Delhi District Court
State vs Rizwan on 24 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44609/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015
FIR No. 739/2015
PS Khajuri Khas
U/s 364-A IPC, 1860
STATE VERSUS RIZWAN & ORS
Date of committal : 19.11.2015
Date of arguments : 10.02.2025
Date of judgment : 24.02.2025
Table of contents
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. Brief details of the case & memo of parties 2
2. Brief Case of the Prosecution 4
3. Prosecution Evidence 9
4. Admitted Documents & Plea of Accused Persons 34
5. Submissions made on behalf of the State 35
6. Submissions made on behalf of the Accused 37
Persons
7. Relevant Law & the Case Laws 43
8. Appreciation of Evidence 50
9. Conclusion & Findings 65
Digitally
signed by
(ATUL AHLAWAT) ATUL
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
ASJ (FTC)/North- 2025.02.24
10:39:25
East/KKD Courts/ +0530
Delhi/24.02.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 1/68
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44609/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015
FIR No. 739/2015
PS Khajuri Khas
U/s 364-A IPC, 1860
Brief details of the case and memo of parties
STATE VERSUS RIZWAN & ORS
Date of committal : 19.11.2015
Date of arguments : 10.02.2025
Date of judgment : 24.02.2025
Brief details of the case
A) Case FIR No. : 739/2015
B) Charges framed under section : 120-B IPC, 1860 and
364-A IPC, 1860 R/w
section 34 of IPC,
1860.
C) Name of the complainant : Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Radhe Sham
R/o RZM-82, Vijay Digitally
Enclave, Dabri ATUL
signed by
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:39:40
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 2/68
Village, Palam, New
Delhi-110045
D) Name of the accused persons : (1) Rizwan
S/o Sh. Shahabuddin
R/o Mohalla Ali
Khan, Chowk Siyana,
Dist. Bullandshahr,
UP.
(2) Rohit
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o H. No. 2027, Gali
No.2, Ankur Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Sherdeen @ Shera
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o H. No. 751,
Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
(4) Gulzar
S/o Late Sh. Ishlam
R/o H. No. 180, Arya
Nagar, Loni,
Ghaziabad, UP.
(5) Salim
S/o Sh. Shabbir
Ahmed
R/o H. No. 27, Gali
No. 24, Old
Mustafabad, Delhi. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:39:55
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 3/68
(6) Harun
S/o Sh. Subedin
R/o H. No. 1470, Gali
No. 16, Rajeev
Gandhi Nagar,
Mustafabad, Delhi
(Proceedings qua him
had abated vide order
dated 26.07.2022)
E) Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
F) Final Order : Acquittal
G) Date of Order : 24.02.2025
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on the 24th day of February, 2025) Brief Case of the Prosecution:
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on 13.07.2015, when complainant Anil Kumar had personally appeared before SHO PS Khajuri Khas and his statement, Ex. PW1/A was recorded by IO SI Arjun Singh.
2. In his statement, Ex. PW1/A, the complainant Anil Kumar had stated that on 12.07.2015, in the evening hours, he had received 4-5 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:03 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 4/68 +0530 missed calls on his mobile number 9136538384 from the mobile number of his father-in-law(sasur) Rajender Gupta, bearing mobile number 8447262963. At around 08:30 PM, he called back on the mobile phone of his father-in-law and some person picked up the said call and he introduced himself as "Shera". The said person told the complainant that they had abducted his father-in-law Rajender Gupta and if the complainant wants to ensure the safety and well being of his father-in- law, then he should bring Rs. 30,000/- in cash to Bhajanpura Chowk, as soon as possible or else they would eliminate his father-in-law.
3. In his statement, Ex. PW1/A, the complainant Anil Kumar had stated that as soon as he spoke over the phone with the alleged abductor, he immediately rushed to the house of his father-in-law situated at A-28, Gali No. 11, Part-III, 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and informed about the said call to his brother-in-law (sala) namely Pradeep Gupta.
Thereafter, he alongwith his brother in law went to the shop of his father- in-law situated in gali no.11, C-Block, Shri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas. His father-in-law was not found at the said shop and thereafter, he alongwith his brother-in-law made all possible efforts to find his father- in-law, however, no clue about his whereabouts were found.
4. In his statement, Ex. PW1/A, the complainant Anil Kumar had stated that when he could not find his father-in-law, the complainant came to the PS Khajuri Khas and informed the police officials about the said call and the ransom demand of Rs. 30,000/- made by the abductor over the phone. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:11 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 5/68
5. Upon the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A, the IO prepared the rukka, Ex. PW6/A and the Duty Officer ASI Shanti Lal made an endorsement, Ex. PW6/B on the said rukka and thereafter, the Duty Officer ASI Shanti Lal got the present case FIR, Ex. PW6/C u/s 364-A IPC, 1860 registered.
6. After the registration of the present case FIR, the investigation was marked to IO SI Arjun Singh and the IO prepared a raiding team consisting of the IO himself, the complainant Anil Kumar and other police staff. The raiding team left the PS for Bhajanpura Chowk in car bearing registration no. DL-4CAJ-3130 belonging to the complainant. They waited at Bhajanpura Chowk for quite sometime, however, no clue regarding the victim/abductee or the abductors was found. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant Anil Kumar, the IO and other members of the raiding staff reached Khajuri Chowk and thereafter, they reached near Wazirabad Bus Stand.
7. That while the IO and the members of the raiding team were waiting near Wazirabad Bus Stand, after lapse of considerable time, two boys came there and at the pointing out of the complainant Anil Kumar, the said boys were apprehended by the raiding team. During the interrogation, the said apprehended boys revealed their names to be Rizwan and Rohit. IO arrested them and recorded their disclosure statements, in which they had deposed that the victim Rajender Gupta was with their associates/accomplices near Loni Police Post, Ghaziabad Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:19 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 6/68 and they were told by their associates to pick up the money from the complainant, and after that they were supposed to meet back at Delhi Loni Bhaghpat Road.
8. Thereafter, the IO alongwith accused Rizwan and Rohit reached near Loni Police Post, wherein, the accused Rohit pointed out towards accused Harun (since deceased) as one of the abductors and the IO was informed by accused Rohit that the victim Rajender Gupta is in the custody of accused Harun. Thereafter, the IO apprehended accused Harun and his disclosure statement was recorded, in which he had stated that the victim Rajender Gupta was at the house of one Gulzar, situated at Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad.
9. Thereafter, IO alongwith his staff left for Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad and at H. No. 180, 60 Foota Road, near Neelam Factory, Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, victim Rajender Gupta was found locked inside a room situated on the left side of the said house. The IO managed to apprehend the owner of the said house, accused Gulzar. Accused Gulzar could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding the presence of the victim in his house and he was later arrested by the IO.
10. The victim Rajender Gupta and accused Rizwan, Rohit, Harun and Gulzar were brought back to the PS and the IO interrogated them separately. Thereafter, upon the disclosure of the accused persons, accused Salim was apprehended from Old Mustafabad, Delhi and later on his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:25 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 7/68 +0530
11. Thereafter, on 09.09.2015, accused Sherdeen @ Shera had surrendered before the Court of Ld. MM and thereafter, he was arrested in the present case after taking permission from the concerned Court. The IO moved an application for getting the judicial TIP of accused Sherdeen @ Shera conducted, however, he had refused to take part in the same.
12. As per the disclosure statements of accused persons, three more accomplices of theirs namely Naveen, Javed and Bobby were involved in the commission of the offence in question, however, they could not be traced. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the court of Ld. MM and after compliance of section 207/208 Cr.PC, 1973 the case was committed by the Court of Ld. MM before this Court on 19.11.2015.
13. Thereafter, the charges were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 11.01.2016 U/s 120-B IPC, 1860 and u/s 364-A R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and they had claimed trial. However, since, in the formal charges dated 11.01.2016, the signature of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court were missing and since the same could have been a result of a mere oversight, therefore, this Court exercised its suo-moto powers u/s 216 Cr.PC, 1973 and fresh amended formal charges were framed against accused Rizwan, Salim, Gulzar, Rohit and Sherdeen @ Shera.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:40:31
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 8/68
14. During the trial, accused Harun had expired and the proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 26.07.2022.
Prosecution Evidence:
15. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Fifteen (15) witnesses, including five Public Witnesses; one Forensic Witness; and nine Formal Witnesses including the two Investigating Officers.
16. Public Witnesses:
(16.1.1) PW-1 is Anil Kumar, who is the Complainant of the present case. He had deposed that on 12.07.2015, he noticed a missed call at 08:30 PM on his mobile phone having no. 9136538384 from the mobile phone of his father-in-law. He called back on the said number and one person picked up the said call and introduced himself to be Shera. He told PW1 that if he wanted to save the life of his father-in-law, then he should bring Rs. 1 lakh to him. Thereafter, PW1 and the said person agreed for Rs. 30,000/- to be the ransom amount.
