Delhi District Court
State vs . Shadab @ Salman on 16 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 98/2019
FIR No.: 256/2018
U/Sec. : 392/397/34 IPC
PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin
Date of Institution : 26.02.2019
Date of Judgment reserved on : 05.09.2022
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2022
Brief Details Of The Case
Case Number : 98/2019
Offence complained of : U/Sec. 392/397/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 07.09.2018
Name of the complainant : Ankit Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma
R/o C-3/118, Yamuna
Vihar, New Delhi-110053.
Name of the accused : Shadab @ Salman
S/o Nawab Ali
R/o 249, Near Ilyas Dairy
Police Chowki, Karan Gate
Village Pasonda
PS- Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.
Uttar Pradesh.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date of Judgment/ Order : 16.09.2022.
SC No. 98/2019 1 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
JUDGMENT
1. Accused namely Shadab faced trial for offences punishable U/Sec. 392/397/34 IPC.
2. As per chargesheet, ASI Satender Kumar alongwith Ct. Siya Ram after receiving DD No. 13A on 07.09.2008 reached at the spot i.e. Mathura Road, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, where they met PCR caller Ankit Sharma (hereinafter referred as 'complainant'). Complainant told them that he had called PCR through his mobile number 9643790049 regarding robbing. He furnished written complaint.
3. In his written complaint, complainant stated that on 07.09.2018, he was coming to his home by riding Activa Bike No. DL5S AW 4188. When he reached in front of Sunder Nagar Bus Stop, around 1.30 pm, two persons of strong built came on motorcycle from back side and signaled him to stop his vehicle. Thereafter, complainant stopped his vehicle. The pillion rider of the said motorcycle got down and robbed gold chain, scooter key and ring of complainant on gun point. Consequently, they fled away on their motorcycle and complainant noted registration number of said motorcycle as DL1S CQ 3574, Suzuki Jikkser which was of Dark Grey Colour. He prayed legal action action against the said assailants. Based on said complaint, FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued.
SC No. 98/2019 2 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
4. During investigation, ASI Satender prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and checked CCTV camera installed at the spot of incident but did not find the said assailants in the recording of said CCTV camera. He recorded the statement of complainant u/sec. 161 CrPC. The bike of assailants was checked from the transport authority which reported that said authority had not issued any bike with the series of 1SCQ and concluded that the bike number of bike of assailants was false. On 17.10.2018, DD No. 17B, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin (In short 'H.N.Din') was received, vide which it was informed that accused Shadab @ Salman was arrested in FIR No. 286/18 u/sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act, PS- H.N.Din and he had made disclosure regarding commission of crime, in this case. Consequently, accused Shadab @ Salman made disclosure statement which was recorded. In his disclosure statement accused Shadab @ Salman stated that he had robbed one person about one month back on Mathura Road around 1.30 pm in collusion with co-accused Shahid Anwar @ Bambiya. Based on said disclosure statement, IO searched for co-accused Shahid @ Bambiya but could not locate him. So far as accused Shadab @ Salman is concerned, he was identified by complainant in judicial TIP proceedings. IO concluded investigation by stating that he will file supplementary charge-sheet once whereabouts of co-accused Anwar @ Bambiya are known to him. Based on said investigation, accused Shadab @ Salman was charge-sheeted u/sec. 392/397/34 IPC.
5. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against accused under section 392/397/34 IPC.
SC No. 98/2019 3 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
6. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of offences. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and then matter was committed to this court as per law.
7. Consequent to the receiving of this matter, arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable under section 392/397/34 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. Prosecution examined six (06) witnesses, in total.
9. PW1- ASI Arvind Kumar, had deposed that on 07.09.2018, at about 6.45 pm, he received a rukka through Ct. Sia Ram which was sent by ASI Satender. On the basis of same, he recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. Further, after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Sia Ram to handover the same to ASI Satender for further investigation. Certificate u/sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act qua said FIR is Ex.PW1/C.
10. PW2- Ravinder, had deposed that he was the proprietor of shop in the name of M/s. Shri Saraswati Jewellers at C-3/336, Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi. He had seen two bills of said shop Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, as per which, PW2 made one finger gold ring and gold chain for Ankit Sharma.
SC No. 98/2019 4 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
11. PW3- Ankit Sharma, had deposed that on 07.09.2018, when he was going towards his office at Lajpat Nagar from Yamuna Vihar on his scooty no. DL5S AW 4188, he observed that at about 1.30 pm, accused alongwith his associate on bike no. DL1S CQ 3574 were following him, when he near bus stand, Sunder Nagar, suddenly the said motorcycle driver gave signal to stop his vehicle and PW3 stopped his scooty.
