Delhi District Court
State vs Ashutosh on 25 March, 2025
CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021
State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar
DLNE010032802021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 Case set up by the Prosecution 2-7
3 Charges 7-9
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 9-36
5 Plea of accused under Section 351 BNSS 36
6 Arguments of Prosecution & Defence 36-46
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 46-51
8 Identification of accused 51-59
9 Conclusion and Decision 59
Digitally
signed by
PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2025.03.25
14:12:11
+0530
Page 1 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021
State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar
Sessions Case No. : 318/2021
Under Section : 143/147/427/435/436 IPC read with
Section 149 IPC and 188 IPC
Police Station : Sonia Vihar
FIR No. : 35/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-003280-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. Ashutosh Singh
S/o. Sh. Bhupender Pratap Singh,
R/o. H.No. C-2/795, Gali No.14,
2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
2. Vishwajeet
S/o. Sh. Ajay Singh,
R/o. H.No. A-340/13, Gali No.13,
Part-3, Zero Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094.
3. Anil Kumar @ Hunny
S/o. Sh. Ranpal Singh,
R/o. H.No. B-2236/33, 1st Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi
...Accused persons
Case registered on the HC Sanjeev
complaint of: -
Date of Institution : 05.05.2020
Date of reserving order : 04.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2025
Decision : All accused are acquitted.
(Section 481 BNSS complied with by the accused persons)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION
1. The above-named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Page 2 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Section 143/147/149/188/435/436/427/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the present case are, that on 26.02.2020 FIR was registered in the present case pursuant to the statement of HC Sanjeev Kumar. In his above-mentioned statement, HC Sanjeev stated that on 25.02.2020 he along with Ct. Ankit, was on patrolling duty in 2nd Pusta Market. He further mentioned that there was gathering of a large crowd at and around 2nd Pusta Market and nearby streets. This crowd came from the side of Circular Road and 1st Pusta and some persons from this crowd were instigating it for arson and stone pelting. They were raising slogan of "Jai Shree Ram". They were saying that CAA/NRC had come into force and those who would protest against it, would not be spared. HC Sanjeev further mentioned that, at around 12:15 PM, a crowd came from nearby streets and from the side of Circular Road and they started vandalism and arson in 2nd Pusta Market. HC Sanjeev tried to stop them, but they did not relent and they targeted the shops of a particular community, vandalised the same and set them on fire. To save their life, HC Sanjeev and Ct. Ankit hid themselves in the street. After getting information, SHO along with staff reached there and seeing that force, furious crowd went away towards Circular Road and nearby streets. HC Sanjeev further mentioned that SHO with assistance of his staff, managed to control the situation. By that time two shops and one Omni vehicle, which was parked on the road, were already set on fire by the said furious crowd. They had also vandalised the other shops. HC Sanjeev further mentioned that he could identify some persons from those rioters.
Page 3 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar
3. ASI Jagpal Singh made endorsement on the above-mentioned statement of HC Sanjeev. ASI Jagpal endorsed that he along with HC Sanjeev and Ct. Ankit inspected the area and found that the shop of M/s. Bobby Hair Dresser situated at B-Block, Gali No.16, Main Market and Shop No. B-133 of Irshad in the same market, had been set on fire. ASI Jagpal further endorsed that a Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL-5CF-4870 of Silver Colour was found in damaged condition on the road, and nearby shops belonging to a particular community had been vandalized. It was further endorsed that SI Jitender clicked the photographs of the spot from his mobile phone. No body came forward to give statement about the incidents of the vandalism and arson, hence, ASI Jagpal Singh recorded statement of HC Sanjeev.
4. On the basis of above-mentioned statement of HC Sanjeev, and endorsement made by ASI Jagpal Singh, FIR was registered on 26.02.2020 for offences under Section 143/147/149/427/435/436/34 IPC and investigation was initiated by ASI Jagpal Singh.
5. During the course of investigation, IO obtained copies of PCR calls made on 25.02.2020 vide DD entry nos. 38-A, 42-A, 44-A, 100-A, 101-A, 103-A, 104-A, 105-A, 106-A, 107-A, 108-A and 109-A. IO also obtained copy of PCR calls made on 28.02.2020 vide DD No.23-A. IO prepared rough site plan of the place of incident on 26.02.2020, at the instance of HC Sanjeev. IO recorded statement of victims: - (i) Sh. Sahid Deshwal, whose Maruti Omni Car bearing Registration No. DL5CF4870 was damaged and CCTV camera was broken by the rioters on Page 4 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar 25.02.2020 at 12:45 pm; (ii) Sh. Shakir Qureshi, whose Meat Shop in Gail No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Delhi was vandalized and damaged by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 12:30 pm; (iii) Sh. Aslam, whose Saloon in Gali No. 6, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandalized by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 12:35 pm;
(iv) Md. Muslim, whose Shop in Gali No. 2, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandalized by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 12:40 pm; (v) Sh. Ishtaq, whose Shop M/S. Altaf Communication was vandalized by the rioters on 25.02.2020 in Gali No. 3, Main Market, Sonia Vihar at about 12:45 pm; (vi) Sh. Irshad, whose Shop at B-123, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandalized and set ablaze by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 12:20 pm; and (vii) Md. Ali, whose Shop M/s Bobby Hair Cutting at 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar was vandalized and set ablaze by the rioters on 25.02.2020 at about 12:35 pm.
6. Thereafter, IO seized the burnt articles from the shops of the victims Irshad and Md. Ali. On 26.02.2020, IO seized the burnt Maruti Omni Car of Sahid Deshwal and deposited the same with the malkhana. IO got the spot photographed on 27.02.2020. IO received a video clip from public domain, which was saved in the computer. After preparing its mirror images, IO copied that video clip in a pen drive, which was deposited in the malkhana. IO also took various screenshots of the video clip. Letter was sent to PWD office, ITO for furnishing CCTV footages dated 25.02.2020 from 10 am to 4 pm of Box ID Nos. 701409, 701408, 701404, 701415, 701410, 701361, 701439 and 401416. Victim Sahid Deshwal produced a pen drive before the IO on Page 5 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar 06.03.2020, which contained the CCTV footages of the incidents. He also produced certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act alongwith the pen drive. The IO prepared the copies/mirror images of the footages contained in the pen drive, seized the original pen drive and deposited the same in the malkhana.
7. On 15.03.2020, IO showed afore-said mirror image to Ct. Ankit, who identified one boy wearing yellow colour full sleeves T-shirt and having stones in his hand as Ashutosh, who was apprehended from 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar at the instance of Ct. Ankit. IO arrested Ashutosh in this case.
8. An external hard disc having capacity of 1 TB containing the CCTV footages of the cameras installed by the Delhi Government, was collected by Ct. Satpal from PWD office, ITO, Delhi on 21.03.2020. Ct. Satpal handed over the same to IO and IO seized the same in the present case and deposited it in the malkhana.
9. Section 188 IPC was added in the present case on the basis of violation of Prohibitory Order dated 24.02.2020 passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., by the DCP/North-East District.
10. After completion of investigation, on 05.05.2020 a charge sheet was filed against eight accused persons including accused Ashutosh, for offences punishable under Section 143/147/149/188/427/435/436/34 IPC. This chargesheet was filed before ld. Duty MM (North-East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. On 18.12.2020, ld. CMM (N/E), took cognizance of offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427/435/436 Page 6 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar IPC. Vide this order, ld. CMM (N/E) declined to take cognizance of offence u/s. 188 IPC for want of complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C.
11. On 03.03.2021, first supplementary chargesheet impleading two additional accused persons namely Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil, was filed before ld. CMM (N/E). Subsequently on 21.06.2021, second supplementary chargesheet along with complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and other document, was filed before Duty MM (N/E). Thereafter, case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 20.09.2021.
12. On 25.11.2021, third supplementary chargesheet along with certain documents was filed before ld. CMM (N/E). This supplementary chargesheet was sent to the court of sessions by ld. CMM (N/E) vide order dated 03.12.2021.
13. On 21.11.2022, fourth supplementary chargesheet along with one report from FSL and statement regarding announcement of order under Section 144 Cr.P.C, was filed directly before this court. Subsequently on 28.08.2023, fifth supplementary chargesheet along with list of additional witness and sealed parcel, was filed directly before this court.
14. On 28.03.2022, my ld. Predecessor in this court, discharged accused persons namely Ajay, Rohit Saxena, Kuldeep, Utkarsh, Raj @ Dheeraj and Harender Rawat, for all the offences in this case.
CHARGES
15. On 08.04.2022, charges were framed against accused Ashutosh, Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil, for offences punishable under Section 143/147/427/435/436 read with 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in Page 7 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar the following terms: -
"That on 25/02/2020 from 10:30 A.M onwards, at 2 nd Pusta, B block and C block market, Sonia Vihar, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi, all of you formed an unlawful assembly, along with your other associates (identified and unidentified), and being members of the unlawful assembly carrying stones and lathis, used force/violence in prosecution of a common object of such Assembly and committed rioting, vandalization, stone pelting and arson thereby setting ablaze/damaging properties/shops/vehicles including the following:-
(i) Maruti Omni Car bearing Registration No. DL5CF4870 was damaged and CCTV camera was broken by you on 25.02.2020 which belonged to victim Shahid Deshwal.