(16.1.2) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that hearing about the kidnapping and ransom demand, he got really scared and he immediately made a telephonic call at the house of his father-in-law and made inquiries about his well being. The family members told him that his father-in-law could be at his shop. Thereafter, he spoke to his wife and informed her about the said telephonic call. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:38 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 9/68 (16.1.3) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that thereafter, he went to the house of his father-in-law and took his brother-in-law Pradeep along with him and they went to the shop of his father-in-law. Both PW1 and his brother-in-law Pradeep made inquiries in the vicinity, however, no clue about the whereabouts of his father-in-law were found. In the meantime, he received one more telephonic call from the said abductor Shera and after receiving the said call he went to PS Khajuri Khas and met the SHO and informed him about the abduction and ransom calls.
(16.1.4) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that the SHO PS Khajuri Khas deputed some 4-5 officials to go alongwith him, since, the kidnappers had called him to Khajuri area, under the flyover. In the meantime, he received further instructions from the abductor to drive the vehicle slowly and thereafter, they reached Wazirabad Bridge and as per the instructions, they stopped their vehicle at Wazirabad Bus Stand. At that time, 3 police officials were in the vehicle with him and two police officials were following them on their bike.
(16.1.5) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that the said police officials, who were on their bike, found the two persons who were talking to them over the phone. The said two persons were accused Rizwan and accused Rohit and both of them were correctly identified by PW1 at the time of his examination-in-chief before this Court.
(16.1.6) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that both accused Rizwan Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:40:45
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 10/68 and Rohit were taken to the PS and the IO interrogated them. During the said inquiry, they disclosed the names of their other accomplices. In the meanwhile, PW1 was receiving telephonic calls from Shera that his father-in-law would be killed and he was further told that IO had apprehended innocent persons in the present case. The said caller was hurling abuses upon the PW1 and was also extending threats to him.
(16.1.7) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that the IO recorded his statement, Ex. PW1/A. He alongwith his brother-in-law were in a Santro car. During the same night, police officials went to the house of the accused Salim, who was correctly identified by PW1, at the time of his examination-in-chief and he further deposed that the accused Salim had videographed his father-in-law. Thereafter, on the next morning the IO recovered one digital handicam and one mic.
(16.1.8) PW-1 Anil Kumar further deposed that accused Rohit, Rizwan and Salim were arrested by the IO in his presence and no other accused person was arrested in his presence. He further categorically deposed that he found his father-in-law in the PS Khajuri Khas, after he returned back there after taking a meal.
(16.1.9) PW-1 Anil Kumar was declared hostile by the Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, since, he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the IO, qua arrest of accused Harun and Gulzar. He admitted that the IO had recorded his supplementary statement, Ex. PW1/H on 13.07.2015, however, he categorically denied all the suggestions that he Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:40:50 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 11/68 alongwith the police raiding team left in search for his father-in-law and on the way accused Harun was arrested and at the pointing out of accused Harun, his father-in-law Rajender Gupta was recovered from Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad. Although, he admitted his signatures on the arrest memo of accused Harun and Gulzar, however, he categorically deposed that his signatures on their arrest memos and personal search memos were taken by the IO in the PS itself.
(16.1.10) PW-1 Anil Kumar during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Shera and Salim had deposed that he had never met the said caller "Shera" or heard his voice prior to the day, when he received the said phone call. He categorically deposed that it could have been possible that someone might have called by taking the name of Shera, instead of his own name.
(16.2.1) PW-2 is Rajender Gupta and he is the victim of the present case. He had deposed that on 12.07.2015, at around 06:00 PM, he received a phonecall on his mobile no. 8447262963 and he was called to Khajuri crossing. In pursuance of the said call, he went there and met a girl and 3-4 persons, who were on 2 motorcycles. The said persons forcibly took him on the motorcycle towards Bhajanpura and he was taken in a house situated near the temple and on the 3rd floor of the said house, he was given beatings. The said persons removed all the clothes that he was wearing, except for his banyan. The girl was also there and thereafter, they started demanding Rs. 1 lakh from him.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:40:56
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 12/68 (16.2.2) PW-2 Rajender Gupta had further deposed that the said abductors told him that if their demand of Rs. 1 lakh was not met, then they would put PW2 in prison, since, they represented themselves to be police officials.
(16.2.3) PW-2 Rajender Gupta had further deposed that he called his son-in-law Anil and his son-in-law picked up his call after he had called him around 3-4 times. He told his son-in-law to arrange the money and give the same to the abductors. One of the abductors, whose name he did not remember had spoken to his son-in-law over the telephone, when the demand of ransom was being made. He further categorically deposed that the said person who had spoken with his son-in-law was not amongst the accused persons, who were present in Court on 01.02.2016, when his examination-in-chief was being recorded.
(16.2.4) PW-2 Rajender Gupta had further deposed that the accused persons kept him wandering from one place to the other for sometime. Thereafter, he had again called his son-in-law and made the abductors talk to his son-in-law, so that he could be released. Thereafter, his son-in- law Anil alongwith some police officials came to a vacant plot situated at Loni, Ghaziabad and from the said vacant plot, he was recovered.
(16.2.5) PW-2 Rajender Gupta had correctly identified accused Rohit, Rizwan and Salim as the persons who had initially abducted him and he had further deposed that there were 2-3 other associates of the said accused persons, however, they were not arrested by the police and the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:03 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 13/68 said associates were not present in Court on 01.02.2016. He further categorically deposed that nothing was recovered by the police officials in his presence, from the house of the accused persons.
(16.2.6) PW-2 Rajender Gupta was declared hostile by Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State and he was subjected to detailed cross examination, in which he had admitted that the police officials made inquiries from him and his statement, Ex. PW2/A was recorded, however, he categorically denied the suggestion that the said statement was recorded by the IO in the room where he was confined by accused Rohit, Rizwan and Harun. He further categorically denied the suggestion that the said house belonged to accused Gulzar or that the police officials had arrested all the accused persons in his presence. He had voluntarily deposed that only accused Rohit, Rizwan and Salim were arrested in his presence.
(16.2.7) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State had deposed that the digital camera was not recovered by the IO in his presence, even though his signatures were taken on seizure memo, Ex. PW2/B. He further denied the suggestion that he had identified the culprit Shera in the PS, as the person who was talking to his son-in-law Anil and the accused Sherdeen @ Shera, who was present in Court was not the same person, who had demanded ransom from his son-in-law.
(16.2.8) PW-2 Rajender Gupta had correctly identified the camera, Ex. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:41:10
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 14/68 P-1 and mic, Ex. P-2, which was used by accused persons to record his video and to record his audio. On 18.12.2017, one DVD, which was containing the video clipping of PW2, as prepared by FSL from the camera, Ex. P1 was played in the Court room and a video clip of 2 to 2.30 minutes were shown to PW2 and on seeing the same he had correctly identified the same to be the nude picture/video clipping which was prepared by accused Salim. In the said video clipping, one lady and one man having walky talky in his hand were also seen, however, as per the submissions of the IO, the said lady and the man could not be traced during the investigation. The PW2 also correctly identified accused Rizwan, who could be seen in the said video. (The said DVD was inadvertently exhibited as Ex. P2 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, since, another material object, i.e. the mic was already exhibited as Ex.
P2. Therefore, the said DVD having the video clipping is now read as Ex. P2A). (Emphasis supplied).
(16.2.9) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit had deposed that it was correct that the girl shown in the video, Ex. P2A was the same girl, who was already present at the premises at Bhajanpura, where he was taken by the accused persons. He further categorically deposed that at the time of his abduction from Khajuri Chowk, no girl was present there and he had not received any call from any girl, asking him to come to Bhajanpura. He voluntarily deposed that the accused persons had taken him to Bhajanpura and he met the said girl in the house where he was taken. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:18 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 15/68 (16.2.10) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit had deposed that he had not raised the alarm, while he was being abducted, since, the accused persons were 5 in number and they had immediately taken control over him and forcefully took him on different motorcycles. The registration number of the motorcycles were not noticed by him.
(16.2.11) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit had deposed that he was made to remove his clothes in the said closed room at Bhajanpura and his video was made. He categorically deposed that there was no nude pictures/video of him alongwith the said girl, taken by accused Salim. He further deposed that the name of the said girl was not known to him and the name of accused Salim was disclosed to him, since, the other accused persons were addressing him by the said name.
(16.2.12) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit had deposed that he did not knew as to the ownership of the said house where he was confined. He further deposed that he did not knew as to on what basis he had reached at the conclusion that the said house did not belong to Gulzar.
(16.2.13) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit had Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:24 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 16/68 deposed that he was kept at the Bhajanpura house for about 30-45 minutes and thereafter, he was taken to Nasbandi Colony in an auto rickshaw. He had not disclosed about the said fact to the IO, since, he was not asked about the same. He further deposed that he had not raised the alarm when he boarded the said auto rickshaw since, he had been beaten up by the said accused persons.
(16.2.14) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that there was no police chowki between the place he was abducted from in Khajuri Chowk and the place where he was kept in Bhajanpura. There was only one red light between the said places and it took them around 25-30 minutes to reach there. He did not knew if the police officials were present on the red light, which came on the way, however, no police officials had stopped their motorcycle. He further deposed that his mouth was covered forcefully by the accused persons, therefore, he could not speak.