12. PW3, had deposed that pillion of said motorcycle got down from the said bike and robbed his gold chain and gold ring by showing him a silver colour gun/ pistol. Accused had also threatened him to kill if he would raise alarm and also asked him to handover his gold ring otherwise, accused would cut his finger. Thereafter, he removed the gold ring from his finger. Accused also snatched the gold chain from the neck of PW3. Meanwhile, the driver of said motorcycle kept on sitting on the said motorcycle. Accused snatched the key of his scooty and took the same in his possession.
13. PW3, had deposed further that after robbing him, both assailants fled away towards the side of redlight of DPS. Thereafter, he informed the police from his mobile phone. Police reached there and he narrated the facts to the police with motorcycle number. He made written complaint Ex.PW3/A. Site Plan was prepared at his instance Ex.PW3/B. Bills of robbed gold ring and gold chain handed over to police Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He identified accused in the court, when he was presented in court stating that he was main accused who was the pillion rider and had robbed him by pointing out pistol at him.
SC No. 98/2019 5 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
14. PW4- ASI Ravinder Kumar, had deposed that on 16.10.2018, FIR No. 286/18 was got registered and he interrogated accused regarding his involvement in this case. He recorded disclosure statement of accused 'Mark X'. He correctly identified accused in the court. He also identified copy of arrest memo is 'Mark Y'.
15. PW5- Ct. Sia Ram, had deposed that on 07.09.2018 at about 2.10 pm, he had joined investigation with IO ASI Satender and reached at the spot i.e. Chidia Ghar Road, Sunder Nagar, Mathura Road, Delhi. There complainant Ankit Sharma was already present there. PCR Van also present there. One scooty was also found present at the spot. They went to trace out the CCTV footage near the spot. Statement of complainant was recorded and rukka was prepared. FIR was got registered.
16. PW6- SI Satender Kumar, had deposed that on 07.09.2018, at about 02.10 pm, on receiving DD No.13A Ex.PW6/A regarding robbery occurred at Chidyaghaat Sunder Nagar, Mathura Road, he along with Ct. Sia Ram reached at the above mentioned spot where complainant Ankit Sharma met them. PCR van was also present there. Complainant Ankit Sharma stated regarding fact of robbery orally. Scooty of the complainant was also found present there. Ct. Sia Ram was directed to remain at spot and he along with complainant went near DPS Mathura Road for search of cctv footage near spot.
SC No. 98/2019 6 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
17. PW6, had further deposed that after inquiry, he found that CCTV footage was installed towards the road was not in working condition. He also checked the cctv footage of Oberoi Hotel which was also near the spot. Footage of said hotel was also not working. He also checked CCTV footage of P.S .Nizamuddin which was installed towards road. Said footage was found in working condition but no clue was found. He along with complainant reached at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A.
18. PW6 had further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/B and site plan at the instance of complainant vide memo Ex.PW3/B. FIR was registered and after registration of the case, he recorded the statement of the complainant. He got verified motorcycle of accused bearing no.DL1SCQ 3574 from the concerned authority and it was found unregistered.
19. PW6 had further deposed that on 17.10.2018, he received DD No. 13A Ex.PW6/C regarding arrest of accused in FIR No. 286/2018 U/Sec. 27 Arms Act, P.S. H.N. Din, by Special Staff, South-District. He reached at the above mentioned office of special staff where ASI Ravinder met him and he handed over the photocopy of document pertaining to FIR 286/2018. He seized the same.
20. PW6 had further deposed that on 18.10.2018, he moved an application before the court concerned for production of accused, which was allowed but accused was not produced. Again an application for SC No. 98/2019 7 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman interrogation and arrest was moved, which was allowed. He went to Tihar Jail No. 1 and interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/D.
21. PW6 had further deposed that on next day, accused was produced before the court concerned in muffled face for conducting TIP proceedings. TIP was got conducted and complainant correctly identified accused during TIP proceedings. PW6 had furtehr deposed that he had recorded supplementary statement of complainant. Complainant handed over him the bills of robbed articles i.e. gold chain and gold ring Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B. Same was got verified and found genuine. He further deposed that during investigation, he went to Meerut for arrest of co-accused but he was not found traceable. During investigation of this case, he recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet and filed before the court. Accused was correctly identified by the witness, when produced in the court.
22. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed his evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
23. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused separately which he denied. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case and that he was innocent. He did not prefer to lead defence evidence. Matter was therefore, fixed for final arguments.
SC No. 98/2019 8 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
24. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
25. Now, question which needs to be addressed is whether prosecution was able to prove ingredients of offences, with which accused was charged ?
26. In order to decide above question, I have to appreciate evidence brought on record by prosecution. Here, I must mention, relevant law regarding appreciation of evidence.
27. Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstances, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers from some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial Uestq for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Infirmity in some aspect or other or this prosecution case cannot invalidate the culpability which is otherwise veraciously made out. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Inder Singh & Anr Versus State, AIR 1978 SC 1091.
28. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
SC No. 98/2019 9 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, 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 then undoubtedly it is 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 earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and 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. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
SC No. 98/2019 10 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
29. So, it is clear that evidence brought by the parties to a litigation, has to be appreciated, as a whole and not in piecemeal. Endeavour should be to appreciate the evidence, by considering the circumstances, in a holistic manner. Minor discrepancies, not affecting the root of the matter must be avoided, from consideration. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
30. Before jumping on to the evidence, I must revisit the case of prosecution and the probable defence of accused, in brief, in order to better understand the same.
31. In brief, case of prosecution was that complainant i.e. PW1 was robbed by accused and co-accused on 07.09.2018 around 1.30 pm. In the said robbery, accused had snatched away gold chain, ring and scooty key of complainant and thereafter, had fled away from the spot, which was in front of Sunder Nagar, Bus Stop. Accused and co-accused had fled away in their motorcycle bearing No. DL1SCQ 3574, Suzuki Jikkser, which was noted down by complainant.
32. Per contra, accused claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case.
33. It is the said two diametrically opposite claims, which have to be appreciated by me, on the basis of appreciation of evidence.
SC No. 98/2019 11 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
34. Prosecution had examined six witnesses in total. PW3- Ankit Sharma was the complainant. It was his testimony which formed the fulcrum around which whole of prosecution version revolved. Appreciation of his testimony, therefore is of great significance.
35. PW3 in his examination-in-chief, deposed certain facts before the court regarding the manner in which he was robbed on 07.09.2018. Those facts were not mentioned by him in his complaint Ex.PW3/A. Those facts are mentioned below :-
➢ That two persons had followed him on bike bearing no. DL1SCQ 3574.
➢ That pillion rider of the said bike had shown complainant a silver colour gun/ pistol.
➢ That pillion rider had threatened complainant that in case, complainant would raise alarm, he would be killed. ➢ That pillion rider had threatened complainant to handover his gold ring otherwise, he would cut finger of complainant.
36. Above highlighted facts were material facts which clearly indicated that complainant improved his version. Complainant did not explain as to why he made said improvements. In the absence of any explanation regarding the same, his testimony became doubtful.
37. Moving further, complainant in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had written complaint Ex.PW3/A which was given to police but in his cross-examination, he took u-turn by deposing that it was his friend Nitin Srivastava who had written the complaint on his SC No. 98/2019 12 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman dictation. Complainant made contradictory deposition regarding preparation of site plan by IO. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that site plan Ex.PW3/B was prepared by IO at his instance, whereas in his cross-examination, he deposed that said site plan was not prepared by police at his instance. Such u-turns, made his testimony doubtful, further.
38. Moving further, I find that complainant deposed in his cross- examination that after the incident, he called police at 100 number and then went to police station. Subsequently, he went to his office around 7.30 pm. As per him, he had gone to police station alongwith his colleagues Nitin Srivastava, Manmohan Singh and his Boss Mrs. Parul Nanda. Now, said chain of events was not mentioned in charge-sheet. Details of said colleagues of complainant and boss of complainant were also absent in charge-sheet. There was no reference of complainant going to police station and thereafter to his office, in the charge-sheet. Therefore, said facts materially improved the prosecution version, making testimony of this witness doubtful.
39. Complainant also deposed in his cross-examination that police official had written his complaint, based on his dication, which was torn by said police official. He further deposed that on his dictation, his colleague Nitin Srivastava wrote down the complaint. Now, questions arise viz., why police official tore the complaint, why complainant himself did not write the complaint, from where Nitin Srivastava reached at the spot or to the police station and why Nitin Srivastava SC No. 98/2019 13 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman wrote complaint on behalf of complainant. All the said questions were never answered by this witness or any other prosecution witnesses. It made testimony of this witness doubtful.