(ii) Meat Shop in Gail No. 7, Sonia Vihar, Delhi was vandal-
ized and damaged by you on 25.02.2020 at about 12:30 pm which was owned by victim Shakir Quereshi.
(iii) Saloon in Gali No. 6, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandal-
ized by you on 25.02.2020 at about 12:35 pm and this was owned by victim Mohd. Aslam.
(iv) Shop in Gali No. 2, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandal-
ized by you on 25.02.2020 at about 12:40 pm which was owned by victim Md. Muslim.
(v) Shop M/s Altaf Communication was vandalized by you on 25.02.2020 in Gali No. 3, Main Market, Sonia Vihar at about 12:45 pm which belongs to victim Md. Altaf.
(vi) Shop at B123, Main Market, Sonia Vihar was vandalized and set ablaze by you on 25.02.2020 at about 12:20 pm which was owned by victim Mohd. Irshad.
(vii) Shop M/s Bobby Hair Cutting at B 1259, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar was vandalized and set ablaze by you on 25.02.2020 at about 12:35 p.m. owned by victim Md. Ali. And these acts were committed by you and your associates in our presence and thereby you all committed offences punishable under sections 143/147/427/435/436 IPC read with Page 8 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance."
16. On 21.11.2022, additional charge was framed against afore-said three accused persons, for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The additional charge was framed in following terms: -
"That, on 25.02.2020 from 10.30 a.m. onwards, at and around 2nd pusta, B and C block market, Sonia Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar, you all accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr.PC by the competent authority/DCP, North East vide order dated 24.02.2020 bearing no.10094-170 X-1, North East, Delhi dt.24.02.2020, which was duly announced in all the localities of District North East including area of PS Sonia Vihar, thereby you all committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
17. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and prosecution examined 30 witnesses in support of its case, as per following description: -
Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties PW1/ On 25.02.2020, he was present at his rented shop, which Irshad was situated at 2nd Pusta, Main market, near Ramnath Modern Public School, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. On that day at about 12.50 p.m. PW1 saw a mob of around 30-40 persons coming from the side of main Pusta and entering the area of main market, while raising slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram'. This mob started damaging the shops, looting the same and setting fire in the same. PW1 Page 9 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties immediately closed shutter of his shop, locked it and went away on his motorcycle taking an inner route for his home. After about 2 hours, PW1 received a call on his mobile phone from his neighbour in the market, namely, Ballu Kabadi that his shop was set on fire. After four days, PW1 went there and he found shutter of his shop in open condition and all the articles lying in the shop in complete burnt condition. At that time, in his shop, there were 8 coolers, 12 exhaust fans, bodies of cooler, two washing machines for repairing, 6 ceiling fans and small fans besides items used for repairing these appliances. The remnants from his shop were taken away by police to the PS. PW1 was not witness of identification of accused persons.
PW2/ He was running a mobile shop in the name of M/s Altab Aftab Communication having shop no.C-123, Main Market, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. On 25.02.2020, PW2 had received a telephonic call from Ajay Kumar, a neighbour in the market, between 12-1.00 p.m., who informed PW2 that a mob had come there and they were ransacking the shops including his shop. In the evening, at about 4-5 p.m., PW2 made telephonic call to Vimal, who resided in 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar. After around 3-4 days, PW2 went to his shop and found that his shop and articles therein i.e. computer, A/C etc. were in damaged condition. On 25.02.2020, PW2 had made a call at 100 number.
Thereafter, PW2 had received call from the PS, that a case was registered in respect of such incident. PW2 had given description to police, about the articles lying in his shop before the incident, in writing and he handed over the same to the police.
PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on the point Page 10 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties of being present at his shop and seeing that mob. PW3/Sh. In February 2020, he was running shop of bangles from Muslim C-2/533, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-94, in the name and style of Mullaji Choodi Wale. On 25.02.2020, riots had taken place in the area of his shop.
On that day at around 12:30 PM, he was present at his aforesaid shop. He saw a mob of around 100-150 persons coming from East side and from the side of Ramnath School towards his shop. The persons in the mob were equipped with danda, lathi etc. and they were coming while damaging the shop in that market. PW3 immediately ran away from his shop leaving his shop in open condition, because there was no time with him to close the shop.
On the same day, PW3 came back to his shop at about 06:29 PM and he saw that counter in his shop was in broken condition. The bangles were lying scattered and some of the bangles were in broken condition also. PW3 took photograph of his shop using his mobile phone make and model MI. At the same time, police had also come to that market and police was taking video of the shops, which were damaged. Police recorded video of his shop also. PW3 had developed photo and handed over the photographs to the police in police station. The mob which had come that day, was raising slogan of "Jai Shree Ram".
PW3 did not identify anyone in that mob. PW4/ He was running a Salon in the name of Bobby Salon in Mehmood H.No. 1259, Gali 16, 2nd Pusta. He was present at his Ali Salon, when a mob came there at about 11.30 A.M.-12 P.M. PW4 locked his shop and fled away. He came back to his shop after 3-4 days, when he found his shop and Page 11 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties all articles in burnt condition.
PW5/Sh. He was resident of C-2/429A, Gali n.6, Ex.PW-5/A Shahid 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. On (handing over Deshwal 25.02.2020, he was running electrical memo of still parts and repair shop, from the ground photographs); floor of his house. At that time, PW5 Ex.PW-5/B was owning a Maruti Omni Vehicle no. (statement DL-5CF-4870. PW5 used to park this u/s. 164 vehicle in an open plot just in front of Cr.P.C. of his house and across the road. On this PW5); day, somewhere between 12 p.m./1 p.m. PW5 was present at his afore-said shop. Ex.PW5/ His afore-said shop was on the 2 nd Article1 (pen- number from the main road, while drive with entering the gali. PW5 heard noise videos coming from the road side and then therein) PW5 went upto the road. PW5 saw that a huge mob was coming towards his direction from the side of Ram Nath Public School. The people started closing their shops in the market and PW5 also closed his shop and went upstairs in his home. PW5 remained inside his home, and during the same time period i.e. at around 1 p.m., pelting of stones started on his house. The window glass panes were broken and his house on the first floor was full of the stones and bricks due to such pelting.
When this mob moved away after about 5-7 minutes, he came downstairs in the gali and at that time, PW5 saw that CCTV camera installed in his house, was also broken. His afore-said vehicle Page 12 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties was also completely damaged. In the DVR attached to his CCTV camera, videos of the incident were recorded and he had handed over copy of those videos in a pen-drive, to the police officials. PW5 had got printed some still photographs, out of aforesaid videos and handed over the same to the police. In that video, PW5 had identified accused Ashutosh, as PW5 knew him since prior to this incident. Accused Ashutosh used to reside in a gali at a distance of about 3-4 galis from his residence. In his statement recorded before another judge, PW5 had mentioned name of only one person i.e. Ashutosh.
PW5 identified his signature at circle X on his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC.
The videos in the pen-drive were handed over to police after about 2-3 days, from the incident. Between 25.02.2020 till the time the videos were transferred/copied in the pen-drive, the DVR remained in the possession of PW5, and it was not manipulated/tampered in any manner.
PW5 identified the pen-drive with videos therein. Though, he denied that accused Ashutosh was same person as named by him.
PW6/Md. In February 2020, PW6 was resident of H.No. 55, block Aslam C-5, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. At that time, PW6 was running a Barber shop (Salon) on 2nd pusta, Sonia Vihar i.e. from the ground floor of H.No. 55.
Page 13 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties On 25.02.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., PW6 was present at his room i.e. above his Salon. At that time, around 20-22 persons came equipped with iron rod. They vandalized his Salon and everything in his salon was damaged. There was a drain in front of his Salon and articles from his shop were thrown in that drain by this mob. This mob was raising slogan of 'Jai Shri Ram'. PW6 was hearing all these noise in his room. Subsequently, PW6 went to PS Sonia Vihar and told police about incident at his shop. PW6 had taken photograph of his shop, using his mobile phone make VIVO.
PW6 did not identify anyone in the mob.
PW7/ In February he was running a meat shop at C-2/446, gali Shakir no.7, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar. He had been residing on the Qureshi upper portion and this shop was being run on the ground floor. On 25.02.2020 at about 2.30 p.m., he was present at his aforesaid home. At that time, about 50-60 persons came there raising slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram' etc. They were hitting road with iron rod and PW7 heard noise of the same. On seeing this mob, PW7 closed the door of his house and remained inside. PW7 heard noise/sound of breaking open the lock of his shop and vandalism inside his shop. This mob had also hit on the door of his house and had also broken the electricity meter. Thereafter this mob moved away. PW7 came out of the room after around 1-1.30 hours and he saw that his instruments to cut the meat and cash box were missing and the remaining articles in the shop were completely damaged. On same day, police had come there and PW7 had shown his shop to them. Police kept coming subsequently also and police had got videography done at his shop.
PW7 did not identify anyone in the mob.
Page 14 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties PW8/SI On 28.06.2020, he visited PS Khajuri Ex.PW8/A Deependra Khas alongwith IO/SI Jagpal. PW8 had (Arrest memo clicked a photo before leaving for PS of Khajuri Khas on demand of SI Jagpal. Vishwajeet) This photo was clicked from the screen of computer of a person. In the PS Khajuri Khas, same person was present alongwith ASI Jeevanand and his name was informed as accused Vishwajeet. SI Jagpal had arrested accused Vishwajeet in his presence.
