alleged that on 26.12.2021 at around 09:00 pm, he was resting in his jhuggi. At around 09:15 pm, he heard loud screams from his aunt's daughter Ms. Monu Begam who lives in the adjacent jhuggi. On hearing this, he ran towards jhuggi no. 49, Silver Oak Park, Jangpura. When he reached near the said jhuggi, he saw 2-3 people running towards the railway track. He recognized one of them as Mr. Shahrukh @ Farukh, who had a knife in his hand. When he entered his sister Ms. Monu Begam's jhuggi, he saw that she had knife injuries on her chest, hand and neck and she was bleeding. He immediately called at number 100. A PCR vehicle arrived at the spot and his sister Ms. Monu Begam was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center for treatment. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed under sections 307/34 of the IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against both the accused persons.
Charge
5. Vide order dated 08.06.2022, charge was framed against both the accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola under sections 307/452/34 of the IPC that on 26.12.2021 at about 09:26 pm at Jhuggi No. 49, Silver Oak Park, near Jungpura Metro Station, New Delhi, both the accused along with co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested so far) entered in the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begam, threatened her and her friend Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli and both Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 3 of 55 :-
the accused persons took out knives and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola instigated accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau to kill them. Thereafter, their co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested) caught hold the throat of Ms. Monu Begam and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola stabbed multiple times upon her chest, neck and breast and accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau stabbed Mr. Hashim @ Hulli on his stomach with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they both caused death of aforesaid persons, they both would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Additionally, charge was also framed against accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau under section 25 of Arms Act that on 31.12.2021 in front of Mandoli Jail Complex, near SDM Toilet, Sunder Nagar Road, Delhi, accused Sameer @ Pachau was apprehended and during his personal search, one buttondar knife was found from his possession without having any license or permission. Additionally, charge was also framed against accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola under section 25 of Arms Act that on 03.01.2022, accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola, while he was in police custody, led the police party to H. No. I-198,1st Floor, Sunder Nagari, Delhi and got recovered one buttondar knife which was found in his possession without having any license or permission.
Both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution witnesses
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten (10) witnesses. The chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, chart of the exhibited documents and chart of the admitted witness and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) alongwith the specified details are hereinbelow:
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 4 of 55 :-
Chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Sr. Prosecution Name of Witness Description No. Witness No.
1. PW-1 Ms. Monu Begum Victim/Injured
2. PW-2 Mr. Mohd. Hashim Victim/Injured/Eye witness
3. PW-3 Dr. Sukanya Bhatt Proved MLC of injured Ms. Monu
4. PW-4 ASI Ramesh Duty Officer
5. PW-5 SI Ankit Filed supplementary charge-sheet qua FSL result
6. PW-6 Dr. Abuzer Kamaluddin Given first aid to injured Mr. Mohd.
Hashim
7. PW-7 Dr. Suminder Kaur Prepared FSL report
8. PW-8 Ct. Parveen Joined investigation with IO
9. PW-9 ASI Pankaj Joined investigation with IO
10. PW-10 SI Deependra Investigation Officer Chart of the exhibited documents Sr. Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by No. /Attested by
1. Ex. PW1/A Statement of Ms. Monu Begum PW-1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.
2. Ex. PW2/A Seizure of clothes of injured PW-2 Mohd. Hashim
3. Ex. PW3/A MLC of Ms. Monu PW-3
4. Ex. PW3/B Discharge summary Ms. Monu PW-3
5. Ex. PW4/A Certificate under section 65B PW-4 of Indian Evidence Act
6. Ex. PW5/A Supplementary charge-sheet PW-5 Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 5 of 55 :-
qua FSL result
7. Ex. PW7/A FSL report PW-7
8. Ex. PW7/B Genotypic data PW-7
9. Ex. PW9/A Sketch of knife PW-9
10. Ex. PW9/B Seizure memo of knife PW-9
11. Ex. PW9/C Arrest memo of accused PW-9 Sameer @ Pachau
12. Ex. PW9/D Personal search memo of PW-9 accused Sameer @ Pachau
13. Ex. PW9/E Disclosure statement of PW-9 accused Sameer @ Pachau
14. Ex. PW9/F Seizure of blood sample of PW-9 injured Ms. Monu Begum
15. Ex. PW9/G DD No. 33-A PW-9
16. Ex. PW9/H Arrest memo of accused PW-9 Shahrukh @ Bhola
17. Ex. PW9/I Disclosure statement of PW-9 accused Shahrukh @ Bhola
18. Ex. PW9/J Sketch of knife PW-9
19. Ex. PW9/K Seizure memo of knife PW-9
20. Ex. PW9/L Seizure memo of mobile phone PW-9 make Lava
21. Ex. PW9/M Sketch of place of recovery of PW-9 knife
22. Ex. PW9/N Pointing out memo PW-9
23. Ex. PW10/A Statement of complainant PW-10 Mohd. Rafiq
24. Ex. PW10/B Rukka PW-10
25. Ex. PW10/C Site plan PW-10
26. Ex. PW10/D Seizure memo of clothes of PW-10 Ms. Monu Begum and sample seal
27. Ex. PW10/E Pointing out memo of place of PW-10 incident Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 6 of 55 :-
Chart of the material objects/ muddamals Sr. Material Object No. Description of Proved No. the Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Ex. PW-1/P-1 Knife recovered PW-9 from accused Sameer @ Pachau
2. Ex. PW-1/P-2 Knife recovered PW-9 from accused Shahrukh @ Bhola
3. Ex. P-1 (colly) One sweat shirt PW-2 with yellow and black colour and one thermal inner of grey colour Chart of the admitted witness and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) Sr. Admitted Witness / Description of Proved No. Document the Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Ex. P-1 Discharge Both the accused summary of persons injured Mohd.
Hasim prepared by Dr. Mendugulla Yathindra Sai Vipul Statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
7. In their respective statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against them stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession or at their instance. The case was registered on the basis Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 7 of 55 :-
of false contents of complaint. They have preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
Final arguments
8. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
9. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State (Officiating) has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. There is sufficient ocular, medical and forensic evidence against the accused. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is prayed that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
10. On the other hand, the Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola has argued that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Ms. Monu Begum, injured/victim (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession or at their instance. No separate FIR was registered in respect of the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act nor any evidence has been led by the prosecution in respect of the same. No independent person from the public has been associated in the investigation at any stage. There is no evidence on record to connect both the accused persons with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 8 of 55 :-
Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola may be acquitted.