(16.2.15) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that the accused persons were demanding a ransom of Rs. 1 lakh from him by threatening him that if he did not accede to their demands, then they would reveal to the public that he had engaged in sexual activity (galat kaam) with the girl who was present in the said room. At that time, the said girl was not unclothed. He had told the IO about the presence of the said girl, however, he did not knew whether the IO took the said girl to the PS or Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:30 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 17/68 whether the inquiries were made from her or not.
(16.2.16) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that accused Brij Bhan present in Court was very much visible in the Court. (There is no accused person by the name of Brij Bhan facing the trial before this Court). (Emphasis supplied is mine).
(16.2.17) PW-2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that accused Rohit and one accomplice namely Jabid, who is absconding in the present case, took him in the auto rickshaw from Bhajanpura to Nasbandi Colony.
(16.3.1) PW-4 is Pradeep Kumar Gupta and he is the son fo the victim. He had deposed that on 12.07.2015 at about 09:00 PM, his jija Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-1/complainant) came to his house and asked about his father (PW-2/Victim) and he told his jija that his father would be at their shop and thereafter, they both went to the shop of his father. However, his father was not found there and shop was closed. Thereafter, they made searches for his father, however, no clue was found as to his whereabouts. Thereafter, his jija Anil Kumar went to the PS and his statement was recorded by the IO and the present case FIR was registered. The police officials had prepared a raiding team for searching his father and his jija Anil Kumar was made part of the said team, however, he was relieved from there.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:41:36
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 18/68 (16.3.2) PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Gupta was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and was subjected to rigorous cross examination, however, nothing material to the prosecution case came out from the same.
(16.4.1) PW-8 is Ranjeet Singh and he is the owner of the house where the accused persons had allegedly kept and confined the victim. He had deposed that he is the registered owner of the 2 nd floor situated at H. No. C-15/04, Gali No. 1, Bhajanpura, Delhi and he had given the said house on rent to one Ashok Kumar Sharma around 3 years prior to the date of recording of his testimony, on Rs. 3,500/- per month. The said house was then occupied by the tenant Ashok Kumar Sharma and his family.
(16.4.2) PW-8 Ranjeet Singh had further deposed that he did not knew any person by the name of Sherdeen @ Shera and accused Sherdeen @ Shera never resided as a tenant in his house. He further deposed that he was not aware as to what had happened in his house on 12.07.2015.
(16.4.2) PW-8 Ranjeet Singh was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and was subjected to rigorous cross examination, however, nothing material to the prosecution case came out from the same.
(16.5.1) PW-13 is Hemant Sharma and he had deposed regarding the I- card of accused Salim. He had deposed that he was working as Editor in News Agency namely "Views Around News" (International News Agency) having its office in Gurgaon Haryana and during the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:50 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 19/68 +0530 investigation, the IO had brought one copy of the I-card apparently issued in favour of one Salim. After going through the record of their employees, he had replied to the said police official that the said person namely Salim never joined their agency and the said I-card was not issued by him and it may be fake.
17. Forensic Witness:
(17.1.1) PW-15 is Geetesh Patel, Asst. Chemical Examiner, Physics, FSL Rohini. He had deposed that on 10.04.2017, one sealed parcel and one unsealed parcel with regard to the present case FIR, were internally forwarded by CFU (Computer Forensic Unit), and the same were received in physics division alongwith sample seal. The exhibits were marked to him for examination and opinion. The seals over the parcel were intact and as per specifications of specimen seal.
(17.1.2) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had further deposed that he had opened the parcel no.1 which was having seal of FSL x YBD x DELHI at three places and on opening one, digital handycam and microphone was found and digital handycam was marked as Ex.1/A and microphone as Ex.1/B. The digital handycam model DCR-TRV17E PAL of Sony Make alongwith a digital video cassette model ME DVM 60 of Panasonic make and the microphone was of model MX 3200 of Maxim make.
(17.1.3) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had further deposed that the parcel No.2 which was unsealed cardboard box, was found containing one battery Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:41:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 20/68 charger and was given Mark Ex.2 in the laboratory, one battery charging unit model BC-QM1/C1 IN5 of Sony make.
(17.1.4) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had further deposed that on laboratory examination of recording contained in digital video cassette in Ex.1, there was no indication of alteration in identified shorts; on the basis of frame by frame analysis using Video Analyst System. The requisite data of the above video cassette Ex.1A was copied in three DVD-R marked Disc 1, Disc 2 and Disc 3 respectively as per the request made by the investigating agency. The above case exhibits were re-sealed with the seal of FSL x G:P x DELHI and same were forwarded to the forwarding authority under forwarding letter. His detailed report no. FSL 2017/CFU-1755/PHY-132/2017 dated 11.05.2017, Ex.PW14/A. (17.1.5) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had correctly identified one video camera make Sony, model no. Digital Handycam DCR-TRV17E PAL, bearing FSL no. 2017/CFU-1755 Ex. CAM-1, and one mike wrapped in a polythene cover. The polythene cover of video camera was removed and at that stage, IO had produced one blank mini digital video cassette bearing Sl. no. DVM60R3. The MHCR had also brought battery along with charger to play the cassette on the handycam, as directed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The battery was inserted in the camera. However, the battery was not working.
(17.1.6) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had correctly identified the handy-cam, small cassette and mic, Ex.PW15/P-1, P-2, P-3, respectively. During his Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:03 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 21/68 examination-in-chief, the handy-cam was found to be not in a working condition and despite the efforts to charge the same, the handy-cam could not be charged.
(17.1.7) PW-15 Geetesh Patel had correctly identified the DVD-R bearing 'disc no. 2 with FSL case record no. 2017/CFU- 1755/PHY-132/2017 ' bearing the signature of PW-15, Ex. P15/P4 and the said DVR was played in the Court and PW15 deposed that the DVD- R was played in the Court. The witness stated that the same was containing 58 video shots and he had captured the first and last frame of each shot.
(17.1.8) During the deposition of PW-15 Geetesh Patel, he had correctly identified the screen shots of the video starting from 01:01:09 hours, where one voter identity card could be seen; at 01:01:35 one bald person (victim PW-2 Rajender Gupta) could be seen holding his voter ID card and one female in a veil could also be seen; at 01:01:36 utensils on a slab, voter ID card, aadhar card, passport photographs, key holder with keys could be seen; and at 01:02:03 some passport size photographs and some voter ID cards were seen. PW15 correctly identified the said video recording.
(17.1.9) PW-15 Geetesh Patel during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that it was correct that in the beginning of the video recording one police man was seen standing the outside the shop "Mahan Motors and Properties". At Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:09 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 22/68 00:01:55 hours, the board and gate of PS Moti Nagar was visible and two girls could be seen standing outside the PS, while they were being interviewed by one person holding mics.
18. Formal Police Witnesses:
(18.1.1) PW-6 is SI Shanti Lal and he was the Duty Officer. He had deposed that on 13.07.2015, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Khajuri Khas and at about 02:05 AM, Ct. Shamim had produced the rukka, Ex. PW6/A sent to him by IO SI Arjun Singh. Upon receiving the said rukka, he had got the FIR, Ex. PW6/C registered, after making an endorsement, Ex. PW6/B upon the rukka. Thereafter, he had handed over the original rukka and the copy of the FIR to Ct. Shamim, so as to hand over the same to IO SI Arjun Singh for further investigation.
(18.2.1) PW-7 is ASI Kanwar Singh and he is the then MHCM who had made relevant entries in register no. 19 and 21. He had deposed that on 13.07.2015, SI Arjun Singh had deposited one sealed plastic jar containing camera etc., besides personal search articles of the accused persons and he had taken the custody of the same and made entry at serial no. 2479 in register no. 19, Ex. PW7/A. (18.2.2) PW-7 ASI Kanwar Singh had deposed that through PW10 Ct.
Nishu Kumar he had sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini for analysis through RC No. 111/21/15, Ex. PW7/C upon the directions of the IO and he made the endorsement in register no. 19, Ex. PW7/B. It has come in the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:14 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 23/68 testimony of PW10 Ct. Nishu Kumar that he had deposited the same with FSL and returned back to the PS and handed over the acknowledgment, Ex. PW7/D to PW7.
(18.2.3) PW-7 ASI Kanwar Singh had further deposed that on 09.03.2017, the case property was again sent to FSL through PW10 Ct.
Nishu Kumar, since, the property could not be deposited as the charger was no available and he made an endorsement, Ex. PW7/E. The FSL report was brought back and deposited in the malkhan by PW10 Ct. Nishu Kumar and PW7 made an endorsement, Ex. PW7/F. (18.3.1) Through the testimony of PW-3 IO SI Kuldeep Singh and PW-9 Ct. Khushi Ram, the prosecution has sought to prove that on 09.09.2015, accused Sherdeen @ Shera was formally arrested by PW3, with the permission of the concerned Court vide arrest memo, Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, PW3 recorded the disclosure statement, Ex. PW3/B. The accused Sherdeen @ Shera refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. On 09.09.2015, victim Rajender Gupta came to the PS and identified the accused as to the same person who had repeatedly made ransom calls. PW3 further recorded the statements of victim Rajender Gupta and PW9 Ct. Khushi Ram. At the instructions of the IO, PW3 handed back the file to the MHC(R) on 10.09.2015.