PW9/ASI He had brought the office record of Ex.PW9/A Naresh Pal complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. as made by (complaint DCP North-East in this case. The u/s. 195 original complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was Cr.P.C.); & placed in the case file bearing signature Ex.PW9/B of Sh. Ved Prakash Surya, the then, DCP (OSR) (copy North-East, at point X. PW9 identified of order u/s. signature of Sh. Ved Prakash Surya as 144 Cr.P.C.) PW9 had seen him signing on various occasions during the course of his official duty and PW9 had also seen his signature in routine manner in the official documents, as PW9 had been working in the same branch since March, 2020.
PW9 had also brought original record of order no. 10094/170X-1/North East District dated 24.02.2020, passed u/s 144 Cr. PC by Sh. Ved Prakash Surya, the then DCP (NE). PW9 compared photocopy of this order as placed in the judicial case file and found it to be the Page 15 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties true copy of the original order.
PW10/ On 24.02.2020, he was deputed as Reader to SHO, PS ASI Satbir Sonia Vihar. On that day at about 4 p.m., order passed by DCP (NE) u/s 144 Cr.P.C was received in his PS. PW10 showed that order to SHO, who instructed PW10 to announce that order through loud hailer in the area of his PS. PW10 had made announcement of that order at 2 nd pusta main market, 3rd pusta main market; Sonia Vihar service road; Milan Garden Sonia Vihar; Sabhapur village; Chauhanpati Village; and E & G block Sonia Vihar, through loud hailer.
PW11/Sh. He had been doing the work of photography from his Nanhe house situated at A-179, gali no.4, Part II, Sonia Vihar, Chaurasiya Delhi. On 27.02.2020, PW11 had received a call from PS Sonia Vihar and he reached the PS. He was told that he had to record video of some burnt shops etc. on 2 nd pusta, Sonia Vihar. Accordingly, PW11 had accompanied police official to market on 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar and he recorded video of some shops, who were in burnt or damaged condition. This video was recorded using camera Canon 80D. This video was saved in the memory card. After going back to PS, PW11 copied the video saved in aforesaid memory card into the laptop of SI Jitender and thereafter he went back to his home. PW11 did not support the case of prosecution on the point of handing over video in a pendrive. He was declared hostile witness on the point of seizure of pendrive and furnishing certificate. PW12/Dr. On 22.05.2020 ten (10) sealed parcels Ex.PW12/A C.P. Singh with seal of 'JPS' were received in FSL. (colly 4 These 10 sealed parcels were assigned to sheets) PW12. Thereafter on 24.07.2020, two (detailed more sealed parcels with the same seal report of Page 16 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties were received in the FSL and these two comparison parcels were also assigned to him. of facial PW12 compared the seal on the parcels image and with the sample seals. The seals on the costume parcels were intact and similar to sample clotes, as seals. perepared by On 28.07.2020, PW12 opened all 12 PW12); parcels, examined the exhibits kept Ex.PW12/B therein and prepared his detailed report (certificate of comparison of facial image and u/s. 65-B of costume clothes. I.E. Act in After examination, PW12 sealed each respect of exhibit/article in the same fashion in 12 print of 12 separate parcels with his seal i.e. photographs); 'Dr.C.P.Singh-FSL-DELHI'. PW12 Ex.PW12/ identified all the exhibits with reference Article-1 to to his initials as well as his seal. These Ex.PW12/ exhibits were taken out from respective Article-12 (12 parcels i.e. Parcel-1 to Parcel-12. exhibits, PW12 had also prepared 13 enhanced which were photographs from the videos, of the examined by portion where named accused persons PW12 in this were appearing in the video. Same were case); sent to photo division to take print of the Ex.PW12/P-1 same. Print of the same were taken out to Ex. PW12/ in the photo section. PW12 identified P-12 (print of signature of Sh. Prakash Chandra at 12 circle X on the certificate u/s 65B of IE photographs) Act, in respect of print of above mentioned 12 photographs. PW12 had seen him signing during the course of his official job. Sh. Prakash Chandra was working as Junior Page 17 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Forensic/Assistant chemical examiner (Photo) in FSL, Rohini. PW12 identified afore-said 12 photographs and certificate in respect of print of those 12 photographs.
PW13/Sh. He was working as Alternate Nodal Ex.PW13/A Parveen Officer in Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. (certified Kumar PW13 proved certified copy of CDR of copy of mobile no. 7827173789, print of digital CDR);
EKYC of the customer namely Ashutosh Ex.PW13/B
Singh, certificate u/s 65B of I.E Act in (print of
respect of CDR of aforesaid mobile digital
number and EKYC. EKYC); both
pertaining to
mobile no.
7827173789;
Ex. PW13/C
(certificate
u/s 65B of I.E
Act)
PW14/HC On 03.07.2020 PW14 and Ct. Parvinder Ex.PW14/A
Nitin both had reached PS Sonia Vihar at and
Tomar about 12:30 PM, as they were called by Ex.PW14/B
IO/SI Jagpal. IO showed a CCTV (Arrest and
footage of riots on a laptop to them. In personal
the video, Ct. Parvinder identified one search of
person, who was wearing green colour accused
shirt and black pant. Ct. Parvinder Anil);
informed his name as 'Anil @ Hunny'.
He further informed IO that he knew
that person namely Hunny.
Thereafter, a team comprising of PW14, Ct. Parvinder, PSI Tarun and IO went to Page 18 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Buland Shahar in official vehicle. They reached there at about 6-6.30 p.m. They went to Civil line road near police line. Ct. Parvinder pointed out to a person standing on the road near police line and informed IO that he was accused Anil @ Hunny. PW14 was witness to arrest and personal search of accused Anil @ Hunny, by IO in this case.
PW14 pointed out and identified accused Anil wearing green shirt and black pant, in the video file having particulars as IP Camera1 _ 701404_ 701404 _ 20200225114916 _ 20200225132217_ 5687239.mp4, at the time stamp of 13:03:38 to 13:03:45.
This video file was contained in a hard drive (Ex.PW12/Article1).
PW14 correctly identified accused Anil @ Hunny before the court.
PW15/HC On 22.05.2020 he had deposited 6 Ex.PW15/A Sandeep envelops and 4 pullandas, in FSL (OSR) (true Rohini. The 6 envelops contained photocopy of photographs. In 3 pullandas, there were road clothes/T-shirt. These photographs and certificate T-shirts pertained to accused persons no.38/21/20); and PW15 took name of one or two Ex.PW15/B persons i.e. Kuldeep and accused (OSR) (true Ashutosh. PW15 had also taken one copy of hard disk. All 4 pullandas & 6 envelops original were sealed. PW15 had taken these receipt in exhibits from malkhana with road register certificate. PW15 identified his no.21) Page 19 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties signature at point X on road certificate no.38/21/20 and he proved true photocopy of original certificate.
In the FSL after deposit, a receipt was given and his signature was obtained on the same as well. Original receipt was placed in register no.21 with his signature at point X. PW15 proved true copy of the same. PW15 had not tampered with any of the pullandas and envelops, while they were in his custody.
PW16/HC On 25.02.2020 he along with Ct. Ankit Ex.PW16/A Sanjeev was on duty as beat officer of C block, (statement of Kumar 2nd Pusta market, Sonia Vihar, since PW16) about 11 a.m. They were patrolling in the area of 2nd Pusta market. On this day, they had left PS for duty, vide departure entry no.12B.
At about 12-12.15 p.m., a number of persons had assembled on the Circular Road and they were coming towards 2nd pusta market. These persons were raising slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram' and that "they would see the persons, who would oppose CAA/NRC". They tried to pacify them, but they did not listen. That mob became violent and they were even bent upon to assault PW16 and Ct.
Ankit. Since they were only 2 persons, therefore, in order to save themselves they went to the gali of B block, Sonia Vihar.
Page 20 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties At about 12.45 p.m., SHO alongwith other staff came to 2nd pusta market and at that time, the mob dispersed from that place. On seeing SHO coming there, they both also reached that place.
PW16 saw that one Omni vehicle standing on the road, was in damaged condition. One meat shop situated in gali no.7, C block, was also in vandalized condition. On the main road of 2nd pusta market, one barber shop namely 'Bobby Hair Dresser' was also in vandalized condition and chairs of this shop were in burnt condition inside the shop itself. Ahead of this shop another barber shop in the name of 'Smart Look' was also in vandalized condition. There was a shop of bangles and counter of that shop was also in damaged condition. One shop of cooler and one mobile shop on this main road were also in vandalized condition.
ASI Jagpal had come along with SHO, who prepared tehrir on the basis of recording statement of PW16. He sent Ct. Ankit to PS along with tehrir for registration of FIR. PW16 stayed back at that place. They kept patrolling in that area and Ct. Ankit came back to that place and informed that FIR could not be registered, on the failure of CCTNS. PW16 identified his signature at circle X on his statement.
Page 21 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties PW17/Sh. In September 2022, he was posted as Ex.PW17/A S. Ingarsal Principal Scientific Officer, in Photo & (colly 7 Scientific Aid Division, CFSL, N. Delhi. sheets) PW17 checked alteration, modification, (detailed addition or deletion in the CCTV report of footage provided in one Sandisk cruiser PW17) blade pen-drive of 16 GB capacity, which was marked by him as 'QPD'.