40. PW3 in his testimony deposed that he was carrying two mobile phones and when accused was robbing him, he told accused persons that he will remove SIM Cards from said mobile phones, but concerned assailants without taking mobile phones fled away from the spot. It was strange. Reason being that as per complainant, accused had snatched his gold chain, ring and scooty key. So, there was nothing, which was stopping accused from snatching mobile phones of complainant. It is all the more strange, that complainant had time and patience to tell accused that accused can take away his mobile phones after he was given liberty to remove SIM Cards. The conduct of complainant, therefore, was highly unbelievable. If he was scared of accused persons, as projected by prosecution story, he would not have told accused persons regarding removal of SIM cards in the manner mentioned above. So, said deposition made his testimony untrustworthy.
41. This brings me to the identity of accused. Complainant in his cross-examination deposed that accused and other co-accused were wearing helmets at the time of incident. He further explained that accused and co-accused were wearing short helmets and part of their faces was visible. Now, that fact again was a material improvement in the testimony of complainant. Reference to helmets was never made by SC No. 98/2019 14 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman complainant in his complaint Ex.PW3/A. Coupled with the same, there was no explanation regarding "short helmets" as claimed by complainant, in the charge-sheet. The colour of said helmets, the length and breadth of said helmets and likewise other details were never explained in charge-sheet. Infact, complainant had deposed that he had seen part of face of accused. If that version is to be believed to be true, then it means that complainant had not seen complete face of accused. If that is so, then identification of accused by complainant in the court and during TIP proceedings, appeared to have been done, at the instance of police. There is no other possibility, in such circumstances.
42. Further, complainant deposed that place of occurrence was covered by CCTV Camera but said camera was not working. As per him, Oberoi Hotel, which was near place of incident had CCTV Camera installed but that camera did not record accused, involved in alleged incident. Absence of coverage in camera installed in Oberoi Hotel regarding alleged incident, also did not make his testimony believable.
43. Complainant in his testimony deposed that robbed jewellery was purchased by him, two years prior to incident in question. He identified receipts Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, being the receipts, based on which he had purchased jewellery which was robbed by accused. Now, he had deposed that he had purchased said jewellery, two years prior to incident in question. As such, incident in question had occurred on 07.09.2018. It means that jewellery, as referred by complainant must have been purchased in the year 2016 or 2015. Surprisingly, receipts SC No. 98/2019 15 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B noted dates of 09.09.97 and 25.09.2. Those dates as such, did not match the time period when jewellery in question was purchased by complainant. Infact, the person who had prepared said receipts, was never examined by prosecution. Chances of said receipts being false, cannot be ruled out. I disbelieved those receipts, for said reasons.
44. Lastly, complainant had deposed that he had noted down the bike number of assailants after the incident. Neither in his complaint Ex.PW3/A nor in his testimony before the court, he explained as to how he had noted down the said bike number. It was not his case that he had remembered the said bike number. It was not his case that he had noted down said bike number on some paper or some hard surface in any particular manner. Therefore, reference to the bike involved in this case being driven by co-accused on which accused was sitting as pillion rider, appeared to be planted.
45. Complainant in his testimony had also deposed that SHO PS- H.N. Din had sent him 2/3 photographs for identification, through WhatsApp within a week of incident but he could not identify accused in the said photographs. That deposition indicated possibility of accused being shown by IO to complainant, prior to TIP, making him a tutored witness.
SC No. 98/2019 16 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
46. Thus, in the wake of above appreciation of testimony of complainant, I found the same to be unbelievable. I found him to be a tutored witness, at the instance of police. Accordingly, I disbelieved his testimony being untrustworthy.
47. Prosecution examined PW2- Ravinder in evidence. This witness deposed that he was the proprietor of shop under the name and style of M/s. Shri Saraswati Jewellers at C-3/336, Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi. He identified bills Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A which pertained to one gold ring and one gold chain belonging to complainant.
48. PW2 in his testimony deposed that he lived near the house of complainant. So, there arose possibility of him being a tutored witness, who had come to depose, at the instance of complainant.
49. Further, PW2 deposed that he did not recollect as to when he had sold jewellery to complainant. He deposed after seeing Ex.PW2/B that he cannot say as to when he had sold jewellery to complainant. Those facts indicated possibility of bills being falsely made, in order to somehow implicate accused in this case.
50. Further, as per PW2 date mentioned on Ex.PW2/B was 25.09. So, it was an incomplete date which made the said bill doubtful.