Discussion, Analysis and Observations
11. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So, it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So, the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 9 of 55 :-
judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
12. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides in respect of the case against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola.
Offences alleged to have been committed by the accused
13. Section 307 of the IPC reads as follows:
Section 307. Attempt to murder.
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such pun- ishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.-When any person offending un- der this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such cir-
cumstances that, if death ensued A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keep- ing; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 10 of 55 :-
servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the of- fence defined in this section.
14. Section 452 of the IPC reads as follows:
House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.--Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. Section 25 of the Arms Act reads as follows:
Punishment for certain offences.
(1) Whoever--
................
.......................
(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine.
................
(1AAA) Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 11[seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
........
16. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 11 of 55 :-
i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
ii. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
iii. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence.
iv. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
v. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
vi. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
vii. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 12 of 55 :-
occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
viii. The powers of observation differ from person to person.
What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. ix. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
x. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. xi. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
xii. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
xiii. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)" Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 13 of 55 :-
17. When the evidence of an injured/ eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
i. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. ii. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
iii. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. iv. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
v. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. vi. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
18. Also was held therein that in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 14 of 55 :-
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. {Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365}.
Evidence of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begam (PW-1)
19. It is very relevant to elaborate the evidence of the most material witness i.e. victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1).
20.Victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has deposed in her examination in chief as follows:
1. I am a housewife and work as a maid in kothies. I am married with Sartaz Khan around 11 years ago. I have a child from this marriage. My husband is in jail for the last 10 years.
2. I know one Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli for the last 5-6 months.
I know the accused Shahrukh, present in the court today and witness correctly identified the accused. I used to go Mandoli Jail to meet my husband and accused Shahrukh used to sell clothes on the footpath so I became acquainted with the accused as I used to purchase clothes from him.
3. After seeing the other accused namely Sameer, the witness states that she does not know him and she did not see him.
4. On 26.12.2021 I was at my jhuggie.
(further chief examination is deferred due to administrative reasons).
1. Hashim @ Hulli was working with an advocate in Defence Colony, New Delhi. I had a speaking terms with Hashim @ Hulli.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 15 of 55 :-
2. On 26.12.2021 I was at home i.e. Jhuggie No. 49, Silver Oak Park, Near Jangpura Metro Station, New Delhi. It was around 08.30 pm I was inside the jhuggie. Hashim @ Hulli was also at my jhuggie. He had come to meet some one in the jhuggie and so he came to my jhuggie. At that time, there was a noise from outside. I came out from my jhuggie and saw that some persons were quarreling outside my jhuggie and I asked them not to quarrel. I do not know how many persons were quarreling as my mother was calling me inside the jhuggie. I pushed the persons who were quarreling. But they did not go away from there. Some one hit me with the knife on my stomach and the attackers were covering their face with handkerchief. I sustained injury on my right hand and my stomach. My mother and my daughter were inside the jhuggie. My brother who resides in the nearby jhuggie came to me and he informed the police. I became unconscious and I do not know where I was taken. When I got consciousness I found myself admitted in the hospital. Three police officials came to the hospital and made enquiry from me. But I did not tell anything to them as I was not in a position to speak. I was discharged from the hospital. I came to my jhuggie. Police met me at my jhuggie and police made enquiry from me. They did not behave me properly and even with my mother and threatened me. Thereafter, the police officials left. On the same day, I was called to the police station and they threatened me to implicate the accused persons. Thereafter I came to my jhuggie. Further, I do not want to say anything more.
21. As victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) was hostile to the prosecution case and had resiled from her previous statement, Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has cross examined her at length. She has denied the contents of her statement dated 30.12.2021 made to the police. She has failed to identify the accused persons as the culprits and has failed to assign any criminal role to them. She has also failed to identify the weapons of offences i.e. buttondar knives used in the commission of the offences against her and Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli. She has denied that both the accused persons Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 16 of 55 :-
alongwith their associate Anna entered into her jhuggie and accused Shahrukh hit her with the knife due to which she sustained injury on her neck and other parts of the body. She has also denied that accused Sameer @ Pachau attacked with the knife upon her friend Hashim @ Hulli. She has denied that accused Shahrukh did not like to talk with Hashim @ Hulli and that due to that reason accused Shahrukh alongwith co-accused persons attacked her with the knife. Nothing material for the prosecution could be brought forth.
22.Both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have preferred not to cross examine victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1).
23. Here it is relevant to mention that as per the prosecution story, the name of the husband of the victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) is Mr. Sartaz Khan. In her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-1/A-not proved and denied by her) the name of her husband is mentioned as Sartaaj @ Allah Khan. In her evidence before the Court, she has mentioned the name of her husband as Mr. Sartaz Khan. However, Dr. Sukanya Bhatt (PW-3) has deposed in respect of MLC of Monu wife of Allah Khan (Ex. PW-3/A). Mr. Rafique (not examined), who had made a call to the police and made the complaint, who set the prosecution case into motion, has stated that her husband's name is Mr. Allah Khan.
24. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the name of the husband of Ms. Monu Begum which serves a fatal blow to the prosecution case as the identity of the victim/injured has to be correctly and properly proved.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 17 of 55 :-
25. It is clear from the record that nothing material for the prosecution came forth in the lengthy cross examination on behalf of the State of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) as she has failed to identify both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola as the culprits who committed the offences against her and she has failed to assign any criminal role to them. In fact, she has not even identified accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau deposing that she does not know him and she did not see him. She has not deposed an iota of evidence against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola that on 26.12.2021 at about 09:26 pm at Jhuggi No. 49, Silver Oak Park, near Jungpura Metro Station, New Delhi, both the accused along with co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested so far) entered in the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begam, threatened her and her friend Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli and both the accused persons took out knives and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola exhorted accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau to kill them; thereafter, their co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested) caught hold the throat of Ms. Monu Begam and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola stabbed multiple times upon her chest, neck and breast and accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau stabbed Mr. Hashim @ Hulli on his stomach with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they both caused death of aforesaid persons, they both would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; that on 31.12.2021 in front of Mandoli Jail Complex, near SDM Toilet, Sunder Nagar Road, Delhi, accused Sameer @ Pachau was apprehended and during his personal search, one buttondar knife was found from his possession without having any license or permission; that on 03.01.2022, accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola, while he was in police custody, led the police party to H. No. Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 18 of 55 :-
I-198,1st Floor, Sunder Nagari, Delhi and got recovered one buttondar knife which was found in his possession without having any license or permission.