This pendrive was taken out from one sealed envelope (marked as pen-drive FIR no.35/20, PS Sonia Vihar, with particulars of this case) The aforesaid exhibit contained 14 video footages of CCTV for different time period in the format of .mp4. PW17 examined all aforesaid video footages. As per his conclusion, no evidence of any tampering in any of the videos, was found in aforesaid pen-drive. PW17 prepared his detailed report and proved the same before the court.
The pen-drive was sealed in an envelope with his seal of 'INGARSAL PSO PHOTO DIVISION CFSL DFSS NEW DELHI'. An intimation was sent to SHO to collect the exhibit and report. PW17 identified the pen-drive, which is Ex.PW5/Article-1.
PW18/HC On 25.02.2020, he was present in the Ex.PW18/A Lalit PS. PW18 used to prepare the duty (colly 3 Kumar roster for every day. PW18 produced sheets) (OSR) duty roster record for 25.02.2020. He (copy of duty compared photocopy of duty roster for roster) Page 22 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties 25.02.2020 in 3 sheets with original and found them to be the true copy of duty roster for 25.02.2020. Original duty roster was prepared in his handwriting. PW19/Sh. He was owner of a shop in plot no.B-1671, khasra Satpal no.278, gali no.23-24, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar.
In February 2020, PW19 had let his shop B-1671, to a person namely Irshad, who was running shop of fan, cooler, electronics etc. On 25.02.2020, riot had taken place in the area of aforesaid shop. On next day, his neighbour namely Sudesh telephonically informed him that some damage had taken place in his shop in the riots and it was burnt by the rioters.
PW20/ On 25.02.2020, he was working as DO in PS Sonia Vihar ASI Sunil from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 10.35 Dutt p.m., Ct. Ankit handed over a tehrir in this case, which was sent by ASI Jagpal, for registration of FIR. At that time, computer system was not working. PW20 recorded this information in roznamcha register B vide DD no.31B and informed SHO accordingly.
For such reasons, FIR could not be registered by PW20 at that time. PW20 brought the aforesaid roznamcha register B, containing aforesaid DD no.31B. PW21/Sh. He was resident of B-1259, gali no.17, Pusta II, Sonia Jitender Vihar, Delhi. Riot had taken place in that area on 25.02.2020. On that day, PW21 was present at his home. PW21 had made a call at 100 number at around 12 p.m., using mobile no.9350789789. PW21 had informed police that there was a barber shop outside his house and it was set on fire by a mob. That shop was being run by one Bobby. He used to reside in the same property. PW22/Sh. He was resident of C-2/430, street no.6, 2nd pusta, Sonia Saddam Page 23 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Hussain Vihar, Delhi. Riot had taken place in his area in the year 2020. It was perhaps 2nd or 3rd month. PW22 had made a call at 100 number during noon time, using his mobile no. 8882420237, on the day when riot had taken place. PW22 had informed police that a lot of noise was coming from outside and vandalism was going on. There was a shop just adjacent to his house being run by Shahid Deshwal, in the name of Sharik Electronics. This shop was damaged in this riot.
PW23/HC On 01.09.2021 he had joined IO/SI Ex.PW23/A Rajeev Jagpal, who had called FSL team in the and Kumar PS Sonia Vihar on that day. IO showed Ex.PW23/B one barber's chair and one cooler, which (Seizure were already deposited in the malkhana, memo of one to the team of FSL. PW23 was witness barber's chair to examination of both these articles by and one FSL team and their seizure by IO. cooler) PW24/HC On 25.02.2020 he along with HC Ex.PW24/A, Ankit Sanjeev was deputed for patrolling in Ex.PW24/B, Kumar the Beat Area of 2nd Pusta Market. They & both reached at 2nd Pusta at around Ex.PW24/C 10:45 AM and they were patrolling. At Seizure around 12:15 PM, PW24 along with HC memo of Sanjeev was present in the market at 2 nd barber's chair, Pusta, Sonia Vihar. There was a mob Maruti Omni coming from the side of Circular Road Car and burnt towards the market at 2nd Pusta, Sonia cooler, Vihar. The mob was raising slogans of respectively);
"Jai Shree Ram" and threatening that CAA/NRC had been implemented and Ex.PW24/D those opposing CAA/NRC will face dire and consequence. Some persons from the Ex.PW24/E mob were instigating the other members (arrest and of the mob to vandalize and set ablaze personal Page 24 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties properties of persons of one particular search memo community. of accused PW24 along with HC Sanjeev tried to Ashutosh); make them understand to maintain peace Ex.PW24/F and not to indulge in rioting activity. (seizure The mob did not follow their memo of T- instructions and became more shirt of aggressive. They started pelting stones accused and committing arson at the shops of Ashutosh); & one particular community i.e. Muslim Ex.PW24/V1 Community. The shopkeepers ran away (video file from their shops to save their lives and with they both also took shelter in the galis to particulars as save their life. A01_202002 In the meantime, SHO along with other 25125000) police staff reached the market. On Ex.PW24/D-1 seeing the additional police staff, the (site plan said mob ran back towards Circular prepared by Road and other streets. Before the IO on additional staff reached in the market, 26.02.2020) the aforesaid mob had already burnt two shops and one Maruti Omni. They had also vandalized four shops in that market. With the help of public persons, the fire in the shops were put off. SI Jagpal who accompanied the SHO, got the photography done of the damaged and burnt shops. SI Jagpal recorded statement of HC Sanjeev regarding the incident.
IO/SI Jagpal prepared rukka and sent PW24 to PS to get the FIR registered. PW24 reached police station and handed Page 25 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties over rukka to DO. DO informed him that CCTNS server was not working and hence, FIR was not being registered. Next day i.e. 26.02.2020, DO handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him, to hand over the same to SI Jagpal at the place of incident. PW24 reached the spot and handed over the same to SI Jagpal, who was present there with HC Sanjeev.
IO prepared site plan in the presence of PW24. PW24 was witness to seizure of burnt chairs from the Boby Hair Dresser shop; burnt cooler lying in the shop of Irshad; damaged Omni Maruti Car and some pieces of stones from the road; by IO. PW24 identified his signature at point X on three seizure memos.
On 15.03.2020, PW24 was present in the PS along with SI Jagpal. SI Jagpal had shown PW24 a video footage of riot dated 25.02.2020, of 2nd Pusta Market. PW24 had recognized one boy wearing yellow T-Shirt and he informed IO that said boy was accused Ashutosh.
Thereafter, on same day, PW24 along with SI Jagpal went to 2nd Pusta. After some time, accused Ashutosh was seen in the market, wearing yellow T-Shirt. PW24 pointed out accused Ashutosh to IO and that Ashutosh was apprehended. PW24 was witness to interrogation, arrest and personal search of accused Page 26 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Ashutosh; and seizure of T-shirt of accused Ashutosh, by IO.
PW24 identified accused Ashutosh wearing yellow T-shirt in the video file with particulars as A01_20200225125000, entering in the video at the time stamp of 12:53:24. This video was shown to him by SI Jagpal on 15.03.2020. This video file was contained in a pendrive i.e. Ex.PW5/Article-1.
During his cross-examination by defence, PW24 identified his signature at circle X on the site plan prepared by IO on 26.02.2020.
PW24 correctly identified accused
Ashutosh before the court.
PW25/ On 26.06.2020, he was posted as ASI in PS Khajuri
ASI Jeeva Khas. On that day, he had arrested accused Vishwajeet in Nand FIR no.107/20, PS Khajuri Khas, being IO of that case.
On 27.06.2020 he had passed on information as disclosed by Vishwajeet about his involvement in other incident, to DO of PS Sonia Vihar, which was recorded by DO vide DD no.64 as informed to him. Accused Vishwajeet was on police remand in his case.
On 28.06.2020, IO of this case i.e. SI Jagpal came to PS Khajuri Khas. PW25 was witness to interrogation and formal arrest of accused Vishwajeet by IO, in this case. On his demand, PW25 had furnished copy of disclosure statement of accused Vishwajeet to SI Jagpal. PW26/ASI On 06.09.2021 he had taken 2 sealed Ex.PW26/A Jitender pullandas to FSL Rohini, vide R/C (OSR) (true Page 27 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties no.88/21/21. PW26 himself had issued copy of entry that road certificate. In FSL Rohini after of R/C no. deposit of exhibits, he was given one 88/21/21); & certificate of deposit and copy of R/C. Ex.PW26/B He placed that copy of R/C and (OSR) (true certificate issued by FSL, in register photocopy of no.21. PW26 had brought register no.21 certificate before the court and proved true given to photocopy of the same. Original PW26 in certificate as given at FSL was placed in FSL). register no.21. Till the period pullandas remained in his custody, same were not tampered with.
PW27/SI On 25.02.2020 was in the patrolling Ex.PW27/A Jitender duty in the area of PS Sonia Vihar, & Kumar alongwith other staff. On that day, riots Ex.PW27/B had started in the area, since morning. In (seizure the evening, he alongwith IO/SI Jagpal memos of went to 2nd pusta market, Sonia Vihar two pendrives and PW27 had taken photographs containing through his mobile phone, of 7 places of photographs incidents of riots, as pointed out by IO. and video, On 06.03.2020, PW27 copied those respectively); photographs in a pendrive and handed Ex.PW27/C over that pendrive to the IO. IO seized & that pendrive vide a seizure memo. Ex.PW27/D On same day, PW27 had copied a video (certificates received on the WhatsApp group of his u/s. 65-B of PS, in a pendrive and that pendrive was I.E. Act in also given to the IO, which was seized respect of by him vide a separate seizure memo. afore-said On the directions of SHO, in the month pendrives of September 2022, PW27 had collected containing Page 28 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties one pendrive from the record of judicial photographs file, on the permission of the court and and video) thereafter on 26.09.2022, he sent that pendrive to CFSL, Lodhi Road, N.Delhi through HC Rajesh.