(18.4.1) As per the case of the prosecution, after the IO SI Arjun Singh had recorded statement of the complainant, Ex. PW1/A and after registration of the present case FIR, Ex. PW6/C, he had constituted a Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:19 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 24/68 +0530 raiding team to nab the abductors and to recover the abductee/victim. The said team was led by IO PW14 SI Arjun Singh and was consisting of PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram, PW12 HC Pradeep, one Ct. Asha Ram, one Ct. Pankaj and one HC Deepak. The complainant PW1 Anil Kumar was also made a member of the said team. The prosecution had cited and examined only 3 formal police witnesses of the said recovery/raiding team i.e. PW14 SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep. (Emphasis supplied).
(18.4.2) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that on 13.07.2015, after PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had recorded the statement, Ex. PW1/A of the complainant PW1 Anil Kumar, regarding his relative/father-in-law Rajender Gupta (PW2/victim) was abducted by one Shera and that PW1 Anil Kumar had received a ransom call from the mobile phone of his father-in-law, PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh prepared the rukka, Ex. PW6/B and presented it before the duty officer for registration of the FIR, Ex. PW6/C, u/s 364-A, IPC, 1860. The PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh received the copy of the FIR and the original rukka from Ct. Shamim Ali at the spot i.e. Bhajanpura Chowk and he reached there alongwith the complainant and the raiding team constituted by him, in search for the abductors and the victim.
(18.4.3) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that the raiding team reached Bhajanpura Chowk and they made searches for the victim, with Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:25 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 25/68 the help of the complainant. The complainant was in his Santro car and at Bhajanpura Chowk, no clue regarding the abductors or abductee was found for some time. PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh asked 4-5 passerbys to join the raiding team, however, none agreed for the same. Thereafter, they reached the area of Khajuri Khas, since, the abductors had again made a ransom call to the complainant and the complainant was called to reach the Khajuri area alongwith the settled amount of Rs. 30,000/-, however, the initial ransom demand was of Rs. 1 lakh.
(18.4.4) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that the raiding team reached Khajuri chowk and they took their position near Wazirabad Bus Stand and they kept waiting for the abductors at Khajuri Chowk, however, they did not come from either side. Thereafter, they again reached at Wazirabad Bust Stand, upon the instructions of the complainant, since the complainant had received yet another call from the abductors. At about 04:00 PM accused Rizwan and Rohit came from the side of Bhajanpura to the Wazirabad Bus Stand to collect the ransom amount from the complainant. The complainant and the two abductors started talking to each other and in the meantime, complainant gave the pre- decided signal to call them and immediately the members of the raiding team rushed towards the accused persons and they were overpowered.
(18.4.5) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that accused Rizwan was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex. PW1/C and his personal search was Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:30 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 26/68 conducted vide memo, Ex. PW1/E. Furthermore, that accused Rohit was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex. PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW1/D. The IO also recorded their respective disclosure statements, Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, in which they had disclosed the names of their associates, accused Harun (since deceased), Gulzar, Salim and Shera.
(18.4.6) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that in pursuance of the disclosure statements of accused Rizwan and Rohit, the said accused persons led the police party to place near Loni Police Post, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP to get one of their associate arrested. At around 06:30 PM at the instance of accused Rizwan and Rohit, the IO arrested accused Harun (since deceased) vide arrest memo, Ex. PW1/J and his personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW1/L. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Harun, Ex. PW5/C and it was disclosed by the said accused that the victim Rajender Gupta was in custody of their associate Gulzar and he was kept in Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
(18.4.7) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that accused Harun, Rizwan and Rohit led the police party to the house of their associate accused Gulzar, to get the victim recovered. At about 08:00 PM, the IO knocked the door of the house of accused Gulzar, after the pointing out of accused Harun and the abductee/victim Rajender Gupta was recovered from the custody Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:35 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 27/68 of accused Gulzar and he informed the IO that he was abducted by accused Rizwan, Rohit, Harun (since deceased), Salim, Gulzar and Shera and the accused persons had prepared his nude picture and they demanded a ransom from him and he had to call his son-in-law Anil Kumar to deliver the ransom amount. The accused Gulzar was arrested vide memo, Ex. PW1/K and his personal search vide memo, Ex. PW1/M and the IO recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW5/D. All the accused persons were brought back to the PS and were lodged in the lockup.
(18.4.8) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that on 14.07.2015, the accused Rizwan, Rohit, Harun and Gulzar led the police party to search for their associate Salim, who was found at his house situated in Old Mustafabad and the IO arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex. PW1/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW1/G. The IO recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW5/E. During his disclosure, accused Salim had disclosed regarding one handycamera make Sony, which was used by them in the commission of the offence and the said camera, Ex. P-1 was recovered through accused Salim, from the 1 st floor of his house. The said camera was seized by seizure memo, Ex. PW2/B. Accused Salim had also produced one mic walky-talky, Ex. P-2 alongwith the camera and same was kept in the same jar, in which the handycam was kept.
(18.4.9) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:42:40
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 28/68 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that they made searches for accused Shera at the instance of accused Salim, however, their efforts went in vein. Later on, accused Sherdeen @ Shera was arrested by other IO PW3 SI Kuldeep Singh in presence of PW9 Ct. Khushi Ram.
(18.4.10) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that in the month of August 2015, PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh sent the sealed parcels containing the FSL through PW10 Ct. Nishu Kumar and later the CD prepared by the FSL, Ex. PX was obtained and placed on record.
(18.4.11) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that during the investigation PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh obtained the CDR of phone of the complainant Anil Kumar, bearing number 8447262963 from 08.07.2015 to 20.07.2015, Ex. PW14/C. In the said CDR, on 12.07.2015, about 16 calls were made between the phone of the victim Rajender Gupta and phone of the complainant Anil Kumar within the time period of 01:30 PM to 07:00 PM.
(18.4.12) It has come in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram and PW12 HC Pradeep that PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had prepared the site plan, Ex. PW14/G of the place of recovery of the abductee, Ex. PW14/F and he had also prepared the site plan of the place from where the victim was abducted by one lady and other persons. It was categorically deposed by PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh that Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:45 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 29/68 he made searches for the said lady who had participated in the crime in question, however, she could not be traced.
(18.5.1) During the examination-in-chief of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, the CD, Ex. PX was run in the Court and in one of the clippings showing time as 56:26 minutes, victim Rajender Gupta is seen in semi nude condition and 57:44 minutes, one lady is shown and at 01:00:02, accused Rizwan could be seen. During his testimony, the handicam, Ex. P-1 could not be played, since, the said camera could not be turned on. (Emphasis supplied). On 14.03.2024, the DVD-R bearing "Disc No.2", Ex. PW15/P-4 was run before the Court.
(18.5.2) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Gulzar had deposed that he had not joined any public person in the investigation before entering the house no.180, shown at Mark-A in site plan, Ex. PW14/F. He could not tell the name of the owner of the said house or any resident of the adjoining houses. He categorically admitted that he had not made any inquiries regarding the ownership of the house. He categorically denied the suggestion that the victim was recovered from a vacant plot and not from H. No. 180, as shown in the site plan by him.
(18.5.3) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Salim, Rohit and Shera had deposed that there is no recovery of any ransom amount from any of the accused persons. He had not seized the ransom amount from the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:42:52 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 30/68 complainant Anil Kumar, while he had gone to handover the said ransom amount to the accused persons.
(18.5.4) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that video recording and DVD, Ex. PW15/P-4 was retrived from the handicam, which was recovered from accused Salim and he had seen the video on the handicam, before sending it to the FSL. The said DVD was played in the Court and PW14 had admitted that in the said video, the person who could be seen standing in the back at 01:01:33 minutes is not known to him and he did not conduct any investigation to find the identity of the said person. He categorically admitted that in the entire video recording filed on the record, many police personnel are visible and he did not make any inquiries from the said police officials regarding the present case.
(18.5.5) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that only initial inquiry was made from the girl, who is seen in the video and the said girl was used by the accused persons as a pawn and she had disclosed her name as "Baby". However, the further whereabouts of the said girl namely Baby were not inquired into by him. He further categorically deposed that no other girl was involved in the offence, except for the girl who could be seen in the video recording.
(18.5.6) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:42:59
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 31/68 conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that it was correct that the victim had stated before him that one girl had called him on his mobile phone, however, he did not make any investigation regarding the said call, made to the victim by the said girl.
(18.5.7) PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that it was correct that victim had stated that two people came on two separate motorcycles, however, he had not investigated regarding the said motorcycles.