26. In fact, in her examination in chief as well as the cross examination on behalf of the State, victim/injured Ms. Monu Begam (PW-1) has very categorically absolved both the accused persons by deposing that they are not the culprits and failed to identify them as the culprits who committed the offences against her and Mr. Mohd.
Hashim @ Hulli. She has failed to assign any criminal role to them. Also, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession or at their instance. She has not even deposed an iota of incriminating evidence against both the accused persons.
27. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of Ms. Monu Begam (PW-1) who is the injured/victim, who is the star witness and the most material witness of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witness has retracted from her earlier statement and turned hostile. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in her lengthy cross examination on behalf of the State. She has, in fact, deposed that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have not committed any offence. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 19 of 55 :-
conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
28. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 (1) C.C. Cases 487.
29. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
30. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
31. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the star witness namely Ms. Monu Begam (PW-1) has himself not deposed anything incriminating against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 20 of 55 :-
adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
32.Therefore, it is clear that victim/injured Ms. Monu Begam (PW-1) has not deposed anything incriminating against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola and this fact makes the prosecution story doubtful.
Evidence of victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2)
33.Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2), who is victim/injured/eye witness, has deposed in his examination in chief as follows:
I am a driver by profession and working with the lady advocate as a driver. One Monu who used to work as a maid servant.
On 26.12.2021 at about 08.00/08.30 pm Monu had called me at her house in connection with bail of her husband Sartaz. In the mean time, two three boys knocked the door and when the door was opened they entered into the house and become angry and they threatened to kill the Monu. One boy caught hold her. One boy had caused injuries with the knife to Monu and one has attacked on me with the knife. Accused Shahrukh had stabbed to Monu with the knife. Accused Sameer @ Pachau had caused three stab injuries to me with the knife on my stomach. However, I tried to save my life from the clutches of the accused and went to a doctor at Jaitpur, New Delhi. He had given some treatment and thereafter I went to Lodhi Colony Police Station. Thereafter, police took me to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. I had handed over my blood smear clothes to the IO. Police had seized the said clothes vide memo Ex. PW-2/A which bears my signature at point-A. At this stage, the witness has identified the accused Shahrkh as he had caught hold (correctly identified by the witness) and accused Sameer @ Pachau had caused stab injuries. (The witness also identified the accused Sameer @ Pachau by his name and face).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced Parcel No. 5 sealed with the seal of SRK RFSL CHANAKYA PURI NEW DELHI (seal is partly broken) and bearing the case particulars of the present case. The parcel is opened by Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 21 of 55 :-
breaking the seal. It found to contain one sweat shirt with yellow and black colour and one thermal inner of gray colour. The same are shown to the witness and he collectively identified the same and are Ex. P-1 (Colly).
34. In his cross examination on behalf of both the accused persons, Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) has deposed as follows:
I have studied upto 6th class and can read Hindi Language. On the day of the incident, I was called by Ms. Monu Begum at her house to discuss about the case of her husband, who was in jail. I do not know what was the case as I was not shown any documents by her. I had gone to her house for the first time. One male person was present in the said house, who had left when I reached there. I do not know the name of said person and what was his relation with Ms. Monu Begum. There are several other jhuggies near the jhuggie of Ms. Monu Begum. I did not notice other persons of the jhuggies present there or not. I was having my mobile phone at that time. I did not discuss about the case of husband of Ms. Monu Begum with my employer, who is an advocate. I did not inform my employer that I was going to jhuggie of Ms. Monu Begum. After the incident, I did not inform to my lady advocate employer. I did not call police from my mobile phone. However, I was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi by the police. I was taken from Nizamuddin to Jaitpur by my some known person namely Faraz in a car. I regained consciousness in Jaitpur from where I was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. I do not know in whose car I was taken to Jaitpur. However, it was a private car nor a taxi.
As far as I remember, police recorded my statement after I got discharged from the hospital. It is correct that I have not named Faraz in my statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that I was not given any stab blows by the accused Sameer or that I have falsely implicated him as someone else had caused me injuries and I only suspected him. It is wrong to suggest that the incident had taken place outside the jhuggie of Ms. Monu Begum. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 22 of 55 :-
35. It can be seen from the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) that he is an injured, victim and an eye witness. He has identified both the accused persons and deposed his version of the incident. However, his evidence does not appear to be reliable.
36. When victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1), who is the star witness of the prosecution, has resiled from her earlier statement, conviction of both the accused persons cannot be based on the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) who is an injured/victim and an eye witness.
37.Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has not been able to explain and justify his presence in the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1).
38.Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has deposed as follows:
"...Hashim @ Hulli was also at my jhuggie. He had come to meet some one in the jhuggie and so he came to my jhuggie... Some one hit me with the knife on my stomach and the attackers were covering their face with handkerchief. I sustained injury on my right hand and my stomach. My mother and my daughter were inside the jhuggie. My brother who resides in the nearby jhuggie came to me and he informed the police....".
39.Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has deposed as follows:
"...On 26.12.2021 at about 08.00/08.30 pm Monu had called me at her house in connection with bail of her husband Sartaz... two three boys knocked the door and when the door was opened they entered into the house and become angry and they threatened to kill the Monu. One boy caught hold her. One boy had caused injuries with the knife to Monu and one has attacked on me with the knife. Accused Shahrukh had stabbed to Monu with the knife. Accused Sameer @ Pachau had caused three stab injuries to me with the knife on my stomach...."
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 23 of 55 :-
40. Neither Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) nor the prosecution have not furnished any explanation as to why he has not mentioned about the presence of the mother and daughter of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) in her jhuggi and that her brother Mr. Mohd. Rafique had come after the incident and informed the police. He has also not furnished the details of the man who was in her jhuggi and had left when this witness had come. The name of the advocate with whom Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) was working and the details of the case in which the husband of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) was in custody have not been furnished.
41. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution regarding the evidence of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) who has deposed that the incident occurred outside her jhuggi while Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has deposed that the incident occurred inside her jhuggi.
42. No explanation is coming forth as to why Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2), who claimed to have gone to the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) for the first time, did not inform his lady advocate employer prior to his visit and even thereafter when the alleged offences were committed.