On 10.10.2022, PW27 had recorded statement of ASI Satbir in respect of proclamation made u/s 144 Cr. PC on 24.02.2020. In November 2022, he prepared a supplementary chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
On 06.03.2020, he had also handed over a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act, in respect of photographs clicked by him and given to him in the pendrive. PW27 had given similar certificate in respect of video copied in pendrive and given to IO. Both aforesaid pendrives of Sandisk Company were converted into separate cloth pullanda and same were sealed with the seal of 'JPS' by the IO.
PW28/Sh. He was Assistant Manager in Transline Ex.PW28/A Deepak Technologies Ltd. (certificate Vohra In March 2020, PW28 had received a u/s. 65-B of letter, which was given by Delhi Police i.e. Act issued to PWD for furnishing CCTV footages by PW28) of the cameras installed in the area of Karawal Nagar. This letter was forwarded by PWD to BEL and BEL had forwarded that letter to his company, to take appropriate steps. PW28 had downloaded the requisite Page 29 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties video from the server and same was provided in a hard disk with a certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act. PW28 had sent both these items to BEL.
PW29/ In August 2021, file of this case was assigned to him on Insp. Hira directions of SHO for the purpose of further Lal investigation.
On 01.09.2021, he called FSL team at PS. They were shown a barber's chair and a cooler as pertaining to this case and as deposited in malkhana. Both these articles were in burnt condition. On his demand, FSL team collected burnt sample from both these articles and handed over the same to him. SI Jagpal was with him and on his instructions, SI Jagpal seized both these exhibits.
On 15.09.2021, PW29 had recorded additional statement u/s 161 Cr. PC of complainant Shahid Deshwal. PW29 had shown him footage of riots and Shahid Deshwal had identified acccused Vishwajeet in that footage. On 18.09.2021, PW29 produced Shahid Deshwal before MM in Karkardooma Courts to record his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW29 had also obtained report from BSES regarding damage caused to their properties. He had also obtained report from PWD in respect of damaged caused to their CCTV cameras. He had got prepared screenshots print from the videos of riots pertaining to all accused persons. PW29 prepared supplementary chargesheet. The aforesaid screenshots and videos of riots were copied in a pendrive and same was submitted alongwith the supplementary chargesheet no.3 in the court. Complainant Shahid Deshwal had also identified accused Ashutosh in the video footage of riots. Accused Page 30 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Vishwajeet was seen as damaging the camera and the car of Shahid Deshwal and accused Ashutosh was seen as damaging the gate of house of Shahid Deshwal. Same were sent by main IO i.e. SI Jagpal to FSL. PW29 had obtained duty roster of HC Sanjeev. PW30/SI He was IO of this case. On 25.02.2020, Ex.PW30/A Jagpal he was posted as ASI in PS Sonia Vihar. (endorsement On account of riot taken place, on of PW30 on 24.02.2020 DCP/NE had invoked the statement section 144 Cr.P.C. of HC Sanjeev);
On 25.02.2020, at about 12.15 p.m., SHO took him in his official vehicle, to Ex.PW30/B. the area of PS Sonia Vihar. First of all, (seizure they reached Milan Garden, thereafter G memo of block Sonia Vihar, then Shani Bazar pieces of chowk and then Second pusta Sonia bricks lying Vihar. They reached second pusta at in front of the about 12.45 p.m. In the market at that shops); place, a number of persons had Ex.PW30/C assembled and were present. (copy of letter On seeing the police vehicle, they to PWD with dispersed from that place and fled away receiving to the nearby galis/streets. PW30 saw from PWD); that a salon and cooler shop in that Ex.PW30/D market were on fire. One Omni vehicle (seizure was in damaged condition. One shop of memo of meat, one another salon, one shop of pendrive bangles & shop of mobile were also in containing damaged condition. SHO with help of video of riot, some of the public persons got the shops as given by on fire douzed. Shahid SHO directed PW30 to go alongwith Ct. Deshwal);Page 31 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties Ankit and HC Sanjeev, to make an Ex.PW30/E inspection of that place and find out the (seizure complete status. He directed SI Jitender memo of to take photographs of aforesaid pendrive shops/vehicle. SI Jitender took the containing photographs accordingly. PW30 video recorded statement of HC Sanjeev, who recorded by was Beat officer of that area and who Nanhe had met them at that place. Thereafter Chaurasia); PW30 made his endorsement on his Ex.PW30/G statement for registration of FIR and (seizure sent it to PS through Ct.Ankit. PW30 memo of hard deposed on the same lines as deposed by disk brought Ct. Ankit regarding non-working of by Ct. Satpal CCTNS and recording of DD No.31-B from the in this respect. The endorsement made office of by PW30 from point A to A1 on the PWD on statement of HC Sanjeev, with signature 21.03.2020) of PW30 at point Y on the last page. PW30 deposed on the same lines as despoed by PW24 in respect of Site plan Ex.PW24/D-1.
On the same day, PW30 gave notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C to Shahid Deshwal, Shakir Qureshi, Aslam, Mohd. Ali, Irshad, Ishtaq and Shanu (churiwala) at the place of incident itself and he recorded their statements.
PW30 also seized a burnt chair from the shop/salon of Mohd. Ali, vide a seizure memo. PW30 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW24 in respect of Ex.PW24/A to Ex.PW24/F. PW30 also Page 32 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties seized pieces of bricks lying in front of aforesaid shops. Same were kept in a white sack and were sealed with seal of 'JPS'. PW30 seized the same, vide a seizure memo.
On 27.02.2020, PW30 called a photographer namely Nanhe Chaurasiya from Prince Studio and got the video recorded of place of incident. On 02.03.2020, he sent letter to PWD, to furnish CCTV footage of 8 CCTV cameras belonging to PWD, which was installed in the nearby areas of the place of incident.
On 06.03.2020, Shahid Deshwal handed over a pendrive to him, purportedly containing video of riotous incident. Shahid also furnished a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. PW30 prepared a copy of video in that pendrive through a computer, in another pendrive. The pendrive handed over by Shahid, was converted into a cloth pullanda and same was sealed with seal of 'JPS'. It was seized vide a seizure memo. PW30 also deposed on the lines of PW27 in respect of Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B. On same day, Nanhe Chaurasiya/ photographer also furnished a pendrive purportedly containing video recorded by him of place of incident, alongwith a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. Said pendrive was also converted into a cloth Page 33 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties pullanda and was sealed with the seal of 'JPS'. Same was seized vide a seizure memo.
On 12.03.2020, an official from PWD came to PS Sonia Vihar and PW30 took him to the area near place of incident. PW30 pointed out the 8 CCTV cameras, of which footages were demanded by him. That official took out disc from those cameras and took away with him. On 21.03.2020, Ct. Satpal brought hard disc from the office of PWD and handed over the same to PW30. PW30 got a copy of contents of that hard disc prepared through computer in PS Sonia Vihar, which was saved in the computer. The hard disc was thereafter was seized vide a seizure memo and same was deposited in malkhana.
PW30 deposed on the lines of PW25/ASI Jeevanand regarding arrest of accused Vishwajeet in FIR no.107/20, PS Khajuri Khas and on the lines of PW8 regarding interogation and formal arrest of accused Vishwajeet vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A, in this case.
PW30 also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW14 in respect of arrest and personal search of accused Anil @ Hunny, which are Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B respectively.
On 12.05.2020, PW30 obtained Page 34 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties photograph of accused Ashutosh and Ajay, Ashutosh, Kuldeep, Utkarsh, Rohit Saxena and Suraj Jaiswal, from dossier through Ct. Deepak. PW30 seized those photographs vide a seizure memo, which is Ex. A-2. On 22.05.2020, the aforesaid photographs alongwith hard disc obtained from PWD, 3 shirts of accused Ashutosh and Kuldeep and Ajay, were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct.Sandeep, as per his instructions.
On 22.07.2020, PW30 obtained photograph of accused Vishwajeet and Hunny from dossier cell, North East district, Delhi. PW30 seized it, vide a seizure memo Ex.A-3. It was deposited in malkhana on 23.07.2020, vide aforesaid seizure memo. It was seized on 23.07.2020 itself. PW30 directed MHC(M) to send photographs from dossier of accused Hunny and Vishwajeet, to FSL Rohini.
After obtaining permission from the office of DCP/NE, on account of violation of proclamation u/s 144 Cr.P.C., PW30 added Section 188 IPC in this case.
CDR of mobile phone of accused Ashutosh, was obtained from the concerned agency vide letter written by him. PW30 had also received report from FSL regarding matching of photographs. He had filed main Page 35 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sl. No. & Role & testimony of witness Proved Name of documents/ Witness case properties chargesheet on 05.05.2020.
Subsequently, he filed 2 supplementary chargesheets before the court.
PW30 also deposed on the lines of PW23 in respect of Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. He recorded statement of HC Rajeev and MHC(M). Thereafter investigation was transferred to Insp. Hira Lal.