(18.6.1) PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rohit, Sherdeen @ Shera and Salim had deposed that they had raided several places as per the directions of the complainant Anil Kumar, since, it was the complainant who was in touch with the abductors. He categorically deposed that he had not seen the the cash amount of Rs. 30,000/- either with the complainant or with IO SI Arjun Singh (during his examination-in-chief conducted on 30.10.2017, he had deposed that the complainant was having a sum of Rs. 30,000/- at the time when they left the PS for Bhajanpura Chowk, in search of the accused persons). (Emphasis supplied). He went on to further categorically deposed that since, the abductors were overpowered by them, no question of delivering the ransom amount of Rs. 30,000/- arose and the IO had taken the said Rs. 30,000/- in his possession as the case property, however, he did not remember whether the IO prepared the seizure memo regarding the same or not. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:05 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 32/68 +0530 (18.6.2) PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rizwan had deposed that the raiding team consisted of six police officials, besides the complainant Anil Kumar. Three police officials including PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW12 HC Pradeep and him were sitting in the car belonging to the complainant and other three were on motorcycles. He alongwith HC Pradeep were sitting on the back seat and complainant Anil had pointed out by showing his finger towards the accused persons and the accused persons had not tried to run away from the spot.
(18.7.1) PW12 HC Pradeep during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rohit, Sherdeen @ Shera and Salim had deposed that they were waiting at Wazirabad Bus Stand since 04:45 PM and were in the car of the complainant and the said car was parked on the left side of the road which goes from Khajuri Khas to Wazirabad Bus Stand, around 10 yards prior to the bus stand. Accused Rohit and Rizwan came there on a motorcycle and they stopped their motorcycle just ahead of the car of the complainant, in front of the bus stand. The accused persons made a call to the complainant on his phone and after receiving the said call, the complainant got down from the car. He further categorically deposed that the ransom amount was not shown to him by the complainant, however, he had shown the same to the IO. They had apprehended the accused persons while the complainant was about to handover the ransom amount to accused Rizwan and Rohit.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:43:11
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 33/68 Admitted Documents and Plea of the Accused Persons:
19. Accused Sherdeen @ Shera had admitted the TIP proceedings conducted before Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, Ld. MM, North East, KKD, vide the statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC on 14.02.2019 and the said TIP proceedings, wherein, he had refused to take part, were admitted and exhibited as Ex. P-1.The said TIP proceedings were inadvertently exhibited as Ex. P-1. (Therefore, the TIP proceedings are henceforth renumbered and referred to as Ex. P-1A). (Emphasis supplied).
20. After completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed. Accused Harun had already expired during the trial and proceedings qua him have stood abated. The statement(s) of the remaining accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973, in which they had all pleaded innocence.
21. The accused persons chose not lead any DE.
22. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld. Additional PP for the State; Sh. R. C. Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused Salim, Sherdeen @ Shera and Rohit; Sh. Nadeem Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for accused Rizwan; and Sh. Vinod Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Gulzar. I have also minutely gone through the evidence brought on record and the material aspects of the case.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:43:16
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 34/68 Submissions made on behalf of the State:
23. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the accused Rizwan, Rohit, Salim, Gulzar and Sherdeen @ Shera entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and co-accused Harun, who had expired during the trial, on or before 12.07.2015 and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy they had hatched a plan to abduct the victim Rajender Gupta and to demand a ransom for the release of the abductee/victim. Therefore, they had all committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B IPC 1860.
24. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons Rizwan, Rohit, Salim, Gulzar and Sherdeen @ Shera in furtherance of their common intention shared with each other alongwith co-accused Harun (since deceased), in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, had abducted victim Rajender Gupta, in order that the said victim would be kept under detention, so that their conduct would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the victim/abductee may be put to death or hurt and the accused persons had committed the said act of abduction and confinement with the intention to compel the victim Rajender Gupta and his family member, complainant Anil Kumar, who is the son-in-law of the victim by raising a ransom demand of Rs. 1 lakh, which was later agreed to be settled for Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant approached the police officials after receiving the ransom calls and the police prepared Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:21 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 35/68 the raiding team and the accused Rizwan and Rohit were apprehended red handed and the victim was later recovered through the possession of accused Gulzar, at Loni, Ghaziabad, after co-accused Harun was arrested at the instance of accused Rizwan and Rohit. The said accused Harun, Rizwan and Rohit then led the police party to the recovery of the victim Rajender Gupta. Accused Salim was later arrested and the handycam and mic used in the commission of the offence was recovered from his possession. Lastly, accused Sherdeen @ Shera was arrested and through the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden that the accused persons had committed the offence punishable u/s 364-A IPC, 1860.
25. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the testimony of the complainant PW-1 Anil Kumar is categorical in nature and he is fully supported by the testimony of star prosecution witness i.e. the victim/abductee PW2 Rajender Gupta. Their testimonies were further corroborated by the depositions of the members of the raiding party, who had not only arrested the accused persons who had come to take the delivery of the ransom amount, however, also regarding the recovery of the victim from confinement. The testimony of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW12 HC Pradeep and PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram has fully supported the testimony of the public witnesses and the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt.
26. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the testimony of the complainant and the victim was also fully corroborated Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:27 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 36/68 with the video recording in the DVD-R, Ex. PW15/P-4, which was recovered by the FSL expert from the handycam (camera), Ex. P-1, in which the victim could be seen in semi nude condition and one of the accused person can also be seen.
27. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the identity of the accused persons were fully established in the present case as they were duly identified by all the prosecution witnesses, at the time of their examination-in-chief before this Court. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the offences for which they are charged with and were facing trial before this Court.
Submissions made on behalf of the Accused Persons:
28. The respective Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have addressed common final arguments.
29. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that entire prosecution story is fraught with inherent inconsistencies and no reasonable prudent person would believe the same. The accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials of PS Khajuri Khas, wherein, the entire story was cooked up and false evidence was created to implicate the accused persons.
30. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 37/68 per the version of the victim, he was called by one lady, who had asked him to come to Bhajanpura Chowk. The said call was made on the mobile phone of the victim Rajender Gupta. As per the story, when the victim reached Bhajanpura Chowk, he met the said lady alongwith 3-4 other persons, who were on two motorcycles. The victim was abducted and was taken to an unknown house in Bhajanpura and thereafter, he was shifted in a TSR to Loni, Ghaziabad, wherein, he was recovered from.
31. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as per the version of the prosecution, the abductors had raised a ransom demand of Rs. 1 lakh from the victim and to satisfy the said demand, the victim had made to call his son-in-law Anil Kumar, who is the complainant of the present case. The IO has not conducted the investigation of this case properly. Firstly, no effort was made by the IO to procure the CDR of the victim's mobile phone, so as to ascertain the identity of the initial caller, who had asked him to reach Bhajanpura Chowk. The matter was further confounded, when the IO very conveniently chose not to investigate the role of the woman accomplice of the accused persons and she was not made an accused in the present case.
32. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as per the prosecution story, the intention of the accused persons was to take nude/semi-nude inappropriate photographs and videos of the victim alongwith a girl, so that the said photograph/video could be used as a means to blackmail him. The said photograph and video were taken, so Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:39 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 38/68 as to enable the abductors to raise a ransom demand from the victim and his family members. During the investigation, the IO had shown recovery of one handycam alongwith mic through accused Salim. As per the prosecution version, the said camera was sent to FSL for forensic examination and the FSL had prepared a DVD-R of the video recordings captured on the said camera.
33. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that during the trial, the contents of the said handycam, Ex. P-1, which was recovered allegedly from accused Salim could never be played before this Court, since, the same could not be switched on, despite of best efforts. The recording, Ex. PX (also exhibited as Ex. PW15/P-4), which was played from the DVD-R was consisting of series of separate videos running into more than one hour, wherein, different personnel could be seen. The said videos were not shot in one day and it did not pertain to one single place. In the said video, the board of the police station could be seen at one place and at other places number of police officers could be seen. The IO could not offer any reasonable explanation as to why the persons shown in the said video, including the police officials were not interrogated by him regarding the offence in question. Thereby, serious doubts are raised against the entire prosecution story.
34. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the entire prosecution's case was resting on the shoulders of two star witnesses, namely, PW1 Anil Kumar (complainant) and PW2 Rajender Gupta (Victim). Both the said witnesses had not fully supported the case Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:47 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 39/68 of the prosecution and had turned hostile before this Court qua the involvement of accused Harun (since deceased), Gulzar and Sherdeen @ Shera. The selective testimonies of PW1 and PW2, wherein, they had implicated few of the accused persons and had given the clean chit to the remaining accused persons had considerably dented their credibility and their testimonies cannot be relied upon to convict the accused persons in the present case.
35. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the most essential link of the entire prosecution story was the recovery of victim Rajender Gupta in the presence of his son-in-law Anil Kumar. When the complainant entered into the witness box as PW1, he had categorically denied the suggestion that his father-in-law Rajender Gupta being recovered from Loni, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the entire investigation is rendered suspicious and the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
36. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the prosecution could not offer any explanation as what happened to the ransom amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The material prosecution witnesses, belonging to the raiding party had given contradictory depositions regarding the said cash amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The IO never seized the alleged ransom amount and the same was not produced before this Court and therefore, another essential link of the prosecution story is not established in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:43:52
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 40/68
37. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the most essential link of the prosecution story was the alleged recovery of the handycam and mic from the accused Salim, however, the said recovery was also thrown in deep waters by the testimony of the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta, wherein, he had categorically deposed that nothing was recovered from the house of the accused persons.
38. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta is not a witness of sterling quality and his deposition has to be disregarded in toto. As per the prosecution case, six accused persons namely Rizwan, Rohit, Harun (since deceased), Salim, Gulzar and Sherdeen @ Shera were involved in the commission of the alleged offence, yet, during his cross examination, conducted on 19.12.2017, PW2 Rajender Gupta had categorically deposed that one Brij Bhan was involved in the offence in question and he was identified by him at the time of his cross examination, in spite of the fact that there is no allegations against any such person namely Brij Bhan of being involved in the present case.
39. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that victim PW2 Rajender Gupta had contradicted himself, since, in his examination-in-chief, he had categorically deposed that when he went to Bhajanpura Chowk, he met a girl there alongwith 3-4 persons. However, during his cross examination, he had categorically deposed that at the time of his abduction, no girl was present there. The entire prosecution story was based upon a call made to the victim from a girl, yet during his Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:43:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 41/68 cross examination, PW2 Rajender Gupta had categorically deposed that he had not received any call from any girl, asking him to come to Bhajanpura.
40. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that even the son of the victim, namely PW4 Pradeep Kumar Gupta had not fully supported the case of the prosecution and he had turned hostile regarding the ransom demand of Rs. 30,000/- being made by the abductors to his brother-in-law (jija) Anil Kumar, so as to ensure the safety of his father Rajender Gupta.
41. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as per the prosecution story, after registration of the FIR, the IO SI Arjun Singh had constituted a raiding team consisting of the complainant and six police personnel. However, the IO chose not to make Ct. Asha Ram, Ct. Pankaj and HC Deepak as the prosecution witnesses and the essential corroboration of the testimony of the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, could not be established in the present case.
42. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as brought before this Court by the State is marred with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions and serious doubts are raised upon the entire version as put forth by the prosecution. Therefore, the benefit of the said doubts must go to the accused persons and they may be acquitted of commission of the alleged offences. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:04 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 42/68 Relevant Law & the Case Laws:
43. In the background of the above before appreciating the evidence brought on record, I deem it fit to discuss the relevant law and the case laws. It is trite law that the accused persons can be convicted on the basis of credible evidence brought on record and the appreciation of the said evidence must be done in correct and true perspective manner and in the natural course of events, what would have been occurred. Appreciation of evidence beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that it should be assessed beyond any iota of doubt. Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that the prosecution is required to place evidence at a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities compared to what is degree of preponderance of probability in civil cases. The theory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt means expecting higher degree of preponderance of probabilities and the natural conduct of human beings, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in " State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh @ Venkappa & Anr" , Criminal Appeal No. 100492 of 2021, decided on 18.12.2023.
44. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines "evidence". The evidence can be broadly divided into oral and documentary. "Evidence" under the Act can be said to include the means, factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. It is an adjective law highlighting and aiding the substantive law. Thus, it is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:09 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 43/68 +0530 though trappings of both could be felt.
45. The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is attached to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical inference.
46. Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All "evidence" would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also adds strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact.
47. Matters, do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. They also include all the classification of evidence such as circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:15 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 44/68 evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.
48. In addition, they supplement the evidence in proving the existence of a fact by enhancing the degree of probability. As an exhaustive interpretation has to be given to the word "matter", and for that purpose, the definition of the expression of the words "means and includes", meant to be applied for evidence, has to be imported to that of a "matter" as well. Thus, a matter might include such of those which do not fall within the definition of Section 3, in the absence of any express bar.
49. What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of existence of a fact by analyzing the matters before it on the degree of probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:44:20
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 45/68
50. The word "prudent" has not been defined under the Act. When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case.
51. The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, the evidence of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court's domain.
52. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:25 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 46/68 where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. The aforesaid principle of law has been enunciated in the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras", 1957 SCR 981 wherein it is held as under:
"In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s.134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:30 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 47/68 the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:35 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 48/68 +0530 coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:40 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 49/68 upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution."
Appreciation of Evidence:
53. In the background of the abovesaid decisions, I shall now appraise the evidence brought on record. The prosecution case was hinging upon the testimonies of three star witnesses, namely the complainant, PW1 Anil Kumar; the victim, PW2 Rajender Gupta; and the son of the victim, PW4 Pradeep Kumar Gutpa. The said witnesses had not fully supported the case of the prosecution and they were all declared hostile on one point or the other by the State. They were all subjected to rigorous cross examination conducted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, they had categorically denied all the suggestions being put to them.
54. It is trite law, the maxim of "Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus" has no application in the criminal jurisprudence of India and the witness cannot be simply branded as a liar. The rule as contained in the said legal maxim is not a rule of evidence in the criminal trials, which take place in this country. The duty which is cast upon all the Criminal Courts, including the present Court, is to disengage truth from falsehood, so as to sift the grain from chaff. The reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Triloki Nath Vs. State of UP" AIR 2006 SC 321 and "Rizan Vs. State of Chhatisgarh" AIR 2003 SC 976.
55. As per the aforementioned decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:46 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 50/68 Court of India, it is the duty cast upon the Trial Court to separate the chaff from the grain, where it could be separated and falsity of particular material witness or material particulars of his testimony, would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The testimonies of PW1 Anil Kumar, PW2 Rajender Gupta and PW3 Pradeep Kumar Gupta have to be appreciated really carefully, so as to see whether and to what extent their evidence is worthy of acceptance.
56. PW1 Anil Kumar is the prime witness for the case of the prosecution, since, not only did he receive the alleged ransom call from the mobile phone of the abductee/victim, wherein, he was made to talk to the abductors, additionally, he had also remained with the IO throughout the investigation and he was the member of the alleged raid/recovery team which led to the arrest of the accused persons and the ultimate recovery of the victim PW2 Rajender Kumar Gupta.
57. As per his statement, Ex. PW1/A recorded by the IO, it was stated by the complainant Anil Kumar that on 12.07.2015, during the evening hours, he received 4-5 missed calls from his father-in-law Rjender Gupta. When he had called back on the mobile phone of his father-in- law at around 08:30 PM, one person who introduced himself to be Shera had informed him that his father-in-law Rajender Gupta was abducted and a ransom demand was made from him, or else, the said abductors would have eliminated his father-in-law.
58. As per the statement, Ex. PW1/A, the demand of ransom was for Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:51 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 51/68 Rs. 30,000/- and there was no mention of the demand being initially made for Rs. 1 lakh or that it was later agreed to be reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. When he stepped into the witness box as PW1, in the first material improvement over his previous statement, Ex. PW1/A, the complainant had deposed that the initial ransom demand was of Rs. 1 lakh and later on the abductor agreed and settled for Rs. 30,000/-.
59. As per the version of the complainant, the first time he noticed a missed call from the mobile phone of his father-in-law was at around 08:30 PM on 12.07.2015 and thereafter, there were several calls exchanged between the complainant PW1 Anil Kumar and the alleged abductors. The IO had procured the CDR of the mobile phone of the complainant bearing no. 9136538384, Ex. PW14/C and as per the testimony of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, there were around 16 calls made between the phone of the victim Rajender Gupta having number 8447262963 between 01:30 PM to 07:00 PM. As per the said CDR, Ex. PW14/C, there were numerous calls exchanged between the mobile phone of the complainant and the victim, wherein, the first call was exchanged at 19:29:35 on 12.07.2015 and the last call was exchanged at 12:50:56 on 13.07.2015. (Emphasis supplied).
60. There is also a contradiction in the inter-se testimonies of PW1 Anil Kumar and PW2 Rajender Gupta, regarding the genesis of the prosecution story. As per the victim PW-2 Rajender Gupta, on 12.07.2015, after he was abducted and the abductors raised a ransom demand of Rs. 1 lakh, he called his son-in-law Anil on his mobile phone. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:44:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 52/68 During his examination-in-chief, he had categorically deposed that his son-in-law picked up his call after about 3-4 calls and he told his son-in- law to arrange the money and to give the same to the abductors. He further deposed that one of the abductors also spoke to his son-in-law over the telephone, demanding ransom. However, when his son-in-law Anil Kumar had stepped into the witness box as PW1, he had deposed about 3-4 missed calls received on his phone, from the phone of his father-in-law. Thereafter, when he called back on his father-in-law's phone, one person picked up the phone and introduced himself as Shera. Therefore, the complainant PW1 Anil never deposed of speaking with his father-in-law on 12.07.2015, as deposed by the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta.
61. As per the prosecution story, the complainant PW1 had appeared before the IO at PS Khajuri Khas during the intervening night of 12/13.07.2015 and the FIR was registered at 02:05 AM on 13.07.2015.
As per the IO, after more than 12 hours of the registration of the FIR, a raiding team was constituted by him and at about 04:00 PM, the accused Rizwan and Rohit were apprehended near Waziarabad Bus Stand. As per the IO, the complainant Anil Kumar was in constant touch with the abductors and they kept on waiting for the abductors, who had allegedly come to receive the ransom amount and as per their instructions received from time to time, the raiding party kept changing their position from Khajuri Chowk to Wazirabad Bus Stand. However, when the said CDR, Ex. PW14/C is appreciated carefully, it reflects that there was not even a single call made from the mobile phone of the victim i.e. 8447262963 to Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:04 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 53/68 the mobile phone of the complainant i.e. 9136538384 after 12:50:56 on
13.12.2015. The last communication between the said mobile phones thus took place around four hours prior to the first batch of the accused persons, namely Rohit and Rizwan being arrested and the said call detail records are running counter to the testimony of PW1 Anil Kumar and the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, regarding the complainant being in regular touch with the abductors during that time or that their locations kept on changing as per the instructions received from the said abductors, since, he had categorically deposed that "The kidnappers had called me to Khajoori under the flyover. In the meantime, I further instruction from the abductor to drive the vehicle slowly and we reached near the Wazirabad Bridge and as per instructions of the kidnappers, we stopped the vehicle at Wazirabad Bus Stand. Two police officials were with us on their bike and three police officials in our vehicle. The police officials on their bike found the two persons/who were talking to us over telephone." However, in the CDR, Ex. PW14/C, there is no call made or received on the mobile phone of the complainant Anil Kumar after 12:50 PM on 13.07.2015, thereby, casting serious doubts of shadow on his entire testimony.
62. Complainant PW1 Anil Kumar had further deposed that it was the police officials/members of the raiding party, who were on bike, had found the accused Rizwan and Rohit and the said accused persons were taken to the police station and were interrogated. However, the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had given a contradictory testimony regarding the apprehension of accused Rohit and Rizwan at the time of his Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:09 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 54/68 examination-in-chief, recorded on 14.02.2019, wherein, he had categorically deposed "At about 04:00 PM, two persons came from the side of Bhajanpura from Wazirabad Bus Stand. Complainant and two abductors started to talk each other and in the meantime, the complainant gave signal to call us which was pre decided. We got out from the Santro car and rushed towards Wazirabad Bus Stand and overpowered both the abductors." Therefore, as per the IO, the members of the raiding team, who were present inside the car of the complainant, had overpowered accused Rizwan and Rohit, after the complainant Anil Kumar had started talking to the said accused persons and the complainant gave a pre- decided signal. The said testimony of the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh was corroborated by PW12 HC Pradeep and PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram. However, the testimonies of the said formal witnesses is running counter to the testimony of the complainant PW1 Anil Kumar and thereby raising serious doubts upon the entire investigation conducted by the IO and the veracity of the prosecution version.
63. The matter did not end here and the complainant PW1 went on to further depose that after accused Rizwan and Rohit were apprehended and were taken to the PS, he had received another telephonic call from the abductor namely Shera, wherein, he was told that his father-in-law would be killed and that the innocent persons have been apprehended in this case and the said caller had hurled abuses and threatened the complainant over the telephone. There is no mention of the said phone call received by the complainant, after the arrest of accused Rizwan and Rohit, in the testimonies of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, PW12 HC Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:13 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 55/68 Pradeep and PW5 Ct. Ganga Ram. Furthermore, as per the arrest memos of accused Rohit and Rizwan, they were arrested at about 05:00 to 05:10 PM on 13.07.2015, however, there is no phone call received by the complainant on his mobile number at that time, which is evident from the CDR, Ex. PW14/C. Therefore, another doubt is created upon the credibility of PW1 Anil Kumar as a witness.
64. PW1 Anil Kumar had further categorically deposed that on the same night i.e. 13.07.2015, the police officials went to the house of accused Salim and got recovered one digital handy-camera and one mic. He had deposed regarding the arrest of accused Salim and recovery of the digital handy-camera at the instance of accused Salim, in spite of the fact that in the seizure memo, Ex. PW2/B, no recovery was effected in his presence and the same does not bear his signatures as a witness. The said document bears the signature of the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta as one of the witnesses of the said recovery, however, it had categorically come in the cross examination of the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta conducted by Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State that "It is correct that the seizure memo Ex. PW2/B bears my signatures at point A but the digital camera was not recovered in my presence from accused Salim." Therefore, serious shadow of doubt is cast upon the recovery proceedings and the benefit of the said doubt must go to the accused persons.
65. There are serious doubts as to the exact place from where the victim/abductee PW2 Rajender Gupta was recovered by the police Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:19 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 56/68 officials. As per the prosecution version, the raiding party including the IO, other formal police witnesses and the complainant were led H. No. 180, 60 Foota Road, near Neelam Factory, Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, and from there the victim Rajender Gupta was found and recovered. However, during his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, complainant PW1 Anil Kumar had categorically denied the said suggestion of his father-in-law being recovered from the said place in Loni, Ghaziabad.
66. Even the victim Rajender Gupta had not supported the case of the prosecution, as far as the exact place of his recovery is concerned. When he stepped into the witness box as PW2, he had categorically deposed that "Anil my son-in-law alongwith some police officials came to a vacant plot at Loni Ghaziabad and got me recovered." Therefore, another essential link of the circumstantial evidence for the case of the prosecution was not established in the present case.
67. The prosecution could not even establish that the victim was abducted and first taken to the house of accused Sherdeen @ Shera at Bhajanpura and thereafter, he was shifted to Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad. To establish the said fact and to link the accused Sherdeen @ Shera with the present offence in question, the prosecution had examined PW8 Ranjeet Singh, who was apparently the owner of the house no. C-15/4, Gali No.1, Bhajanpura, Delhi. As per the prosecution story, the said house was given on rent by the said owner to accused Sherdeen @ Shera. However, the said witness had not supported the case of the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:24 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 57/68 prosecution and he had categorically deposed that he did not knew Sherdeen @ Shera and the said accused person had never resided as a tenant in his house and went on to further depose that the said house was occupied by one Ashok Kumar Sharma and his family, after the said house was given on rent by PW8 to him.
68. Both PW1 Anil Kumar and PW2 Rajender Kumar had completely gone hostile regarding the involvement of accused Gulzar, Harun (since deceased) and Sherdeen @ Shera is concerned. The victim PW2 Rajender Kumar had categorically denied the suggestion being put him by Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State that he was confined in the house belonging to accused Gulzar or that the police officials had arrested the accused persons in his presence. He also categorically denied the suggestions that he had identified accused Sherdeen @ Shera before the police at the PS, being the same person who was talking to his son-in-law Anil. The attention of PW2 Rajender Gupta was categorically drawn towards accused Sherdeen @ Shera, however, after seeing him he had clearly deposed that the accused Sherdeen @ Shera was not the same person who was making frequent call to the complainant.
69. As per the prosecution case, the victim Rajender Gupta was lured in by the abductors, after he received a phone call from one girl, who asked him to come to Khajuri Crossing. However, when the victim entered into the witness box as PW2 on 01.02.2016, he had categorically deposed that "On 12.07.2015 at around 06:00 PM, I received a call on my mobile number 84472629632 calling me to Khajuri Crossing. I went there where Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:29 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 58/68 a girl met me and 3-4 persons on two motorcycle. They forcibly took me on motorcycle to Bhajanpura..." . The victim had earlier deposed in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, 1973, Ex. PW2/A that he had received a call from one girl and the said girl called him to Khajuri Chowk to meet him and in response to the said call, he went there. When he reached Khajuri Chowk, the said girl met him there and started talking to him. However, during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel on 18.12.2017, he had categorically deposed that "At the time of my kidnapping from Khajuri Chowk, no girl was present there. I had not received any call from any girl asking me to come at Bhajanpura."
Therefore, serious doubts are created around the credibility of the victim, PW2 as a witness as well.
70. During the examination-in-chief of PW2 Rajender Gupta, conducted on 18.12.2017, the DVD-R, Ex. PX, prepared by FSL, containing the video clipping prepared from camera, Ex. P-1 was played and in the said video clipping, there was one lady and one man having walky talky in his hand, could be seen. The victim PW2 Rajender Gupta during his cross examination conducted on the same date had admitted the suggestion that girl shown in the video, was the same girl who was already present at the premises in Bhajanpura, where he was taken by the accused persons. He had further volunteered that the accused persons had taken him to Bhajanpura and he met the said girl at the Bhajanpura house.
71. The testimony of the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta qua the identity Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:35 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 59/68 and the role played by the said girl, who could be seen in the video clipping assumes significant importance in light of the submissions made by the IO at the time of recording of the examination-in-chief of PW Rajender Gupta on 18.12.2017, wherein the IO had categorically submitted that the lady and man having walky talky, who could be seen in the said video clipping, could not be traced. (Emphasis supplied). The said video clipping was exhibited as Ex. P-2A.
72. When the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh entered into the witness box, he had categorically deposed that he had prepared the site plan, Ex. PW14/B of the place from where the victim was abducted by one lady and others. He further went on to depose that "I made search for aforesaid lady who had participated in the crime alongwith abductors, but she could be traced."