43. The prosecution has failed to produce the alleged weapons of offence in the evidence of victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) nor put the same to him in his evidence. When the alleged weapons of offence have not been put to the witness against whom they have been used in the commission of the offence, then, the prosecution has left a very big link in the evidence due to which the benefit has to go to the accused persons. Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 24 of 55 :-
44.Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has deposed that "I am a driver by profession and working with the lady advocate as a driver...On the day of the incident, I was called by Ms. Monu Begum at her house to discuss about the case of her husband, who was in jail. I do not know what was the case as I was not shown any documents by her... I did not discuss about the case of husband of Ms. Monu Begum with my employer, who is an advocate..." No explanation is coming from the prosecution that when Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) is only a driver and no documents of the case were shown to him, then how he could have discussed or helped Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) in getting her husband released from jail. The version appears to be too far fetched more so when he did not even discuss the case of husband of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) with his employer who is an advocate.
45. Also the prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation as to why Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has not deposed any reason for the accused persons to commit the alleged offences. He has only deposed that two three boys knocked the door and when the door was opened, they entered into the house and become angry and they threatened to kill the Monu. One boy caught hold her. One boy had caused injuries with the knife to Monu and one has attacked him with the knife. Accused Shahrukh had stabbed to Monu with the knife. Accused Sameer @ Pachau had caused three stab injuries to him with the knife on his stomach. The mens rea for commission of the alleged offences has not deposed by him which was very relevant especially when Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) is hostile.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 25 of 55 :-
46.Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has also admitted to be correct that he had not named Faraz in his statement to the police although he has deposed that "...I was taken from Nizamuddin to Jaitpur by my some known person namely Faraz in a car. I regained consciousness in Jaitpur from where I was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. I do not know in whose car I was taken to Jaitpur. However, it was a private car nor a taxi..."
47. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) did not call the police despite having a mobile phone. He has deposed that "...I was having my mobile phone at that time...I did not call police from my mobile phone..."
48.It is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of Mr. Mohd.
Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2), victim/injured and eye witness, is neither reliable nor believable.
Complainant not examined
49. Mr. Rafique, whose name is mentioned at serial number 1 in the list of prosecution witnesses, was reported to be untraceable and was not produced for his evidence.
50. As per the prosecution version, a PCR call was made vide DD No. 56 A (Mark PW-10/X-1-not proved) on 26.12.2021 that 5 persons had stabbed a lady with a knife.
51. In his statement (Ex. PW-10/A-not proved by the author but by the IO), Mr. Rafiq (not examined), has stated that Ms. Monu Begum wife of Mr. Allah Khan, who is his bua-paternal aunt's daughter, Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 26 of 55 :-
lives in the nearby jhuggi (bagal ki jhuggi). On hearing shouts (chilane ki awaz), he rushed to her jhuggi and saw 2-3 persons running from the side of her jhuggi towards the railway track and one was holding a knife whom he recognized as Sharukh @ Farukh. He went to his sister's jhuggi and saw her with knife and other injuries on her chest, hand and neck and then he called the PCR.
52. The prosecution has failed produce and examine Mr. Rafique due to which the call and the statement on which the prosecution story was set into motion have not been proved by the prosecution and the same serves a fatal blow to the prosecution case.
53. Further, the discrepancy in the statement of Mr. Rafique (wherein 2- 3 persons are mentioned) and the DD No. 56 A and the chargesheet (wherein 5 persons are mentioned) is not explained by the prosecution.
54. Also there is a glaring discrepancy in the statement of Mr. Rafique (wherein one person was carrying a knife are mentioned) and the arrest of two persons from whom one buttondar knife each was recovered allegedly used in the commission of offences and the same has not been explained by the prosecution.
55. Also, there is no mention about Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) in the statement of Mr. Rafique as well as the FIR or that he was also injured in the incident. This has also not been explained by the prosecution.
56. In his statement, Mr. Rafique has stated that he saw accused Sharukh @ Farukh while as per the prosecution story and in the documents including the chargesheet, arrest memo, disclosure Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 27 of 55 :-
statement, remand papers, conviction slip, etc. the name of the accused is Sharukh @ Bhola. The said discrepancy in the name of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution due to which the identity of the culprit is not established.
57. Also, in his statement, Mr. Rafique has stated that his sister is Ms. Monu Begum wife of Mr. Allah Khan while in her evidence, Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has stated the name of her husband as Mr. Sartaz Khan. The said discrepancy in the name of the husband of Ms. Monu Begum has not been explained by the prosecution.
58. Mr. Rafique, who made a call to the PCR and gave the statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered and the prosecution case was set in motion, has although been cited as a prosecution witness but was not produced nor examined by the prosecution as he was untraceable.
59.Due to the non examination of Mr. Rafique, a fatal blow is served on the prosecution version.
Medical evidence
60. It is very relevant to mention here that as per the prosecution story, the name of the husband of the victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) is Mr. Sartaz Khan. In her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-1/A-not proved and denied by her) the name of her husband is mentioned as Sartaaj @ Allah Khan. In her evidence before the Court, she has mentioned the name of her husband as Mr. Sartaz Khan. However, Dr. Sukanya Bhatt (PW-3) has deposed in respect of MLC of Monu wife of Allah Khan (Ex. PW-3/A). The discrepancy in the name of the husband of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has not been explained by the prosecution due to which it Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 28 of 55 :-
cannot be taken that the MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) is of the complainant/victim.
61. Further Dr. Sukanya Bhatt (PW-3) has herself not examined complainant/victim Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and has only identified the MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) prepared and signed by Dr. Megha K. who had examined complainant/victim Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1). The nature of injuries was found grievous by sharp object. The nature of injuries has been given by Dr. Anisha. She has also exhibited the discharge summary (Ex. PW-3/B) prepared by Dr. Madiha Anjum (and not signed). She has admitted to be correct that she has not examined the patient Monu and that the alleged weapon of offence was not produced before her.
62. It is important to mention here that as Dr. Megha K., Dr. Anisha and Dr. Madiha Anjum were not produced nor examined by the prosecution, the MLC of Ms. Monu (Ex. PW-3/A) and her discharge summary (Ex. PW-3/A) as well as the nature of her injuries as grievous cannot be held to be properly proved.
63. However, on 24.07.2025, both the accused persons have admitted under section 294 of the Cr.P.C./330 BNSS, the evidence of Dr. Mendugulla Yathindra Sai Vipul and the documents prepared and signed by him i.e. Discharge summary of injured Mohd. Hasim (Ex. P-1). Merely with the discharge summary admitted but the prior medical record of Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) not produced and proved, it can be held that the nature of his injuries are proved.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 29 of 55 :-
64. In fact, SI Deependra (PW-10) has deposed that "...It is correct that opinion of the doctor, who treated Mohd. Hashim in Jaitpur area was not taken regarding injuries..."
65. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Amar Singh & Ors.
v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 while emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness in such circumstances in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 as follows:
"We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice".
66. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of State v. Kamlesh Bahadur, Crl.L.P. 519/2019 decided on 12.09.2023 set aside the conviction under section 308 of the IPC and converted the same to section 323 of the IPC. It was observed as follows :
"...In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an in- jury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 30 of 55 :-
injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the convic- tion from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015, this Court altered the con- viction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. In Pawan Chaddha V State Criminal Appeal 640/2011 decided on 27.01.2016 by this Court, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while the co-accused were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC... There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC..."
67. Therefore, the MLC of Ms. Monu wife of Mr. Allah Khan (Ex.
PW-3/A) and the discharge summary (Ex. PW-3/B) cannot be taken into consideration against both the accused persons as the concerned doctors have not been produced and examined by the prosecution.
68. Further, Dr. Abuzer Kamaluddin (PW-6) has deposed that on 26.12.2021 at about 10:30 pm one patient namely Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli came to me with some injury at his stomach. He gave him first aid and made dressing. Thereafter, he left the hospital. Patient did not tell him the exact reason for receiving injury on his body. In his Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 31 of 55 :-
cross examination, he has deposed that "It is correct that I have not seen the weapon of offence used for causing said injury. It is correct that injured was conscious at the time of his treatment. It is correct that the said injury can be caused by falling on the floor....It is correct that the injury has been caused due to some quarrel at home."
69. Dr. Abuzer Kamaluddin (PW-6) has not produced any medical record of patient Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli nor he given any opinion regarding the nature of the injury deposing that it was some injury and he had given first aid. The weapon of offence was also not produced before him. He has infact served a blow to the prosecution case by admitting that the said injury can be caused by falling on the floor and that the injury has been caused due to some quarrel at home.
70. Here, it is also relevant to mention that Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) has deposed that "...I tried to save my life from the clutches of the accused and went to a doctor at Jaitpur, New Delhi. He had given some treatment and thereafter I went to Lodhi Colony Police Station. Thereafter, police took me to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi....". However, the prosecution has neither produced any such medical record of AIIMS nor proved it nor examined any doctor who may have examined the patient due to which whether Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) suffered any injury and the nature of such injury have not been proved.
71.Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is hereby held that there is no incriminating medical evidence against both the accused persons.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 32 of 55 :-
Forensic evidence
72. The prosecution has examined Dr. Suminder Kaur, Senior Forensic Chemical Examiner (Assistant Director), Biology Division, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi (PW-7). She has deposed as follows:
"...I examined all the five parcels and blood was detected on all the five parcels.
On DNA Examination, DNA Profiling (STR Analysis) performed on the exhibits is sufficient to conclude that the DNA Profile generated from the source of Ex. 3 (Blood Sample of Injured Monu Begum) is matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 1a (salwar of the injured Monu Begum), 1b (t-shirt of injured Monu Begu,) and 7 (knife).
The DNA Profile generated from the source of Ex. 5a (sweat shirt of injured Mohd. Hashim), 5b (warmer of injured Mohd. Hashim) is matching with the DNA Profile generated from the source of Ex. 6 (knife). I prepared my report Ex. PW-7/A (running into three pages) which bears my seal and signatures at point-A. Genotypic Data for the above said exhibits are also attached with my report which is Ex. PW-7/B which bears my seal and signatures at point-A..."
73. Although, the forensic evidence reveals that blood of Ms. Monu Begum was found on her clothes as well as the weapon of offence used on her and blood of Mr. Mohd. Hashim was found on his clothes as well as the weapon of offence used on him but the same has to be corelated with the other prosecution evidence especially regarding the identification of the weapons of offence and their recovery.
Weapons of offence...buttondar knives
74. As per the prosecution story, weapon of offence i.e. one buttondar knife (Ex. PW-1/P-1) was recovered from the possession of the Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 33 of 55 :-
accused Sameer @ Pachau and the other weapon of offence i.e. one buttondar knife (Ex. PW-1/P-2), which is identified by the witness as recovered from the possession of the accused Shahrukh.
75. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has denied the prosecution story and failed to identify both the alleged weapons of offence (Ex. PW-1/P-1 and Ex. PW-1/P-2). The clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident were not produced in her evidence nor shown to her nor she has deposed that they were seized. Nothing material for the prosecution could be brought forth in her lengthy cross examination.
76.Victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) has identified the clothes i.e. one sweat shirt with yellow and black colour and one thermal inner of gray colour (Ex. P-1 (Colly) which he was wearing at the time of incident and given to the IO. However, both the weapons of offence were not produced in her evidence nor put to him for identification to ascertain whether or not the same were used in the commission of the alleged offences.
77. It may be mentioned here that when the police allegedly recovered the weapons of offence from the accused persons, it was in the absence of Ms. Monu Begaum (PW-1) and Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) and they were not even called later on to identify the weapons of offence.
78. The weapons of offence i.e. two buttondar knives (Ex. PW-1/P-1 and Ex. PW-1/P-2) were not even produced before the doctors to ascertain and to take their opinion whether or not the injuries could be caused by them.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 34 of 55 :-
79. How the same were connected with the offence, their recovery etc. was required to be proved by the prosecution.
80.ASI Pankaj (PW-9) has deposed that "...One buttondar knife was recovered from the pocket of his pant. Accused Sameer @ Pachau told us that he used that knife in causing injuries to one Hulli, who is the injured in this case... Accused Shahrukh @ Bhola led the police party to his house at I-198, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and got recovered one buttondar knife from the 1st floor from a wooden rack in the kitchen... It is correct that no public person was joined at the time when the recovery of knives were effected from the accused persons. It is correct that two-three public persons of the parking were present when knife was recovered from near the road. Parking officials were not joined the investigation despite request. They were not given any written notice by the IO for refusing to join the investigation..."
81.SI Deependra (PW-10) has deposed that "...It is correct that no public person was joined in the proceedings of seizure of knives recovered at the instance of the accused persons... It is correct that at the time of arrest of accused Sameer @ Pachau injured and the complainant were not present. It is also correct that they were also not present at the time of alleged recovery of weapons of offence. Mother of Shahrukh was present in the house and she was not joined as witness in the recovery proceedings of knife and mobile phone...."