SC No. 98/2019 17 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman
51. As per PW2, date mentioned on Ex.PW2/A was 09.09.2017. Now, incident in question had occurred in 2018 and as per complainant he had purchased jewellery, two years prior to 2018, which means that jewellery was purchased by complainant in 2016. So, above date of 09.09.2017 did not probablize the fact regarding purchase of jewellery by complainant due to discrepancy in date. Even otherwise, I did not read the date on said bill Ex.PW2/A as 09.09.2017. I read the date in said bill as 09.09.1997 based on the manner digits were written on the said bill.
52. PW2 did not furnish any government record, regarding him being owner of M/s. Shri Saraswati Jewellers. He did not furnish his identity card. He did not furnish any record regarding receiving of amount as mentioned in bills Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B from complainant. So, he failed to prove the fact that complainant had purchased jewellery items from him. I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy in nature, on the basis of above mentioned appreciation.
53. This brings me to the aspect of investigation.
54. PW6- SI Satender Kumar was the IO in this case. As such, he did not make effort to trace out the helmets allegedly used by accused persons or the gun which was shown by accused to complainant for robbing him. His testimony further revealed that despite the fact that place of occurrence was a public place, he did not make any effort to join public persons. He did not issue any notice to public persons for SC No. 98/2019 18 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman joining investigation. He did not make any record of colleagues of complainant who had accompanied him to police station for lodging FIR. Infact, his testimony revealed that as such, complainant was alone when FIR in question was registered. Therefore, he did not perform his duty diligently and filed charge-sheet in a mechanical manner.
55. Further, PW6 did not explain as to why he did not prepare site plan Ex.PW3/B based on scale. That site plan appeared to have been made, based on estimation. If version of complainant is to be believed, then said site plan was prepared by him, without any directions by complainant. It made the said site plan doubtful. I discarded it according.
56. PW6 did not investigate the matter with regard to veracity to jewellery receipts Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B which were furnished by complainant. I failed to understand, as to why he believed the said receipts to be true, just like that, on the mere furnishing of complainant. The testimony of PW2, who was allegedly owner of the shop from where, complainant had purchased jewellery items, involved in this case, is already discarded by me. In such circumstances, PW6 should have verified the said receipts by going to the concerned government department, for verifying the status of M/s. Shri Saraswati Jewellers, and also for verifying the alleged transcations between complainant and proprietor of M/s. Shri Saraswati Jewellers. It was not done. Infact, in his testimony, he deposed that he had verified the said bills but did not give details of manner in which he had done said verification. It made SC No. 98/2019 19 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman the verification aspect, a bald plea, which I did not believe. Therefore, his investigation, was incomplete.
57. PW6 in his testimony, simply deposed that CCTV footage of the cameras installed near the spot were not in working conditions. He did not file details of said places where said CCTV cameras were installed. He did not file any proof regarding the fact that said cameras were not working at the time of incident in question. Therefore, his investigation remained a farce.
58. PW6 did not prepare sketch of accused during investigation, at the instance of complainant. Once, complainant in his complaint Ex.PW3/A had stated that assailants were strongly built, he should have asked complainant details of said assailants. It was not done by him. Infact, he deposed that complainant had not told him about physical description of accused. That fact was contrary to the contents of complaint Ex.PW3/A where it was noted that accused persons were of strong built.
59. Thus, IO failed to perform his duty diligently. I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy in nature.
60. PW5- Ct. Siya Ram had accompanied IO to the spot of incident and had got the FIR in question registered. In his testimony, he failed to remember the time when he had returned to the spot after registration of FIR in question. As per him, complainant had written his SC No. 98/2019 20 of 21 State Vs. Shadab @ Salman complaint, in his own handwriting, which is contrary to the version of complainant himself as complainant had deposed that his complaint was written by his friend Nitin Srivastava. Therefore, his testimony did not inspire my confidence. I discarded it accordingly.
61. Rest of the police witnesses were formal in nature. Their testimonies, even if believed to be true, did not implicate accused with alleged offences. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies being inconsequential in nature.
62. Thus, testimonies of prosecution witnesses, were neither trustworthy nor reliable. IO failed to recover the weapon of offence. The manner in which, complaint in question was registered remained doubtful. Conduct of prosecution witnesses also was not trustworthy. Details of appearance of accused were absent in charge-sheet. Prosecution thus failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.
63. Accused on the other hand, was successful in raising probable defence of him being falsely implicated in this case.
64. Accused is therefore, acquitted of offences punishable u/sec. 392/397/34 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court Today
[PRASHANT SHARMA]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
16.09.2022
SC No. 98/2019 21 of 21
State Vs. Shadab @ Salman