PW30 correctly identified accused Ashutosh, Hunny and Vishwajeet before the court.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Photocopy of GD No.64-A dated 27.06.2020 recorded by ASI Prem Lal as Ex.A1; seizure memos vide which photographs from dossier, were handed over by HC Deepak Kumar, as Ex.A2 and Ex.A-3.
PLEA OF ACCUSED U/S. 351 BNSS
18. Accused persons denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence, taking plea that witnesses falsely deposed against them. Accused took further plea that they had nothing to do with the commission of alleged offences and they had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence. ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & DEFENCE
19. I heard ld. Special PP as well as ld. counsel for accused. I have perused the entire material on the record.
20. In the written argument filed by Sh. K.P. Singh, ld. counsel for accused Ashutosh, it was mentioned that public witnesses namely Page 36 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar PW1/Irshad, PW2/Aftab, PW3/Muslim and PW4/Mehmood are hostile witnesses. It was further mentioned that PW5/Shahid Deshwal had identified two accused persons before police on the basis of CCTV footages installed in front of his house, but he did not personally saw anyone causing destruction or vandalism. As per his testimony, PW5 did not see the alleged incident and he did not give any complaint regarding the incident to police. It was further mentioned that PW5 had handed over the DVR of CCTV camera to police official, but the police failed to secure any certificate from him regarding the same. PW5 did not depose regarding any involvement of accused Ashutosh in the present case. It was further mentioned that PW6/Mohd. Aslam and PW7/Shakir Qureshi also turned hostile as they failed to support the prosecution story. It was further mentioned that prosecution completely failed to establish the authenticity of video/case property of this case. The presence of accused Ashutosh at the place of occurrence is doubtful and not properly proved by PW13. It was further mentioned that PW24/HC Ankit failed to explain that when did he see accused prior to that incident/particular day, which infers that his testimony is doubtful and does not establish the reliability upon testimony of this witness. It was further mentioned that there are contradictions in the statements of PW5 and 2 nd IO/PW29-Insp. Hira and same do not co-relate with each other, therefore, PW29 is not reliable. It was further mentioned that 1 st IO/PW30-SI Jagpal did not fairly investigate the present case and prosecution failed to establish any alleged offence against accused. Ld. Page 37 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar counsel prayed for acquittal of accused Ashutosh in the present case.
21. In the written argument filed by Sh. Rajat Yadav, ld. counsel for accused Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil, it was mentioned that prosecution totally failed to give even a single particular date of alleged incident. It was further mentioned that accused are innocent and they have been falsely roped in the present case with some oblique motive and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. It was further mentioned that there is no statement of any eyewitness regarding identification of accused Viswajeet and Hunny @ Anil as members of the unlawful assembly on 25.02.2020, which had committed rioting, vandalization and arson in Sonia Vihar area. Ld. counsel prayed for acquittal of accused Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil in the present case.
22. In support of his contentions, ld. counsel placed reliance upon the case of Masalti & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 202, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"When a criminal court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of offence involving a large number of offenders and large number of victims, the normal test is that the conviction should be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witness who give a consistent account of the incident in question, when an unlawful assembly or a large number of persons take part in arson or in a clash between two groups, in order to convict a person, at least two prosecution witnesses have to support and identify the role and involvement of the person concerned."
23. Per contra, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special PP for State, argued that seven (7) victims are there including PW5/Shahid Deswal.
Page 38 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar DVR/Ex.PW5/Article-1 was seized from the house of PW5 and this DVR contained video i.e. Ex.PW24/V-1 of incident. It was further argued that footage of PWD camera showed Pushta-2 and mob on that road and said footage was placed before PW14. It was further argued that PW28/Sh. Deepak Vohra had provided that video, who proved certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act as Ex.PW28/A. This hard disk was examined in FSL. Face of accused Ashutosh and Vishwajeet matched vide report i.e. Ex.PW12/A, on comparison of facial image and costume clothes. It was further argued that during 1st occasion of his statement, PW5 mentioned name of Ashutosh and his examination was deferred and on the 2nd occasion i.e. on 28.08.2023, PW5 turned hostile on the point of identification of accused. Though, he admitted statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C./Ex.PW5/B, wherein he had mentioned name of Ashutosh and Vishwajeet. It was further argued that police witnesses identified accused in the videos. 1 st part of statement dated 22.09.2022 of PW5 also corroborates that accused were involved in the incident. Ld. Special PP further argued that location chart of accused Ashutosh also shows his presence at the time and place of alleged incident of the present case.
24. In support of his contentions, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special PP filed certain case laws, which are as follows: -
1.1 Case of Jodhraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (15) SCC 294 and State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr. (1996) 10 SCC 360, were referred to submit that if a witness, for one reason or other, has to some extent resiled from his earlier statement, that Page 39 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety.
1.2 Case of Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2013, decided on 25.11.2024 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, was referred to submit that: - (i) Even if a witness has retracted from a statement, such retraction could be a result of manipulation and the Hon'ble Court has to examine the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc.; and
(ii) In order to arrive at the true picture, the evidence adduced before the court is to be examined as a whole and not in isolation. 1.3 Case of Pramod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2013 SCC OnLine SC 502, was referred to submit that if the testimony of the public officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. 1.4 Case of Mohd. Nasim v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7073, was referred to submit that the quality of evidence, and not quantity of the evidence, is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. 1.5 Case of Sudhir Engineering Co. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd. 1995 (34) DRJ 86, was referred to submit that endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit.
1.6 In the case of Jodhraj Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
Page 40 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar " Moreover, while recording a judgment of conviction, the court may consider a part of the deposition of a witness who had been permitted to be cross-examined by prosecution having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the said case. How the evidence adduced before it shall be appreciated by the court would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The courts even in such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for a court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile." 1.7 In the case of Ramesh Prasad (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
" 7. ............. It is rather most unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, having given the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, under Section 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason at to why the investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."
1.8 In the case of Vijaya Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
" 26. ....... However, the issue with respect to their evidence is that they have sought to retract from their statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and have denied a material part of their statements before the Sessions Court. The reason for retraction is that the statements were recorded under threat of the concerned Patwari who was present before the Judicial Magistrate along with the witnesses. The weight to be attached to such a statement Page 41 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar during appreciation of evidence is the question that arises before us at this juncture.
27. ............. However, Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 18725 makes it clear that a statement under Section 164 CrPC could be used for both corroboration and contradiction. It could be used to corroborate the testimonies of other witnesses. ....... The Court also recognized that the need for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 CrPC arises when the witness appears to be connected to the accused and is prone to changing his version at a later stage due to influence. The relevant para reads thus:
"16. ... During the investigation, the Police Officer may sometimes feel that it is expedient to record the statement of a witness under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. This usually happens when the witnesses to a crime are clearly connected to the accused, or where the accused is very influential, owing to which the witnesses may be influenced ..."
28. Considering the conceptual requirement of recording a statement before a Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation and the utility thereof, as prescribed in Section 157 of Evidence Act, it could be observed that a statement under Section 164, although not a substantive piece of evidence, not only meets the test of relevancy but could also be used for the purposes of contradiction and corroboration. A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by the Investigating Officer. A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not subjected to the constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 CrPC and the vigour of Section 162 CrPC does not apply to a statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, it must be considered on a better footing. However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence. Thus, the weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the Court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the Page 42 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor. For, even if a witness has retracted from a statement, such retraction could be a result of manipulation and the Court has to examine the circumstances in which the statement was recorded, the reasons stated by the witness for retracting from the statement etc. Ultimately, what counts is whether the Court believes a statement to be true, and the ultimate test of reliability happens during the trial upon a calculated balancing of conflicting versions in light of the other evidence on record.
31. Having said so, we deem it fit to observe that a statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly. For, a judicial satisfaction of the Magistrate, to the effect that the statement being recorded is the correct version of the facts stated by the witness, forms part of every such statement and a higher burden must be placed upon the witness to retract from the same. To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. In the present matter, there is no reasonable ground to reject the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and reliance has correctly been placed upon the said statements by the courts below.
39. ............. The appellants have attempted to raise questions regarding the evidence of PW-7 and PW-3/PW-4 for various other isolated reasons. However, as discussed above, in order to arrive at the true picture, the evidence adduced before the Court is to be examined as a whole and not in isolation. This principle assumes greater importance in cases which are based on circumstantial evidence as in the absence of direct evidence of the offence, the Court is required to analyze the proved circumstances in a collective sense so as to arrive at a reasonable finding."
1.9 In the case of Pramod Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"10. ...........The witnesses from the department of police Page 43 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686], State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another[(2001) 1 SCC 652] and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar[(2006) 13 SCC 229], has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana[2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence.
11. Thus, the submission that the whole case should be thrown overboard because of non-examination of independent witness and reliance on the official witnesses cannot be accepted. ...."
1.10 In the case of Mohd. Nasim (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that: -
"8.1 ........ The Supreme Court in State of U.P. V Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 897 observed that it is function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. The Supreme Court in Gurbachan Singh V Sat Pal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 observed that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence."
1.11 In the case of Sudhir Engineering (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that: -
"(1) What appears prima facie to be an insignificant and inconsequential aspect of judicial proceedings has however Page 44 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar assumed significance in my view as it is a matter of day-to-day recurrence witnessed, by me sitting on the Original Side. Can a document marked as an exhibit only when it has been proved? Does mere endorsing of an exhibit number on the document tantamount to expression of judicial opinion on its proof? .......................