82. It is crystal clear from the above detailed evidence that at the time of the alleged recovery of the weapons of offence i.e. i.e. two buttondar Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 35 of 55 :-
knives (Ex. PW-1/P-1 and Ex. PW-1/P-2) neither Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) nor Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) nor any independent public witness nor even the mother of accused Mr. Sharukh @ Bhola nor two-three public persons of the parking were joined in the investigation at the time of the recovery of the alleged weapons of offence. No notice was given to them for joining the investigation. Even after the alleged recovery, Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) were not called for the TIP of the alleged recovered weapons of offence. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution in respect of this lapse due to which a fatal blow is served to the prosecution version.
83. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged weapons of offence were recovered subsequently and separate FIRs regarding both the accused persons being found in their unlawful possession should have been registered. However, no explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why separate FIRs were not registered and the chargesheet of the present case with Arms Act also added was filed.
84. Merely on the basis of the disclosure statements of both the accused persons that the alleged recovered knives were the weapons of offence used in the commission of crime, it cannot be held against the accused persons that the recovery was effected from them.
85. As regards the blood of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and Mr. Mohd.
Hashim (PW-2) on the alleged weapons of offence i.e. knives, per se, it is not sufficient to connect both the accused persons with the commission of the offences.
86. It may further be observed that there is nothing on the record to Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 36 of 55 :-
suggest that the finger prints of both the accused persons were taken and were compared with any on the alleged recovered weapons of offence. None of the police witnesses of investigation have deposed that the finger prints of both the accused persons were taken nor Dr. Suminder Kaur (PW-7) has deposed anything regarding finding any finger prints on them.
87. No explanation has been furnished by the prosecution as to why the fingerprints were not lifted from the alleged weapons of offence were taken nor any public witness (despite being available) was joined in the proceedings of search and seizure of the alleged weapons of offence. The same indicates that the possibility of the alleged weapons of offence being planted upon both the accused persons cannot be completely ruled out.
88.Therefore, the recovery of the alleged weapons of offence from both the accused persons cannot be relied upon.
Investigation and evidence
89. It is revealed from the record that despite being available, no public person was joined in the investigation the day of incident or later on. No sample of blood or any other incriminating article seized from the spot. No fingerprints lifted from the alleged weapons of offence. No public witness joined in the proceedings of search and seizure of the alleged weapons of offence.
90. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged weapons of offence i.e. "two buttondar knives" (Ex. PW-1/P-1 and Ex. PW-1/P-2) were neither produced before the doctors to ascertain whether or not the alleged injury could be caused by the same nor it was sent to the Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 37 of 55 :-
FSL to ascertain whether or not it had any finger prints of the accused persons. Also, the opinion of the doctor was not obtained on the weapon of offence of this case regarding injuries sustained by victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2).
91. The prosecution has failed to prove a PCR call which was made vide DD No. 56 A (Mark PW-10/X-1-not proved) on 26.12.2021 as well as the complaint (Ex. PW-10/A-not proved by the author-Mr. Rafique but by the IO) as Mr. Rafiq was not examined by the prosecution as he was untraceable.
92. The identity of culprit is not established as the name of the accused as per the prosecution case is Mr. Sharukh @ Bhola while in the complaint/statement of Mr. Rafique is Mr. Sharukh @ Bhola. No document to prove the identity of the culprit has been proved by the prosecution. In his statement, Mr. Rafique has stated that he saw accused Sharukh @ Farukh while as per the prosecution story and in the documents including the chargesheet, arrest memo, disclosure statement, remand papers, conviction slip, etc. the name of the accused is Sharukh @ Bhola. The said discrepancy in the name of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution.
93. The identity of victim/injured is not established as the name of the victim/accused as per the prosecution case is Ms. Monu Begum wife of Mr. Sartaj Khan while in the complaint/statement of Mr. Rafique, it is Ms. Monu Begum wife of Mr. Allah Khan. No document to prove the identity of the victim/injured has been proved by the prosecution. Also, in his statement, Mr. Rafique has stated that his sister is Ms. Monu Begum wife of Mr. Allah Khan while in her evidence, Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has stated the name of her Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 38 of 55 :-
husband as Mr. Sartaz Khan. The said discrepancy in the name of the husband of Ms. Monu Begum has not been explained by the prosecution.
94. The number of the culprits/accused is also not conclusively proved by the prosecution as in the statement of Mr. Rafique, 2-3 persons are mentioned while in the DD No. 56 A and the chargesheet 5 persons are mentioned and in the evidence of Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) she could not tell the number and Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has deposed that they were 2-3 boys.
95. The discrepancy in the place of incident is not explained by the prosecution as Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has deposed that it was outside her jhuggi while Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) has deposed that it was inside her jhuggi.
96. Mr. Rafique (not examined) saw 2-3 persons running from the side of her jhuggi towards the railway track and one was holding a knife whom he recognized as Sharukh @ Farukh while the case is against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola (facing trial) and another accused namely Mr. Anna, who is not arrested.
97. The prosecution has failed produce and examine Mr. Rafique being untraceable due to which the call and the statement on which the prosecution story was set into motion have not been proved by the prosecution and the same serves a fatal blow to the prosecution case. Mr. Rafique, who made a call to the PCR and gave the statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered, has although been cited as Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 39 of 55 :-
a prosecution witness but was not produced nor examined by the prosecution as he was untraceable.
98. Further, the discrepancy in the statement of Mr. Rafique (wherein 2- 3 persons are mentioned) and the DD No. 56 A and the chargesheet (wherein 5 persons are mentioned) is not explained by the prosecution.
99. Also there is a glaring discrepancy in the statement of Mr. Rafique (wherein one person was carrying a knife are mentioned) and the arrest of two persons from whom one buttondar knife each was recovered allegedly used in the commission of offences and the same has not been explained by the prosecution.
100. Also, there is no mention about Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli in the statement of Mr. Rafique as well as the FIR or that he was also injured in the incident. This has also not been explained by the prosecution.
101. The prosecution has failed to associate and examine some material witnesses whose evidence may have assisted in Court in the adjudication.
102. Mr. Rafique, brother of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1), who resides in the nearby jhuggie, came to spot and he informed the police, has neither been produced nor examined by the prosecution. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution regarding this lapse.
103. The mother and daughter of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 40 of 55 :-
(PW-1), who were present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident, The neighbours of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1), the man who was present in the jhuggie and left when victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) came, have neither been associated in the investigation nor produced in the Court nor examined by the prosecution.
104. No independent persons from the public was associated at the time of recovery of the alleged weapons of offence from the accused persons. Although the public persons and the mother of accused Mr. Sharukh @ Bhola were available but they were not joined in the investigation.
105. Also, at the time of arrest of accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau no independent person from the public, despite being available, was joined in the investigation.
106. The investigation is silent in respect of the investigation conducted in respect of another accused Mr. Anna, who has not been arrested.
107. The prosecution has failed to furnish the details of the employer lady advocate of victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) and has failed to associate her in the investigation as well as failed to produce and examine her.
108. The prosecution has failed to furnish the details of Mr. Faraz and has failed to associate him in the investigation as well as failed to produce and examine him although victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) has deposed that "...I was taken from Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 41 of 55 :-
Nizamuddin to Jaitpur by my some known person namely Faraz in a car..."
109. Dr. Megha K. who had medical examined Ms. Monu wife of Mr. Allah Khan, Dr. Anisha, who had given the opinion on the injuries of Ms. Monu wife of Mr. Allah Khan and Dr. Madiha Anjum, who prepared the discharge summary, have not been produced nor examined by the prosecution.
110. The independent public witnesses who were available at the time of arrest of accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and the workers at the Parking No. 31, Sunder Nagri, Opposite Mandoli Jail, Delhi from where he was apprehended have not been associated in the investigation nor produced nor examined by the prosecution.
111. One mobile phone was allegedly recovered the instance of accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola which was used for communication between the accused but the same has not been produced in evidence nor proved by the prosecution. ASI Pankaj (PW-9) has deposed that "...He also got recovered one mobile phone from the taand (upper cupboard) of the room. The said mobile phone was used by the accused in communication with his co-accused persons. The said mobile phone was seized..."
112. SI Deependra (PW-10) has deposed that "It is correct that as per the CDR of the mobile phone, only the area of location can be ascertained. I did not obtain the CDR of mobile of injured Mohd. Hashim... It is correct that no CCTV Footage was found in the area showing presence of accused persons or running from there. It is correct that in the statement of mohd. Rafique Ex. PW-10/A it is Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 42 of 55 :-
mentioned that eak shaksh jiske haath me chakoo tha. It is correct that in statement of Mohd. Rafique there is no mention of name of accused Sameer or another knife. It is correct that at the time of arrest of accused Sameer @ Pachau injured and the complainant were not present. It is also correct that they were also not present at the time of alleged recovery of weapons of offence. Mother of Shahrukh was present in the house and she was not joined as witness in the recovery proceedings of knife and mobile phone..."
113. Neither the CDRs and location charts of the mobile phones of both the injured persons, of Mr. Rafique as well as both the accused persons have been produced and proved. The mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola has not been produced in the Court nor its CDR and location chart have been proved in evidence by the prosecution.
114. Mr. Rafique, brother of victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has not mentioned in his statement about the name of accused Sameer or another knife stating that one person who was holding a knife was there. When there was only one culprit then how accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau was apprehended and a knife also recovered from him and the name of accused Mr. Anna (not arrested) surfaced has not been explained by the prosecution.
115. It is also not explained why victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) did not call the police or the PCR when the alleged incident had occurred.
116. The prosecution has not explained why the CCTV footages of all the relevant places i.e. the place of incidence, the place of Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 43 of 55 :-
apprehension of the accused persons, the place of recovery of the alleged weapons of offence, etc. were not obtained and produced in evidence.
117. No cogent or convincing reason is shown by the prosecution in respect of the above lapses and overwhelming discrepancies in the investigation.
118. It is relevant to mention here again that the alleged weapons of offence were recovered subsequently and separate FIRs regarding both the accused persons being found in their unlawful possession should have been registered. However, no explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why separate FIRs were not registered and the chargesheet of the present case with Arms Act also added was filed.
119. It is clear from the record that the investigation has not been properly conducted in the present matter and much was left in the same. All the lapses, as detailed above, indicate that both the accused persons merit to be acquitted.
120. The prosecution has failed to examine some very material witnesses, as mentioned above, and this lapse gives a severe blow to the prosecution case. By not citing, producing and examining the said material witnesses, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against both the accused persons.
121. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v. State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 that undoubtedly, heinous Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 44 of 55 :-
crimes are committed under great secrecy and that investigation of a crime is a difficult and tedious task. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has taken the accused for ride and trampled upon his fundamental personal liberty and lugged him in the capital offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC by freely fabricating evidence against the innocent. The liberty of a citizen is precious and its deprivation shall be only in accordance with law. Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.302 IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e. Central or State Governments to organize periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
122. Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and Mr. Mohd. Hashim (PW-2) are the injured persons. Dr. Sukanya Bhatt (PW-3) has proved the MLC of Ms. Monu wife of Mr. Allah Khan prepared by Dr. Megha K and discharge summary prepared by Dr. Madiha Anjum. ASI Ramesh (PW-4) is the Duty Officer who has registered the FIR. SI Ankit Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 45 of 55 :-
(PW-5) has filed the supplementary charge-sheet qua FSL result. Dr. Abuzer Kamaluddin (PW-6) had given first aid and made dressing of patient Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli. Dr. Suminder Kaur (PW-7) had prepared the FSL report. Ct. Parveen (PW-8) and ASI Pankaj (PW-9) had joined the investigation with IO SI Deependra (PW-10). SI Deependra (PW-10) is the Investigation Officer.
123. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has been conducted properly, fairly and impartially. Victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) is hostile; evidence of victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) is not reliable; medical and forensic evidence are incomplete and not incriminating; evidence of police witnesses is not sufficient; there are numerous glaring lapses and overwhelming discrepancies in the investigation which make the same unreliable.
124. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, no conclusive evidence has been come forth which would prove that on 26.12.2021 at about 09:26 pm at Jhuggi No. 49, Silver Oak Park, near Jungpura Metro Station, New Delhi, both the accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola along with co- accused Anna (who has not been arrested so far) entered in the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begam, threatened her and her friend Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli and both the accused persons took out knives and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola exhorted accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau to kill them. Thereafter, their co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested) caught hold the throat of Ms. Monu Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 46 of 55 :-
Begam and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola stabbed multiple times upon her chest, neck and breast and accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau stabbed Mr. Hashim @ Hulli on his stomach with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they both caused death of aforesaid persons, they both would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is no conclusive evidence to show that on 31.12.2021 in front of Mandoli Jail Complex, near SDM Toilet, Sunder Nagar Road, Delhi, accused Sameer @ Pachau was apprehended and during his personal search, one buttondar knife was found from his possession without having any license or permission. Also, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that on 03.01.2022, accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola, while he was in police custody, led the police party to H. No. I-198,1st Floor, Sunder Nagari, Delhi and got recovered one buttondar knife which was found in his possession without having any license or permission.