73. Thereafter, during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel on 14.03.2024, PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had categorically deposed that "Only initial inquiry was made from the girl who is seen in the video, who was used by the accused persons as a pawn, and she disclosed her name as 'Baby'. No further whereabouts of the said girl were inquired into." Therefore, the IO has contradicted himself, since, at one instance he had stated that the girl who could be seen in the video was not traced, however, he went on to categorically depose that he had made initial inquiries from the said girl and her name was Baby. Furthermore, a clean chit was indirectly given to her by the IO, wherein, now he had deposed that the said girl namely Baby was used by the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:41 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 60/68 accused persons as a pawn. The said testimony of the IO is highly unbelievable, since, the same was not mentioned by him in his final report and no effort was made by him to make the said girl a witness, if after her alleged interrogation, she was not found to be involved in the present offence.
74. The investigation conducted by the IO is further shrouded in suspicion, qua the role and involvement of the said girl, who was seen in the video, Ex. P-2A, as the PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had categorically deposed during his cross examination that "It is correct that victim had stated to me that one girl had called him on his mobile, but I had not made any investigation regarding the said call made to the victim by the said girl." Furthermore, PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had also categorically deposed that "There was no other girl involved in the offence alleged in this FIR, other than the girl visible in the video recording."
75. The shoddy investigation conducted by the IO is further highlighted from his own testimony, wherein, at the time of his cross examination PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had went on to depose that "It is correct that victim had stated that two people came on two motorcycles, but I had not investigated regarding the said motorcycles."
76. The prosecution is relying extremely heavily on the video clippings/recordings of the handycam, which was recovered from the possession of accused Salim. Even if, the fact that the said handycam, Ex. P-1 could never be played before this Court, since, it could not be Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:48 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 61/68 switched on, is ignored for a minute and the testimony of PW1 Anil Kumar and PW2 Rajender Gupta regarding the recovery of the said handycam, wherein, serious doubts have been created on the entire recovery process, is also left aside for a moment, the video clipping, Ex. P-2, which was also exhibited as Ex. PW15/P-4, is opening a pandora box for the prosecution's case and instead of corroborating the testimonies of the witnesses examined before this Court, the said video clippings have struck a fatal blow on the entire prosecution story.
77. During the testimony of PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh, the said video clipping contained in the DVD-R prepared by the FSL, Ex. PW15/P-4 (earlier also exhibited as Ex.P-2A), was played and in the said video between 01:01:09 and 01:02:03, wherein, the complainant Rajender Gupta could be seen in a green banyan, while holding his identity card, a person could be seen standing at his back. The PW14 IO SI Arjun Singh had categorically deposed that the said video is related to the present case, however, the person standing on the back was not known to him and he had not conducted any investigation to find the identity of the said person. He had also categorically admitted the suggestion that when the said video clipping starts, a police official is seen standing outside the office of one Mahan Motor & Properties. He went on to further categorically deposed that "It is correct that in the entire video recording filed on the record, many police personnels are visible. I had not made any investigation from any of those police personnels, as they were not related to my case."
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:45:53
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 62/68
78. The prosecution could not even establish the essential link of the chain in custody of the case property, i.e. the handycam and the mic, which was allegedly sent to FSL Rohini, as per the directions of the IO. As per the testimony of the MHCM PW7 ASI Kanwar Singh, on 13.08.2015, after receiving the instructions from the IO, he had sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Nishu Kumar. He had further deposed that as per the record maintained in the register on 09.03.2017, the case property was again sent to FSL through Ct. Nishu, as earlier it could not be deposited as the charger was not available. He made an endorsement to this effect, Ex. PW7/E and later the FSL report was brought to the malkhana by Ct. Nishu and he had made the endorsement, Ex. PW7/F. However, when Ct. Nishu Kumar was examined as PW10, he had only deposed about him going to FSL Rohini alongwith the exhibits of this case with RC No. 111/21/15, as he was directed by the MHCM and the IO, however, he did not depose anything about him being sent again on 09.03.2017, with the case properties. The said testimony of PW10 Ct. Nishu Kumar, when appreciated in light of the categorical testimony of PW7 ASI Kanwar Singh assumes more importance, since the documents filed alongwith the chargesheet are not supporting the version of the prosecution witnesses. There is one letter addressed to Director, FSL Rohini, dated 04.09.2015, wherein, the SHO PS Khajuri Khas had requested the handing over of the FSL result to Ct. Suraj Pal. Similar authority letter was issued by SHO PS Khajuri Khas on 06.10.2015, wherein, he had authorized Ct. Netra Pal to collect the said results, however, no authority letter in favour of Ct. Nishu Kumar is filed alongwith the chargesheet. The fact that PW10 Ct. Nishu Kumar Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:45:59 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 63/68 had not deposed about him depositing the exhibits before FSL Rohini, for the second time on 09.03.2017, has raised a doubt upon the proper custody of the case exhibits.
79. The third public witness, PW4 Pradeep Kumar Gupta, who is the son of the victim and the brother-in-law ( sala) of the complainant, was also an important witness for the case of the prosecution, however, he had not also not supported the prosecution's case and had turned hostile, wherein, he had categorically deposed that it was wrong to suggest that his jija Anil Kumar had told him that his jija had received a phone call from someone, from the phone of his father, wherein, the caller had demanded Rs. 30,000/- as a ransom to release his father or that the said caller had called his jija with the said cash at Bhajanpura Chowk at Wazirabad.
80. The testimony of the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta, wherein, he had categorically deposed that he was abducted from Khajuri Crossing by a girl and 3-4 persons on two motorcycles and he was then forcibly took on a motorcycle to Bhajanpura and was confined inside a house, becomes highly unbelievable in light of his categorical deposition recorded during his cross examination conducted on 18.12.2017 that there was no occasion for him to raise alarm since the accused persons were five in number and they had immediately established control over him and had forcibly taken him on different motorcycles. PW2 had further deposed that he was shifted from Bhajanpura to Nasbandi Colony, however, the said fact was not mentioned by him in his earlier Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:46:04 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 64/68 statement, Ex. PW2/A and it was a material improvement on his earlier statement. During his cross examination, he had categorically deposed that he was kept at Bhajanpura house for about 30-35 minutes and thereafter, he was taken in an auto rickshaw to Nasbandi Colony. While he was in the auto rickshaw, he had not raised any alarm and did not shout, since he had been beaten by the accused persons. The improvement in his testimony coupled with his explanation offered for not raising an alarm, while he was being abducted or was shifted from one place of confinement to another, that too in heavily crowded area, in broad day light, firstly on motorcycle and then in an auto rickshaw, does not inspire any confidence.
81. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the testimonies of PW1 Anil Kumar, PW2 Rajender Gupta and PW4 Pradeep Kumar Gupta, are marred with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions and even if the fact that they had turned hostile on one aspect or the other, is ignored, still, their remaining testimonies are also not of sterling character so as to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Suspicion, howsoever strong can never displace the necessity of proof and by proof meaning the legal proof.
Conclusion & Findings:
82. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is further accentuated by the serious lapses in the investigation, in view of the improvements, glaring contradictions and Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:46:10 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 65/68 inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant PW1 Anil Kumar and the victim PW2 Rajender Gupta, further accentuated by the doubts created upon the prosecution version by their own documents i.e. the video clippings, Ex. PW15/P-4 (also exhibited as Ex. PX and Ex. P-2A) and the call detail record, Ex. PW14/C, the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy. They have all led to only one conclusion i.e. the prosecution case as placed before this court is full of doubts and as such the accused persons are entitled for the said benefit of doubt.
83. The improvements and the inherent contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses had certainly raised doubts in the mind of the Court and the effort of the Criminal Court is not to be prowl for imaginative doubts, unless is doubt is of a reasonable dimension and is what judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, otherwise no benefit can be claimed by the accused. In the present case the doubts raised from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be set to be merely imaginative and the same has been borne from the record of the present case. The said doubts are not merely imaginary or trivial in nature and it has dented the entire case of the prosecution. The burden of proof cast upon the accused persons is governed by the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" and in light of the discussion above, the accused persons in the present case have been able to raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution version of events and the hypothesis as propounded by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated by the police officials. With the evidence brought on Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:46:15 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 66/68 record, it cannot be said that the chain of prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record was so complete, so as to not leave any reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused persons.
84. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law and in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of acceptance and there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon it and not worthy of inspiring any confidence. Hence, they strike at the very root of the prosecution story rendering it to be improbable and unbelievable.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no doubt that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused Rizwan S/o Sh. Shahabuddin, accused Rohit S/o Sh. Pratap Singh, accused Salim S/o Sh. Shabbir Ahmad, accused Gulzar S/o Late Sh. Islam and accused Sherdeen @ Shera S/o Sh. Babu Khan are acquitted of the charges for committing the offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC, 1860 and u/s 364-A R/w section 34 of IPC, 1860 and they shall be set at liberty.
85. The accused persons have already filed their bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC and the same shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. All the other bail bonds/surety bonds stands canceled and the earlier surety except for surety given u/s 437A Cr.PC stands discharged.
86. The case property, if any, be released to the rightful owner as per the law and the applicable rules, subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24 10:46:21 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 67/68 Appellate Court(s).
87. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 24.02.2025.
This judgment consists of 68 pages and all of them have been digitally signed by me.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.24
10:46:28
+0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/24.02.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-000425-2015 FIR No. 739/2015 State Vs. Rizwan & Ors. Page no. 68/68