(12) In Baldeo Sahai VS. Ram Chander & Ors., Air 1931 Lahore 546 it was said :- "There are two stages relating to documents. One is the stage when all the documents on which the parties rely are filed by them in Court. The next stage is when the documents 'MC. proved and formally tendered in evidence. It is at this later stage that the Court has to decide whether they should be admitted or rejected. If they are admitted and proved then the seal of the Court is put on them giving certain details laid down by law, otherwise the documents are resumed to the party who produced them with an endorsement thereon to that effect." A reading of the report shows that it was the practice of the Court to endorse the documents soon on their filing which practice was deprecated and hence stopped. The word "proved" has been used by the Division Bench in the sense of 'proposed to be proved' as is clear from its having been used along with the word 'tendered' or "admitted" in evidence. The word proved has been loosely used for describing the stage after filing of the documents, when the Court would decide only whether they should be admitted or rejected. The Division Bench cannot be read as holding that the document is not to be endorsed with an Exhibit number unless and until proved. As stated in para 6 hereinabove, the stages of tendering/admitting/rejecting in evidence and holding a document proved - are two distinct and different stages, not one. They are respectively the second and third stages.
..........
(14) When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration probabilities Page 45 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each time a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit.
(15) The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. .........." APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOTS
25. From the charges framed in this case, it is evident that accused persons have been prosecuted in respect of seven (7) incidents of riots. PW5/Sahid Deshwal was running electrical appliances shop from C-2/429-A, Gali No.6, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. As per his testimony, he had parked his Maruti Omni vehicle bearing No. DL-5CF-4870 in an open plot situated just in front of his shop across the road. On 25.02.2020, though he was present at his afore-said shop, but he went up-stairs to his residence, when people had started closing their shops on account of noise coming from the side of main road. At around 1 PM, there was pelting of stones on his house and he came downstairs, when this mob had moved away. He found that CCTV cameras installed in his house were broken and his afore-said vehicle was also completely damaged. Subsequently, he had seen the footage of CCTV camera as recorded in DVR and he had handed over some still photographs taken from those videos as well as those videos in a pen-drive to the police, which was seized by the police. This pen-drive was sent by this court to CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for examination of video files contained therein and for Page 46 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar ascertaining if there was any kind of tampering or editing in any of those video files. PW17/S. Ingarsal was expert in CFSL, New Delhi, who had examined the contents of this pen-drive which is Ex.PW5/Article-1. According to his report, no tampering was found in any of the video files contained therein. There was a folder namely "Given By Shahid Deshwal", which contained four video files. PW5 was again examined after receiving afore-said report, and after seeing afore-said four video files, PW5 confirmed that same were recorded in his DVR. The testimony of PW5 and those video files, do establish that a group of persons having more than five members, had pelted stones on this shop and had damaged the CCTV cameras as well as the vehicle parked just in front of that shop in an open plot, with stones and danda. Therefore, it is well established that an incident of vandalism had taken place at afore-said shop/house of PW5 on 25.02.2020 and there was an unlawful assembly equipped with danda, stone and rod, which was behind this incident.
26. PW7/Shakir Qureshi deposed that he was running a meat shop at C-2/446, Gali No.7, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar. On 25.02.2020, at about 02:30 PM, he was present at his home, when around 50-60 persons came there raising slogan of "Jai Shree Ram" etc. On seeing this mob, PW7 closed door of his house and remained inside. He could hear noise of breaking open the lock of his shop and vandalism inside his shop. This mob had also damaged the electricity meter of his house and had moved away. Thereafter, PW7 came out and found that his instruments to cut the meat, and cash box were missing. Remaining articles in his shop were Page 47 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar completely damaged. Such testimony of PW7 was not contested/challenged by the defence. PW27/SI Jitender deposed that he had taken photographs of seven (7) places of incidents of riots on the pointing out of IO/SI Jagpal (PW30) on 25.02.2020. Same was deposed by IO/PW30 also. It was also deposed by them that PW27 copied those photographs in the pen-drive and handed over the same to the IO, which was seized by IO vide a memo Ex.PW27/A. However, it is disappointing to note that those photographs were not found placed on the record and prosecution did not take any steps to prove such photographs. These photographs could have been additional evidence to show the condition of places of incidents which were probed in this case. However, prosecution unfortunately kept mum over such piece of evidence and there was no clue about those photographs. Nonetheless, unrebutted testimony of PW7 establishes that his afore-said shop was also vandalised on 25.02.2020 by a riotous mob and this mob had also taken away cash box and the instruments from his shop.
27. PW6/Mohd. Aslam deposed that he was running a barber shop at the ground floor of H.No. 55, 2nd Pusta Sonia Vihar. On 25.02.2020 at about 12:30 PM, around 20-22 persons came equipped with iron rod and completely damaged his afore-said salon. Some articles from his shop were thrown in a drain situated in front of his salon. He also deposed that police had taken photographs of his shop, but fate of those photographs have already been mentioned herein-above. Testimony of this witness was also not challenged by the defence and therefore, I can Page 48 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar presume that his afore-said shop was also vandalized by an unlawful assembly on 25.02.2020.
28. PW3/Sh. Muslim was running a shop of bangles at C-2/533, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar. On 25.02.2020, at around 12:30 PM, he was present at afore-said shop. On seeing a mob coming towards his shop being equipped with danda and lathi, PW3 fled away from that place leaving his shop in open condition. Since afore-said mob was coming while damaging the shops in the market, therefore, PW3 did not have sufficient time to close his shop. On same day, he came back to his shop at about 06:30 PM and found that his shop and bangles kept therein were in completely damaged condition. Police had also come there and recorded video of that place, but unfortunately no such video was tendered in evidence by prosecution. Ld. prosecutor had put certain photographs placed on the record before this witness and PW3 had identified those photographs marked as Mark P-3/A-1 to A-4, as pertaining to his shop. This court had recorded observation at that time itself that prosecution would prove those photographs in accordance with law, so that same could be exhibited. However, unfortunately prosecution did not produce the certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act in respect of those photographs, nor the witness who had taken such photographs. Thus, those photographs remained unproved. However, defence did not challenge the testimony of PW3 in respect of vandalism at his shop, hence, it is presumed that this shop was also vandalised on 25.02.2020 by an unlawful assembly.
29. PW2/Aftab deposed that he was running a mobile shop in the Page 49 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar name of M/s. Altaf Communication at Shop No. C-123, Main Market, 2nd Pusta. On 25.02.2020, he did not go to his afore-said shop because of riots. Hence, he had not seen anything himself, but his neighbour had telephonically informed him between 12-1 PM that a mob had come and and ransacked the shops including shop of PW2. PW2 went back to his shop after 3-4 days and found that his shop along with articles kept therein were in damaged condition. Defence did not dispute such testimony of PW2, therefore, it is presumed that this shop was also damaged by a riotous mob on 25.02.2020.
30. PW1/Irshad deposed that he was running a shop at 2nd Pusta, Main Market, wherein he used to repair washing machine etc. and to sell coolers etc. PW19/Sh. Satpal deposed that he had let out his shop situated in plot no.B-1671, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, to a person namely Irshad, who was running shop of fan, coolers, electronics etc. PW1 deposed that he had taken this shop on rent from one Omwati, but prosecution did not ask PW1 anything about Sh. Satpal, nor PW19/Satpal was asked about his relation with Omwati. As per seizure memo prepared by IO to seize damaged burnt cooler from the shop of Irshad i.e. Ex.PW24/C, it was mentioned to be shop no. B-133 on the Main Market Road. The photographs of this shop were also not proved by prosecution, though this witness had pointed out certain photographs showing picture of his shop. PW1 deposed about finding his shop in completely burnt condition along with the articles, when he visited this shop after four days. On 25.02.2020, PW1 was though present at his shop, but he had fled away from Page 50 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar his shop on seeing a mob of rioters coming from the side of Main Pusta. On that day, he was telephonically informed after about two hours by his neighbour that his shop was set on fire. On the basis of absence of any challenge from defence to such testimony of PW1, it is presumed that shop of PW1 was set on fire by a riotous mob on 25.02.2020.
31. PW4/Mehmood Ali deposed that he was running a salon in the name of "Bobby Salon" at H.No.1259, Gali No.16, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. He did not remember the date or month or the year, but according to him on the day of incident, at about 12 PM, he was present at his salon. On hearing slogans of "Jai Shree Ram" being raised by a number of persons, he locked his shop and fled away. He came back to this shop after around 3-4 days and found that his shop and home on the upper floor of the same, were in completely burnt condition. All articles in his home were also burnt in this incident. Testimony of this witness was also not challenged by the defence. Hence, it is presumed that a riotous mob set ablaze the afore-said salon and house on 25.02.2020. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
32. The next issue relates to participation of accused persons in the afore-said incidents. Prosecution relied upon PW5/Sh. Sahid Deshwal and PW24/HC Ankit Kumar as the witnesses, who had identified accused Ashutosh and Vishwajeet during investigation, in the video of riots. PW14/HC Nitin Tomar was relied upon by the prosecution, who was present when another police official namely Ct. Parvinder had identified accused Anil @ Hunny in a video of riot. Ct. Parvinder could not be examined by prosecution because he had expired. Besides these witnesses, PW16/HC Page 51 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Sanjeev Kumar was also reportedly on duty at 2nd Pusta along with PW24.