125. It must be mentioned here again that the prosecution story is unreliable and not worthy of credence, as discussed above. It would have been appropriate that these lapses were not committed considering the gravity of the case.
126. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation.
Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important.
127. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 47 of 55 :-
the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
128. In the present case, the investigation is bad and shoddy.
Weapons of offence were neither produced before the doctors to ascertain whether or not the injury could be caused using the same and whether or not there were any finger prints of the accused on the same; recovery of weapons of offence appear manipulated and planted; most material witness i.e. victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has not supported the case; evidence of victim/injured/eye witness Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) is not reliable; independent public witnesses have not been associated in the investigation; medical and forensic evidence is not complete, etc.; lapses and discrepancies in the investigation and evidence have not been explained;
129. It is clear from the record that the investigation, in the present case, has not been conducted fairly and properly and the evidence of the prosecution is not worthy of credence nor is reliable.
Mens rea and defence of the accused
130. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 48 of 55 :-
131. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and un- amenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
132. In the present case, a story has been projected that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have committed the alleged offences. This version appears to be untrue as there is no reason why he would do so. No reason is shown by the prosecution as to why the accused would jeopardize his future. Admittedly there was no dispute or enmity between both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola and complainant/victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and injured Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) . In fact, the complainant/victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has completely absolved both the accused persons by not deposing anything incriminating against them.
133. There is nothing on the record to show that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have committed the offences, as alleged by the prosecution. They Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 49 of 55 :-
are mature and capable of understanding the implications of their acts. They have completely denied committing the offences.
134. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
135. There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on the part of both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola.
136. In their respective statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
137. There is no medical and forensic evidence against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola. There is no direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. The recovery of the weapons of offence i.e. two buttondar knives appears to be manipulated by the police, as discussed above. Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 50 of 55 :-
It is also clear while discussing the evidence of the prosecution, as above, that the prosecution version is neither reliable nor believable.
138. In the judgment Partap v. The State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 966 has reported that the burden is on the accused to establish a plea of self defence and that on the prosecution to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability.
139. The defence of the accused of innocence although is not proved by them as they have not led any defence evidence but considering the unreliable evidence of the prosecution which suffers from overwhelming contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, the prosecution version is neither believable nor reliable nor trust worthy.
140. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.
141. Therefore, as the prosecution version is unreliable and unbelievable that both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola have committed the alleged offences, the defence of the accused of innocence appears to be plausible that they have not committed any offence.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 51 of 55 :-
Final conclusion
142. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola. The most material witness i.e. complainant/injured/victim Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has not deposed an iota of evidence against both the accused persons. Mr. Evidence of injured/victim/eye witness Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) is not reliable. The medical and forensic evidence cannot be taken into consideration against them. The evidence of the police witnesses is not sufficient for convicting the accused. There are several glaring lapses and overwhelming inconsistencies and discrepancies in the investigation. There is nothing brought on the record to show that the accused persons have committed the charged offences under sections 307/452/34 of the IPC and under section 25 of the Arms Act.
143. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites 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;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 52 of 55 :-
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.
144. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the evidence of the prosecution, especially victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and victim/injured/eye witness Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2), is neither reliable nor believable nor trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the case of attempt to commit murder, of house trespass and of being in possession of buttondar knives. The prosecution evidence is not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
145. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola for the offences punishable under Sections 307/452/34 of the IPC and under section 25 of the Arms Act which primarily rested on the testimony of its most material witness i.e. complainant/injured/victim Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) and injured/victim/eye witness Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2). Victim/injured Ms. Monu Begum (PW-1) has not deposed an iota of evidence against both the accused persons and she turned hostile. Despite being cross-examined on behalf of the State, the star witness of the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case at all. Evidence of victim/injured/eye witness Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli (PW-2) is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on the same. The evidence of the other witnesses is insufficient for proving the charge, as already discussed above.
Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 53 of 55 :-
146. Considering the entire prosecution evidence, as discussed above, the prosecution has fallen short of the expectations and failed to prove its case against both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola.
147. The prosecution has failed to prove that on 26.12.2021 at about 09:26 pm at Jhuggi No. 49, Silver Oak Park, near Jungpura Metro Station, New Delhi, both the accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola along with co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested so far) entered in the jhuggi of Ms. Monu Begam, threatened her and her friend Mr. Mohd. Hashim @ Hulli and both the accused persons took out knives and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola exhorted accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau to kill them. Thereafter, their co-accused Anna (who has not been arrested) caught hold the throat of Ms. Monu Begam and accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola stabbed multiple times upon her chest, neck and breast and accused Mr. Sameer @ Pachau stabbed Mr. Hashim @ Hulli on his stomach with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they both caused death of aforesaid persons, they both would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is no conclusive evidence to show that on 31.12.2021 in front of Mandoli Jail Complex, near SDM Toilet, Sunder Nagar Road, Delhi, accused Sameer @ Pachau was apprehended and during his personal search, one buttondar knife was found from his possession without having any license or permission. Also, there is no conclusive evidence to prove that on 03.01.2022, accused Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola, while he was in police custody, led the police party to H. No. I-198,1st Floor, Sunder Nagari, Delhi and got recovered one buttondar knife which was found in his possession without having any license or permission. Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 54 of 55 :-
148. Consequently, both the accused persons namely Mr. Sameer @ Pachau and Mr. Shahrukh @ Bhola are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under sections 307/452/34 of the IPC and offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act.
149. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
150. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
151. One copy of the judgment be given to the Chief Public Prosecutor for the State (Officiating), as requested.
152. One copy of the judgment be given to the Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, as requested.
153. Before parting, it is relevant to bring on record, the able assistance provided by the Chief Public Prosecutor for the State (Officiating) and the Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for expeditious disposal of the case.
154. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA room. ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.17 12:22:40 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 30th day of March, 2026. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 30.03.2026. (A) Judgment uploaded on 17.04.2026.
*********************************************************** Sessions Case No. 324 of 2022.
FIR No.: 227 of 2021.
Under Sections: 307/34 of the IPC & 25/27 of the Arms Act. PS : Lodhi Colony.
State versus Sameer @ Pachau and another. -: Page 55 of 55 :-