33. According to prosecution, two different set of videos of riots were obtained and relied upon in this case. Source of one set of videos was PW5, who had provided footages recorded by CCTV cameras installed outside his shop and which was stored in the DVR. Those videos were provided in a pen-drive which is Ex.PW5/Article-1. Other set of videos was provided by PW28/Sh. Deepak Vohra, who was working in a company entrusted with job of installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras on behalf of PWD, Delhi. Certain footages from CCTV cameras were copied in a hard-disk and same was handed over to the police by PW28. The videos received from PW5 in pen-drive Ex.PW5/Article-1 was not sent for forensic examination by the IO. However, same was sent to CFSL, New Delhi by this court for forensic examination and PW17/Sh. S. Ingarsal had examined the videos contained therein, to report that no evidence of tampering was found in any of the videos. The videos which were recorded by CCTV cameras of the shop of PW5 were contained in one folder namely "Given by Shahid Deshwal". The videos received in hard-disk from PW28, were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi by IO for forensic examination and comparison of photographs of the accused persons with picture of accused persons appearing in the videos. IO had also sent cloth recovered from accused Ashutosh, to FSL Rohini for comparison of those clothes with the cloth worn by pointed out person in the videos. PW12/Dr. C.P. Singh had conducted the examination in FSL, Page 52 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Rohini. According to him, no evidence of tampering was found in any of the videos. He had also found similarity in the photograph of accused Ashutosh and the cloth recovered from Ashutosh, with a person appearing in some part of some videos. The details thereof have been mentioned in his report Ex.PW12/A.
34. This court has to find out if presence and involvement of any of the accused persons in the seven incidents as mentioned in the charges framed in this case, has been proved by prosecution? None of the seven victims examined by the prosecution, claimed before the court they had seen and identified any rioter during the incident taken place at their respective premises. Even two police officials PW16 and PW24, who were reportedly on duty on 2nd Pusta and who claimed to have confronted the mob of rioters on that day at around 12 PM at 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, did not claim that they had seen and identified any person in that mob.
35. PW5 deposed that he had seen the videos recorded in his DVR, which pertained to incident taking place at his shop and he had identified one Ashutosh, whom he knew since prior to this incident, in the videos before the police. However, before the court when four videos as pertaining to incident at his shop, were played before him, PW5 deposed in the court that he was not able to identify Ashutosh in those videos. He further deposed that Ashutosh as mentioned by him in his previous statement, was not present in the court. He also denied the suggestion given by ld. Special PP during his cross-examination that accused Ashutosh who was present in the court, was the same person, whom PW5 Page 53 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar had identified in the videos and had named in his previous statements.
36. During investigation of this case, statement of PW5 was recorded by MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein he had mentioned the date of 26.02.2020 and had stated that in the video he had seen Ashutosh and Vishwajeet. But during his testimony before the court, he altogether denied having identified any other person except Ashutosh, in the videos. He also denied that accused Ashutosh and Vishwajeet, who were present in the court, were the same persons. He deposed that he was pressurized by police to take their names. Though he admitted that when his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate, said madam Judge had asked him about being under any pressure and he had replied before madam Judge that there was no pressure upon him and that he was making his statement voluntarily. PW5 also admitted that he had taken two names of Ashutosh and Vishwajeet before that madam Judge.
37. Ld. Special PP referred to certain judgments as passed in the case of Jodhraj Singh (supra) and Ramesh Prashad (supra) to argue that PW5 had deposed correctly in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in his testimony recorded before this court on 22.09.2022. However, under influence of accused persons, PW5 turned hostile during his examination on 28.08.2023. But the statement given by this witness u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and his testimony dated 22.09.2022 should be considered by this court.
38. It is worth to mention here that when PW5 was being examined on 22.09.2022, the videos contained in pen-drive Page 54 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar Ex.PW5/Article-1 were attempted to be played before him in the court. However, at that time the videos could not be played and in those circumstances, this court had sent that pen-drive to CFSL, New Delhi for forensic examination with three queries, which included, if there had been any kind of error in the video files due to which those files were not playable, and if there had been any kind of editing or tampering in those video files. I have already mentioned about the report given by expert/PW17. The purpose of mentioning this fact herein is to point out the reasons to defer the examination of PW5 on 22.09.2022. PW5 was further examined, when afore-said pen-drive along with report of PW17 was received back from CFSL, New Delhi and thus, the further examination of PW5 was conducted on 28.08.2023. Apparently there was a long gap between these two statements. It is also well apparent that on 28.08.2023 the tone and tenor of statement of PW5 was different from the perspective of the prosecution. However, it is important to note here that on 22.09.2022 also, PW5 had been hostile to deny having identified any other person except Ashutosh in the video. On that day, neither he was asked nor did he identify accused Ashutosh as the same person as identified by him before police in the video or named by him in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
39. I have gone through above-mentioned case laws. It is well settled now that even if a witness turns hostile, his statement need not be discarded in totality. The court is still expected to filter the part of his testimony on the parameters of credibility and corroboration from other evidence. Same legal principles were explained in Page 55 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar afore-said judgments. However, in the judgment passed in the case of Vijaya (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with detraction by a witness from his statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. The court recognized the law that the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it can be used for the purposes of contradiction and for corroboration. The court also observed that statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat and on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded directly. A higher burden must be placed upon the witness to retract from the same.
40. However, the question is that whether there is a substantive piece of evidence on the record of this case, to establish that accused Ashutosh and Vishwajeet, are the same persons, who were named by PW5 in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and who were appearing in the videos of incident at his shop? At the cost of repetition, it is clarified here that from the statement of PW5, no substantive piece of evidence appears on the record against these two accused persons, because PW5 denied that these two accused persons were the same persons, who were identified by him in the video and were named by him in statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. In such situation, merely on the basis of statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., no presumption can be raised against these two accused persons, because that statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. It could be used only for the purpose of corroboration.
41. PW24 in his testimony identified accused Ashutosh in one of the video files as given by PW5. However, in his cross-examination by defence, PW24 admitted that the person identified by him in Page 56 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar the video as accused Ashutosh, had muffled his face. I have also separately seen all the four video files as recorded by CCTV cameras installed out side the shop of PW5. The person identified by PW24 as accused Ashutosh, was appearing in the videos while having covered his face through handkerchief/cloth piece. In that situation the identification by PW24 becomes doubtful and apparently it was not a full proof identification of accused Ashutosh. I have already mentioned herein-above that neither PW24, nor his companion official i.e. PW16 vouched before the court having seen and identified any of the accused persons among the mob of rioters, at the time when they confronted such mob. Therefore, I do not get any substantive piece of evidence, even from the testimony of PW24, for the purpose of assuming presence of accused Ashutosh in the mob, which was responsible for incidents probed in this case.
42. I have already mentioned that IO had not sent the videos received from PW5 for the purpose of forensic examination. Thus, there was no examination of facial recognition using the videos provided by PW5 from his DVR. Even when that pen-drive was sent by this court to CFSL, New Delhi for forensic examination, no such request or demand came from the side of prosecution, for adding query for facial recognition examination as well.
43. The facial recognition examination was conducted using the videos recorded by CCTV cameras of PWD. PW12 gave a positive report in respect of resemblance of the photograph of accused Ashutosh and resemblance of T-shirt allegedly recovered from accused Ashutosh, with a person appearing in certain video Page 57 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar files, as contained in the hard-disk. PW12 also gave a positive report in respect of photograph of accused Vishwajeet with a person appearing in certain video files, as contained in the hard- disk. However, none of the witnesses including IO/PW30, deposed anything about the place of recording of such CCTV footages. PW28 only mentioned that he had received letter from Delhi Police sent to PWD, for furnishing CCTV footages of the cameras installed in the area of Karawal Nagar. He had downloaded the requisite video from the server and same was provided in a hard-disk. PW30/IO deposed that on 12.03.2020, he had taken an official from PWD to the area near place of incident and he had pointed out eight CCTV cameras, of which footages were demanded by him. However, location of those CCTV cameras were not explained by PW30 in his testimony. PW30 even did not depict location of those CCTV cameras in the site plan prepared by him, which is Ex.PW24/D-1. There is no evidence to show that from which camera videos were recorded, which were contained in the hard disk provided by PW28. Thus, I am unable to get any idea of location of those CCTV cameras and their coverage area. In absence of any concrete idea of coverage area of those CCTV cameras, their location and connectivity of videos contained in the hard disk with such cameras, I find that a gap has remained in the evidence of prosecution to show that the mob appearing in those videos, was the same mob which was responsible for incidents probed in this case. In that situation, the report given by PW12 does not help prosecution to establish presence and involvement of accused Page 58 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-003280-2021 State v. Ashutosh & Ors.
SC No. 318/2021 FIR No. 35/2020, PS Sonia Vihar persons, in the seven incidents as mentioned in the charges framed in this case. Thus, I find that there is no concrete evidence on the record to prove that accused persons were part of the riotous mob, which was responsible for all seven incidents probed and prosecuted in this case.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
44. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, accused Ashutosh, Vishwajeet and Hunny @ Anil, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2025.03.25 14:12:24 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 25.03.2025 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 59 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 59 of 59 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi