Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 152/2009 State vs . Dilshad & Ors. Page 1 Of 61 on 16 August, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA-04: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST:
               KARKARDOOMA:DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. 44958/15

CNR No. DLNE01-000120-2010
FIR No. 152/2009
P.S. Bhajan Pura
U/s : 186/307/332/353/147/148/149/ of IPC
      & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to
      Public Property Act

STATE

                                 Versus

(i) DILSHAD ALI
S/o Sh. Noor Mohd.
R/o C-1261 Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi

(ii) MIRZA NAZIS
S/o Sh. Taukir Hussain
R/o E-50, Gali No.2, Subhash Vihar,
Bhajanpura Delhi.

(iii) ABBAS MIRZA
S/o Sh. Gajanfar Ali
R/o B-489, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi

(iv) RAZI-UL-HASSAN(Proclaimed Offender)
S/o Sh. Sabbirul Hassan
R/o B-489, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi

(v) RAM PRASAD(Since deceased)
S/o Sh. Kanihya
R/o H.No. 67815,
Dargaha, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi


FIR No. 152/2009           State Vs. Dilshad & Ors.   Page 1 of 61
 (vi) IRFAN(Proclaimed Offender)
S/o Sh. Yamin
R/o House of Abbas, Gali No. 12,
25 Foota Road, Chand Bagh,
Delhi

(vii) SARAFRAZ AHMAD
S/o Sh. Rahis Ahmed
R/o A-42, Gali No.2, Chand Bagh
Delhi

(viii) FIROZ
S/o Sh. Irfan
R/o H.No. 1058, Gali No.20,
Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda,
Delhi

(ix) RAHISUDDIN
S/o Sh. Karimuddin
R/o B-841, Gali No. 13,
Subhash Vihar, Bhajanpura,
Delhi

(x) DEVENDER KUMAR
S/o Sh. Hukam Singh
R/o B-166, Gali No. 6,
Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda,
Delhi

(xi) BILAL AHMED
S/o Sh. Afzal
R/o E-50, Gali No. 1, Subhash Vihar,
North Ghonda, Delhi

(xii) DAL CHAND
S/o Sh. Chandu
R/o Village Sirdon, PS Chollan,
Hapur, Gaziabad, UP

Date of Institution :   14.05.2010
Date of Argument :      11.07.2023
Date of Judgment :      16.08.2023

FIR No. 152/2009           State Vs. Dilshad & Ors.   Page 2 of 61
 JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 16-04-2009, one Toukir, Abbas Mirza, Nazis, Arif, Dilshad Ali etc. along with other rioters had caused traffic jam at Bhajanpura chowk as they were protesting for arresting some innocent person in relation to the murder of one Arif @ Kallu. Later on, 400-500 rioters had joined them. Additional DCP had tried to pacify them. Despite repeated persuasions, they ransacked premises of PS Bhajanpura, pelted stones at police and opened fire at police officials. They also damaged the government vehicles. Due to stone pelting and beatings given by the rioters, Ct. Kulbir Singh, Ct. Sewa Singh, HC Rakesh Kumar, W/ASI Anuradha, ASI Manohar Lal, Ct. Anuj Kumar, Inspector Ishwar Singh, L/Ct. Indu, Ct. Avnish Kumar sustained injuries, who were got medically examined at GTB hospital. Due to stone pelting, other people had also sustained injuries. Inspector Pankaj Sharma, SHO PS Khajuri Khas got recorded his statement before Inspector Dinesh Kumar, SHO PS Bhajanpura that one FIR bearing no. 84/09 dated 12-04- 2009 u/s 302/34 IPC was registered at PS Khajuri Khas regarding murder of Arif @ Kallu and on 14-04-2009, in order to pressurize the police to arrest some innocent persons, the father of deceased namely Toukir, relatives Abbas Mirza, Arif, Bilal, Danish, Abbas Sami, Israt Ali, Raziual Hassan, brother of deceased namely Nazis, Ram Prasad along with crowd of 100-150 people seized Bhajanpura Chowk at 9:45 am. On receipt of information, Inspector Pankaj Sharma along with staff reached Bhajanpura Chowk where Inspector Dinesh Kumar, SHO PS Bhajanpura, Sh. Mahender Dabas, ACP Gokalpuri were already present there.

The ACP Gokalpuri, SHO Bhajanpura and Inspector Pankaj Sharma tried to pacify crowd and Hazi Dilshad Ali, who was leading the crowd, father of deceased namely Tuakir, brothers and relatives that three accused persons had already been arrested in murder case and remaining accused persons would be arrested soon. Taukir and his relatives told Inspector Pankaj Sharma and ACP Gokalpuri that they have to arrest the persons demanded by them. When police tried to make them understand that innocent persons cannot be arrested in a murder case, the father of deceased, brother and other relatives became aggressive and instigated the crowd against the police and crowd started raising slogans against the police and became violent. SHO Gokalpuri, SHO Seelampur with staff, Addl. SHO New Usmanpur with staff, DCP Reserve HRD, ACP Seelampur and police from other areas were also called at the spot. Sh. M. R. Gothwal, Addl. DCP also reached the spot and called the father of deceased, brothers, relatives and 2-3 persons in the PS Bhajanpura for talking. Inspector Pankaj Sharma along with ACP Gokalpuri along with father of deceased namely Tuakir, relatives Abbas Mirza, brother of deceased Nazis, relatives of deceased Aarif, Bilal, Danish, Abbas Sami, Israt Ali and 2-3 other people reached the office of Addl. DCP at PS Bhajanpura and talks were held. In the meantime, accused Dilshad Ali along with 7-8 persons also reached in the office of Addl. DCP at PS Bhajanpura and Addl. DCP told them that remaining accused would be arrested soon and police was trying its best. Those persons insisted to arrest the persons as per their demand. When Inspector Pankaj Sharma, ACP Gokalpuri and Sh. Data Ram, ACP Seelampur tried to counsel them that innocent persons cannot be arrested in a FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 4 of 61 murder case, those persons started raising slogans against the police that if police did not obey them, they would see the police and then became violent. Two-three persons were sent at Bhajanpura chowk and called other people at PS Bhajanpura. The father of deceased Taukir, brothers of deceased, relatives and Abbas Mirza, Danish Ali and others started abusing police violently. The Duty Officer, DD Writer, santri, operator of B-2, HC Rakesh also reached in the office of SHO and then Abbas Mirza, Danish, Abbas Sami and Israt Ali hit the glass tumbler on his head, he hit his head on glass top of table and then he hit the head against the office wall and injured his head, face and other body parts to ensure that bleeding takes place thereby instigating the crowd to become more violent and raised slogans in loud voice. The rioters said that they would teach a lesson to policemen and implicate them. ACP Gokalpuri gave warning to the rioters/ hooligans to go outside the police station but in vain. The violent crowd started entering the room of Duty Officer and when police tried to push them back, the father of deceased, brother and relatives in the leadership of Dilshad Ali started assaulting the police. To disperse the crowd, police fired tear gas but the crowd did not disperse. The crowd damaged the furniture and other govt. goods and CCTV in the rooms of Duty Officer, SHO, Cipa room. The crowd also damaged badly the Ambassador car no. DL1CH-8857 of Addl. DCP, Govt. Gypsy of SHO Seelampur and PCR Gypsy bearing no. DLKH-97008 (B-

37) and other govt. vehicles by stone pelting and danda blows. Police used lathicharge on the crowd and pushed out 400-500 people out of the police station. From outside the police station, the rioters started heavy stone pelting on the police. From the FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 5 of 61 crowd, accused Danish and Nazis started firing upon the police. Police also fired in air and after 20-25 minutes, police could disperse the rioters. Due to stone pelting and assault by the rioters, many policemen received injuries and they were sent to GTB Hospital. 400-500 rioters in the leadership of father of deceased Taukir, brother Danish, relatives Aarif, Abbas Mirza, Danish, Dilshad Ali did stone pelting and damaged Govt. vehicles and property and injured the policemen and public persons to pressurize the police to arrest innocent persons. Inspector Pankaj Sharma knew the above-mentioned accused who used to meet him in connection with the murder case. Raziual Hasan and Ram Prasad were overpowered by Inspector Pankaj Sharma with the help of staff. FIR u/s 147/148/149/186/353/332/307 IPC and u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and investigation was assigned to Inspector B. K. Singh. Photographer was called and spot was photographed. On 16.04.2009, accused Dilshad Ali, Raziual Hasan and Ram Prasad were arrested. On 17.04.2009, accused Lal Chand, Sarfaraz Ahmad, Firoz, Irfan were also arrested. Accused Sarfaraz Ahmed, Firoz, Irfan, and Lal Chand refused to participate in TIP proceedings. On 21.04.2009, one Devender Kumar and Rahisuddin were also arrested, they were also subjected to TIP Proceedings on 24.04.2009 but they have refused to participate therein. Damaged vehicles bearing no. DL- 1CH-8857 and DL1LD-1503 Tata 407 were seized by the police. On 26.07.2009, accused Abbas Mirza and Mirza Nazis were arrested and they were sent to judicial custody after their production in the court. On 12.08.2009, accused Nasir Ahmed was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

On 29.08.2009, accused Vilas Ahmed, who was already on anticipatory bail was formally arrested and released on bail. On 28.09.2009, accused Nasir Ahmed was arrested and released on bail.

COMMITTAL

2. After completion of necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Ld. Ilaqa MM. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr. PC, present case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 26-04-2010 of ld. MM/NE/KKD. Thereafter, the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge, N/E Courts allocated this case to the ld. Predecessor of this court.

CHARGE

3. On the basis of facts emerging from the chargesheet and after hearing the arguments, Ld. Predecessor had observed that prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons except accused Nasir Ahmed for the offence punishable u/s 144/145/147/148/186 r/w 149/ 332 r/w 149/ 353 r/w 149/ 307 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Charge was framed accordingly by ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.08.2010 against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, accused Nasir Ahmed was discharged as no ingredients for the aforesaid offences were brought on record against this accused Nasir Ahmed. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined as many as 21 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. (i) PW1 ASI Mahesh Chand is the investigating police official. He deposed that on 21.04.2009, he was posted at P.S. FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 7 of 61 Bhajanpura, Delhi, On that day, SHO/Inspector Dinesh Sharma and Inspector B.K. Singh had shown some photographs of the accused persons involved in the present case in the morning briefing at P.S. He and some other police officials had been directed to search the accused persons with the help of photographs. On that day, he along with HC Indperpal were on patrolling in the area of Subhash Vihar, with the the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. During patrolling at about 11:00am, one accused - Rahisuddin met them at the main road, in front of Govt. School, Subhash Vihar, Delhi. He had identified aforesaid accused Rahisuddin with his photograph. He apprehended accused Rahisuddin and brought him to P.S. with the help of HC Indperpal. They had produced him before SHO and SHO directed them to produce him before the IO/Inspector B.K. Singh. Accused Rahisuddin was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A and personal search memo Ex.PW1/B. Witness has correctly identified the accused Rahisuddin.

Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(ii) PW2 Vansidhar Sharma is the Free-Lance reporter in the area of North-East District. He deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. He has no knowledge about the rioting case in front of PS Bhajanpura in the year 2009.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that on 17.10.2009, police had met him, interrogated him and recorded his statement in this case. He further denied the suggestion that on 16.04.2009, he was not running his aforesaid school. He denied the suggestion that on 16.04.2009, he used to collect crime reports in the area of N-E FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 8 of 61 District for NDTV channel. . He denied the suggestion that on 16.04.2009 in between 09:45 am to 12:00 noon, a riot had taken place on a road, in front of P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. . He denied the suggestion that at the time of riot he was present in front of P.S. Bhajanpura and was performing duty for NDTV channel, or that officials of some other T.V. channels were also present there, or that they were also present there for duties on behalf of their concerned channels. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared running C.D. of riots. He denied the suggestion that other channel official had also prepared running C.D. of riot. He volunteered that he was not present there. He denied the suggestion that he had handed over seven CDs to the IO of this case which were prepared by him or other reporters. One open envelope available on judicial file, taken out, it is containing 7 running CDs and one photographs' CD. 7 running CDs were shown to this witness. On seeing the same, witness submits that he had not handed over any CD to police. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the facts that he was not present at the spot at the time of riot. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the fact that he did not prepare any running CD of riot. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons as he had settled the matter with them outside the court. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons. He was confronted with various portions of his statement Ex.PW2/A, which was recorded by the IO during the investigation of the present case.

Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(iii) PW3 Ct. Anuj Malik is the injured police official. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura and was on duty as Santri (Guard) at P.S. His duty hours were from 08:00 am to 04:00 pm on that day and he was having service weapon i.e. SLR for his duty there. During his duty, at about 09:00 am, it came into his notice that there was a Dharna at Bhajanpura Chowk, Delhi. At about 10:00 am Addl. DCP (Beta-

2) had come at P.S., thereafter, ACP, Seelampur had also arrived. ACP of their area was already present there. At about 10:15 am, 10-15 public persons came at the gate of P.S. and they entered into the room of SHO/Inspector D.K. Sharma. Out of aforesaid 10-15 persons, 4-5 were senior citizens and others were youngster. After about 15 minutes, one person out of 10-15 persons came out from SHO's room, whose name came into notice as Abbas Mirza. At that time blood was oozing out from his head injury. He could say what had happened inside the room as he was on duty at the gate of P.S. Other persons had also come out from the SHO's room and reached in the D.O. room. Accused Abbas Mirza had told to DO that he had been beaten by ACP and DCP. Accused Bilal and Nazis, who were the members of aforesaid mob went outside the D.O. room and picked up pieces of brick and returned to DO room. Aforesaid persons had assembled in front of DO room. Accused Bilal had hit the piece of brick upon the head of accused Abbas Mirza. Accused Nazis had hit the piece of brick himself upon his head. Aforesaid accused persons had done so with the intention to put the allegations on police officials. Thereafter, public persons started entering into the P.S. one by one and gathered inside the P.S. in the shape of a mob. Mob started slogans i.e. "Khoon ka badla FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 10 of 61 Khoon" and "Delhi Police Haye-haye". He further deposed that senior police officials had tried to intervene the matter but accused persons along with other public persons continued with their slogans. Some persons from mob had broken window glasses of P.S. by pelting stones. Flower pots were also pelted by them upon the furniture of P.S. Mob including accused persons were having stones and dandas in their hands and they had caused damage to the CCTVs, computer, window glasses of DO room, thereafter, accused persons with the mob started pelting stones upon the police officials and obstructed them in discharging their duties. Six-seven police officials had sustained injuries in the aforesaid incident. Name of injured police officials are : lady Ct. Indu, Ct. Avneesh, Ct. Hawa Singh, Ct. Kuldeep, W-ASI Anuradha and him. He had sustained stone injuries on his left arm and back. Police had used tear gas from the roof of P.S. in order to disperse the mob. When the mob could not be controlled, he went inside the P.S. After some time he came out and opened the fire at the direction of Addl., DCP (Beta-2). Thereafter, mob dispersed from P.S. All injured were taken to GTB Hospital in the vehicle (gypsy) of SHO where MLCs were prepared by the doctors. One other person was also in the mob who was standing behind accused Nazis in the dock and he discloses his name as Rahisuddin. Accused Haji Dilshad was not the member of mob. One other person who was standing in the dock behind accused Abbas Mirza was also member of the mob and he disclosed his name as Ram Prasad. As per his knowledge, other accused persons, who were present in court, were not the members of mob. He did not know the other facts of this case. He had not joined the further investigation of this case.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he affirmed that on 16.04.2009, 27.07.2009, 29.08.2009 and 03.10.2009 his statements were recorded by the IO. He had joined his duty at P.S. Bhajanpura in the month of March 2009. Presently, he was serving as a beat constable under the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhajanpura. He affirmed that on the day of incident i.e. 16.04.2009 there was a procession at the red light of Bhajanpura, Delhi on the issue of arrest of accused in a murder case of P.S. Bhajanpura. He affirmed that some media persons from news channels were also present at that time with their camera and they had shot the videography of entire episode. He volunteered that media personnel had come at P.S. along with the mob, but, he could not say how much and from where videos were shot out. He denied the suggestion that some members of mob were having country-made pistols in their hands. However, some members of the mob were having dandas and stones. He further denied the suggestion that accused Haji Dilshad was the leader of the mob. He volunteered that he had come to know at a later stage that accused Haji Dilshad was present with the mob. He affirmed that mob had caused damage to government/police vehicles parked in the P.S. or outside P.S. Photographs mark 1 to 18 available on file were shown to the witness. On seeing the same, this witness had stated that these do not belong to the incident. He volunteered that he could not say by whom these photographs were taken. He affirmed that photograph mark 18 was depicting the photograph of Haji Dilshad. He denied the suggestion that accused Dal Chand, Devender Kumar, Firoz, Sarfraz and Raziul Hassan were also member of unlawful assembly. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 12 of 61 identifying aforesaid accused Dal Chand, Devender Kumar, Firoz, Sarfraz and Raziul Hassan as member of unlawful assembly. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the aforesaid accused persons on the fact of their identity. He affirmed that accused Abbas Mirza and Nazis had been arrested by the Investigating Officer in this case in his presence on 27.07.2009 or that he had identified them before Investigating Officer. He affirmed that accused Bilal Ahmad had also been arrested by Investigating Officer on 29.08.2009 in his presence and that he had identified him as a member of that unlawful assembly. He affirmed that all the police officials had sustained injuries caused by member of unlawful assembly. He denied the suggestion that aforesaid unlawful assembly had caused injury/damaged the public property by using country made pistol under supervision and control of accused Haji Dilshad Ali. He denied the suggestion that he had seen accused Haji Dilshad Ali while entering in Police Station along with unlawful assembly. He affirmed that he could identify police vehicles which were damaged in the present incident if same were shown to him. He denied the suggestion that rukka was prepared on the statement of Inspector Pankaj Sharma. He further denied the suggestion that it had came into his notice that two members of unlawful assembly, namely, accused Ram Prasad and Razi-ul-Hassan had been caught red handed. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the facts of arrest of aforesaid two accused persons that they had been arrested at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identify accused Haji Dilshad as a leader of unlawful assembly. He further denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused Haji Dilshad FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 13 of 61 and others, or that he was deposing falsely at his instance in order to save him.

In his cross-examination by Z. Babar Chauhan, Ld. counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, Abbas Mirza and Bilal Ahmad, he deposed that he had stated in his statement to police, dated 16.04.2009 that he had received information that there was a procession at the Bhajanpura, Red- light Chowk.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudary, ld. Counsel for accused Mirza Nazis, he affirmed that at that time, he was on duty at the gate of PS and therefore, he could not say as to what was going on inside the office of SHO. DO room was situated at the distance of 8-10 steps from the main gate of PS. He affirmed that by that time, he had not been familiar with the local public persons of the area, either by their faces or names. About 800- 1000 public persons had gathered at the time when the slogans "Khoon Ka Badla Khoon and Delhi Police Hai-Hai" were coming out. He affirmed that accused Nazis was not known to him by his face or name at that time. He further deposed that on that day, two-three media persons had come at the PS at about 9:00 am on 16.04.2009. On that day, the media persons had collected at PS Bhajanpura because one demonstration was to take place at Bhajanpura Chowk. He could not say about the source of aforesaid information.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Devender and Rahisuddin @ Riyazuddin, he deposed that IO had not taken the broken glasses, CCTVs and computer in possession in his presence at PS. The injured police officials were taken to hospital sometime between 12:00 noon and 01:00 pm and reached at the hospital within ten minutes.

Witness was not cross-examined by accused persons Dalchand, Firoz and Sarfraz Ahmad despite having given the opportunity.

(iv) PW4 Smt. Lata Jain is the injured of the present case. She deposed that on 16th of April, about 4 years back she was present at the first floor of her house for drying clothes. It was about 11 or 11:30 am, all of a sudden one bullet had hit on the left side of her chest. Bleeding started from her chest. She was taken to GTB Hospital, where, she was treated for about 15 days.

Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(v) PW5 Data Ram is the eye witness as well as the investigating police official. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted as ACP, Seelampur. On that day at about 09.45 a.m., while he was on duty, he got information that there was a traffic jam at Bhajanpura Chowk due to demonstration by certain people in connection with murder case of PS Khajuri Khas. On this information, he reached Bhajanpura Chowk where 100-150 people were present and created a traffic jam. ACP, Gokulpuri, SHO Bhajnapura, SHO Khajuri Khas, SHO Seelampur, Addl. SHO New Usmanpur with police officials were present there. ACP, Gokulpuri and SHO Khajuri Khas were trying to pacify the assembly. He deposed that police officers were stating that three accused were already arrested in the murder case and other arrested persons would be arrested shortly but father of the deceased Sh. Taukeer and other relatives of the deceased were insisting for arrest of other persons whom they wanted to be arrested. After receiving information, Sh. M.S. Gotwal, Addl. DCP, North-East reached PS Bhajanpura. ACP, Gokulpuri and FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 15 of 61 SHO, Khajuri Khas persuaded the said persons to come to PS Bhajanpura for having a talk with Sh. M.S. Gotwal, Addl. DCP, North-East. Thereafter, he alongwith SHO, Khajuri Khas, SHO Bhajanpura and 7-8 persons from the deceased party including Sh. Dilshad Ali, Sh Taukeer Ali, father of deceased reached office of SHO, Bhajanpura. After reaching office, Sh. M.S. Gotwal Addl. DCP, North East heard grievances of the deceased party and told them that three persons were already arrested and remaining accused persons would be arrested shortly but the deceased party was insisting for the arrest of persons to whom they believed to be involved in this case. Sh. MS. Gotwal told them that arrest in murder case will be effected after collecting proper evidence and no arrest will be made without evidence. In the meantime, Dilshad Ali and other persons present in office started raising noise and in the same time, Ishrat Ali took glass from table and hit the same on his head. Thereafter, Ishrat Ali struck his head on the glass table. Dilshad Ali, Ishrat Ali and other persons present there raised alarm 'police ne maar diya, maar diya'. On this, other mob from outside entered in office of SHO and started manhandling police officers. He further deposed that ACP, Gokalpuri and he gave warning to them and asked them to leave police station and also warned them for necessary legal action. Mob under the leadership of Dilshad Ali started breaking furniture, CCTV Cameras and other articles of police station. They also started beating police officials. They also pelted stones on the police vehicles parked in police station. Vehicles no. DL ICH 8857 of Addl. DCP and DL. ICH 9708 of PCR were damaged. Police officials used tear gas shells. When accused persons started firing, police also fired in the air to FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 16 of 61 disperse the crowd. At about 12.00 noon, situation was brought under control and crowd was dispersed from there. On the same day, he alongwith Insp. B.K. Singh, ACP Gokulpuri and other police officials reached at the house of accused Dilshad Ali bearing no. C-12/61, Yamuna Vihar. Insp. B.K. Singh arrested accused Dilshad Ali in this case at 05.00 p.m. He claimed that his statement was recorded by IO on the same day. He has correctly identify the accused persons.

Witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Rahisuddin, Devinder Kumar, Nazis Mirza, Sarfraz, Bilal Ahmed and Firoz despite having given the opportunity.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel Z Babar Chauhan, he deposed that he stated to IO in his statement that Dilshad Ali, Ishrat Ali and other persons present there raised alarm 'police ne maar diya'. It is not his knowledge that Dilshad Ali was called by ACP Veer Singh to pacify the matter between the complainant party of the murder case and the police. He denied the suggestion that false case was registered against the accused persons by the police officials to save themselves from action as Lata Jain sustained an injury due to rubber pellet fired by the police officials and the police officials were under the impression that she sustained fire arm injuries. It is not in his knowledge Taukeer and Ishrat have not been made accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or that he had not seen Dilshad leading the mob or uttering any instigating word.

(vi) PW6 Retd. ACP Mahender Singh Dabas is the eye witness as well as the complainant, who has filed the complaint u/s 195 of Cr.P.C. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 17 of 61 as ACP. Gokalpuri. On that day at about 09.45 a.m., he received an information regarding traffic jam at Bhajanpura Chowk by a mob of 100-150 persons. He reached at Bhajanpura Chowk. He found a crowd of 100-150 persons present there who was creating traffic jam. They were demanding arrest of more persons in a murder case bearing FIR No. 84/09 PS Khajuri Khas. SHO PS Bhajanpura, SHO PS Khajuri Khas, SHO PS Gokulpuri, SHO PS Selampur and staff of DCP. Reserve also reached there. They pacified the people and asked them to accompany them to office of SHO PS Bhajanpura where Addl. DCP Sh. M.R. Gotwal (now deceased) was present. They alongwith public persons including Najish, brother of deceased and Abbas Mirza, Taufiq etc. reached in the office of SHO PS Bhajanpura. Sh. M.R. Gotwal, the then Addl. DCP made to understand the public persons and asked them that police would arrest the real culprits. He told the public persons that they would not arrest any innocent person in the said case of PS Khajuri Khas. In the meantime, accused Dilshad Ali with 8-10 more persons entered in his office of SHO at about 11.00 a.m. He also tried to understand the accused persons and other public persons. Abbas Mirza, Najish and 2-3 more persons took water glass and hit on their heads. They caused injuries themselves and started crying that police officials beaten and injured them. They called the mob from outside. He further deposed that accused persons alongwith mob started breaking furniture, and other articles of the office of SHO, Duty Officer's Room and of Room. They also damaged police vehicles bearing no. DL ICH 8857 and DL 1CH 9708. He warned the mob including accused Dilshad Ali, Abbas Mirza, Najish and others to desist from unlawful act. Accused persons with other people FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 18 of 61 started beating police officials and started pelting stones on them. The people who were present near the gate of PS Bhajanpura also fired the gunshot. Police officials used tear gas shells and fired in the air to control and disperse the mob. After about 20-25 minutes, mob was dispersed from the police station Bhajanpura. FIR of this case was registered and investigation was conducted by Insp. B.K. Singh. He further deposed that he alongwith Insp. B.K. Singh, Sh. Data Ram, ACP Seelampur and other police officials reached at the house of accused Dilshad Ali i.e. H. No, C-12/61, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. IO Insp. B.K. Singh arrested the accused Dilshad Ali. Thereafter, they returned to police station Bhajanpura. His statement was recorded by IO.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Nazish and Abbas, he deposed that on 12.04.2009, accused Nazish, Abbas Mirza alongwith 15-20 persons met him in PS Khajuri Khas in connection with FIR No. 84/09. He affirmed that all these persons left PS Khajuri Khas after meeting him peacefully. He could not tell as to how many police personnels were present in the PS Bhajanpura at the time of alleged incident. Addl. DCP, East, ACP, Seelampur, SHO, Bhajanpura, SHO, Khajuri Khas and himself were present in the office of SHO, PS Bhajanpura. Nazish, Abbas Mirza, Abbas Sami, Ishrat Ali, Tauqir and 10-15 other persons were present in the SHO Room. He affirmed that conversations of these persons with them were going on in very peaceful manner. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not break open the glasses with their heads within SHO Room. He also affirmed that Nazish is the real brother of deceased in FIR No. 84/09 and met him in regard with that case.

In his cross-examination by Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Hazi Dilshad Ali, he affirmed that police fired shots in the air during the incident. He denied the suggestion that false case was registered against the accused persons by the police officials to save themselves from action as Lata Jain sustained an injury due to rubber pellet fired by the police officials and the police officials were under the impression that she sustained firearm injuries.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Rahisuddin, Devender, Sarfraj, Firoz and Bilal, he deposed that he did not remember if he had signed Ex.PW6/A before or after filing of the charge-sheet.

(vii) PW7 Ct. Avnish is the eye witness as well as the injured. He deposed that on 16.04.2009 he was posted in PS Bhajanpura. On that day at about 11.00 a.m., he was present in police station. 400-500 public persons came to police station Bhajanpura, One Hazi Dilshad Ali was leading them. The witness has pointed towards the accused Hazi Dilshad Ali as the person who was leading the crowd. He has correctly identified the accused Hazi Dilshad Ali.

He further deposed that Dilshad Ali and the accompanying crowd started pelting stones towards police officers/officials. They had broken CCTV, glasses of vehicles of DCP and senior officers of police and furniture. Stones thrown by them hit him, W/ASI Anuradha, Ct. Anuj, Ct. Sewa Singh and other police officers/ officials. The other accused persons who were present in the Court today were also throwing stones and assaulted police officials. He did not remember their names. Insp. Dinesh Kumar, SHO, PS Bhajanpura, Sh. Data Ram, ACP and other senior FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 20 of 61 officers of police tried to pacify the accused persons and mob but they did not pay heed. Police officials used tear gas shells. Police also fired in the air to disburse the crowd when accused persons started firing in the air. The situation was controlled at about 12.00 noon. The accused persons and other public persons ran away from police station. He and other police officials who suffered injuries were taken to GTB Hospital by government gypsy. He obtained treatment in GTB Hospital.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Riyasuddin, Devender, Sarfraz, Firoz and Bilal, he deposed that he did not know the names of the other accused persons who were present in the Court except accused Hazi Dilshad Ali. He did not know whether his statement was recorded by IO. He was present in the Duty Officer's Room when mob entered in Police Station. Other senior police officials also reached simultaneously. He reached GTB Hospital at about 2:00 pm. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day. He did not remember the time of his discharge from the hospital. Other injured were also discharged on the same day.

In his cross-examination by Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Hazi Dilshad Ali, he deposed that it is not in his knowledge that Hazi Dilshad was called by ACP Veer Singh to pacify the matter between the complainant party of a murder case and police. He denied the suggestion that the injuries were self inflicted in nature in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

(viii) PW8 Ms. Shivali Sharma is the Ld. ACMM who had conducted the TIP proceedings of accused persons, namely, Sarfraz Ahmed, Irfan, Firoz and Dal Chand. She has proved the FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 21 of 61 record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Irfan as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Sarfraj Ahmed was proved as Ex.PW8/C and ExPW8/D. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Dal Chand was proved as Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Firoz was proved as Ex.PW8/G and Ex.PW8/H. The application moved by the IO for conducting the TIP of accused persons was proved as Ex.PW8/I and Ex.PW8/J. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Devender was proved as Ex.PW8/L and Ex.PW8/M. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings of accused Rahisuddin was proved as Ex.PW8/N and Ex.PW8/O. The copyof application for obtaining TIP proceedings was proved as Ex.PW8/P. The witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(ix) PW9 Dr. Mrigendra Das was the Casualty Medical Officer posted at GTB Hospital at 16.04.2009. He had medically examined injured Ct. Kulbir Singh on 16.04.2009. He has deposed that injured had abrasion in the both dorsal aspects of forearm measuring 3 cm. The nature of injury sustained by Ct. Kulbir Singh was opined as simple. The witness identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Mansi Budhiraja who had examined injured Ishwar Singh. He deposed that opinion regarding the nature of injury was given by him as simple. He has proved the following documents as:

(i) He has proved the MLC of Ct. Kulbir as Ex.PW9/A.

(ii) He has proved the MLC of Ishwar Singh as Ex.PW9/B.

(iii) He has proved the MLC of injured Rakesh Kumar, FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 22 of 61 who was examined by Dr. Mansi Budhiraja as Ex.PW9/C.

(iii) He has proved the MLC of Dr. Lata Jain, examined by Dr. S. Kumar as Ex.PW9/D.

(iv) He has proved the MLC of Sewa Singh, examined by Dr. S. Kumar as Ex.PW9/E. He opined the nature of injury as simple on the said MLC.

(v) He has proved the MLC of injured Anuj Kumar as Ex.PW9/F.

(vi) He has proved the MLC of Anuradah, who was examined by Dr. Niraj Kumar Nikunj as Ex.PW9/G.

(vii) He has proved the MLC of Ct. Inder, who was examined by Dr. Niraj Kumar Nikunj as Ex.PW9/H.

(viii) He has proved the MLC of Avnish Kumar, who was examined by Dr. Niraj Kumar Nikunj as Ex.PW9/I. In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, Ld. Counsel for accused Riyasuddin, Devender, Sarfraz, Firoz and Bilal, he deposed that the duration of injuries sustained by the injured persons examined by him and other doctors, as named above could be six hours.

In his cross-examination by Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, he deposed that possibility of self infliction of injures mentioned in MLC Ex.PW9/A cannot be ruled out. His answer was same in respect of injured mentioned in MLC Ex.PW9/E. As per MLC Ex.PW9/C, it was mentioned therein that there was no visible injury mark on the person of patient. He affirmed that if a person hit a danda upon himself then possibility of the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW9/G cannot be ruled out. As per MLC Ex.PW9/H, there was no visible injury mark on the person of patient. The injury mentioned in FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 23 of 61 MLC Ex.PW9/I may be sustained by a person if he falls on any hard surface. Possibility of self infliction of injured mentioned in MLC Ex.PW9/F and Ex.PW9/B cannot be ruled out.

(x) PW10 Sanjay Bhatnagar was the photographer, who was called by IO Insp. B.K. Singh for conducting video recording of broken articles including glasses, furniture and vehicles. He claimed that he has prepared two VCDs. He has also claimed that he has not given the VCDs in the envelope in which they are produced at the time of his examination. The VCDs produced by the MHC(M) could not be played on the laptop brought by the IO. He stated that the VCDs are damaged and they are not playable.

The witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(xi) PW11 Retd. SI Manohar Lal Dhyani conducted mechanical inspection of Vehicle No. DL 1CH 9708 make Toyoto Qualis, who was called by the IO for the purpose of mechanical inspection. He has proved the report prepared by him as Ex.PW11/A. In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Rahisuddin, Devender, Sarfraz, Firoz and Bilal, he deposed that he was called by Insp. B.K. Singh through telephone on 16.05.2009.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Hazi Dilshad, he deposed that the damages as mentioned in his report and noticed by him were fresh. They could be 2-3 days. He affirmed that exact duration of damage could not be ascertained.

(xii) PW12 ACP Dinesh Kumar ACP is the investigating FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 24 of 61 police official as well as eye witness. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted in PS Bhajanpura as SHO. On that day at about 09.45 a.m., he received an information that 150-200 persons were demonstrating at Bhajanpura Chowk and obstructing smooth flow of traffic. He alongwith other police officials reached at Chowk, Bhajanpura. He found a crowd there. Insp. Pankaj Sharma, SHO, PS Khajuri Khas, Sh. Mahender Dabas, ACP, Gokul Puri, Sh. Data Ram, ACP Seelampur, SHO, PS Seelampur, Addl. SHO, PS New Usmanpur and other police officials had also reached there. All the officials tried to pacify the crowd. Sh. Mahender Singh Dabas and SHO, PS Khajuri Khas took some of the demonstrators including Tauqir, Nazis, Abbas and Danish to PS Bhajanpura. Sh. M.R. Gotwal, Addl. DCP, North-East and Sh. Data Ram, ACP also reached in the office of SHO, PS Bhajanpura. Senior police officers started talks with them. At about 10.45 a.m., accused Dilshad Ali reached there with 7-8 persons and joined the conversation. He was present near Duty Officer Desk. After sometime at about 11.00 a.m. Nazis, Danish and Iftikar Ali came out of SHO Room and started shouting. They instigated the crowd by stating that police officers beaten them. Accused Hazi Dilshad Ali came there from the room of SHO and starting instigating the crowd to take law in its hands. 400-500 public persons had collected in the premises of PS Bhajanpura. He alongwith Sh. Data Ram, ACP, Sh. Mahender Dabas, ACP and myself tried to pacify the accused persons and other members of the crowd. Accused persons alongwith other members of the crowd broken articles of the police station including CCTV cameras, telephone of DO Room Furniture of SHO room and glasses. They also damaged car of FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 25 of 61 Addl. DCP bearing No. DL-ICH-8857 and PCR van bearing No. DL-1CH- 9708 and TATA 407 which was standing in the premises of PS Bhajanpura. They also lifted documents from the car of the Addl. DCP. Police officials tried to disperse the crowd and released 26 tear shells. Some persons from the crowd fired in the air. On the direction of senior officers, police also fired 4 rounds in the air. After some time, crowd was dispersed from there. Nine police officials had sustained injuries. They were sent to hospital for treatment. He recorded statement of Insp. Pankaj Sharma, SHO, PS Khajuri Khas and prepared rukka Ex.PW12/A. He handed over rukka to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. They apprehended and Ram Prasad from the crowd and handed over them to IO Insp. B.K. Singh. He further deposed that on 16.04.2009, they also apprehended accused Raziul Hasan and handed over his custody to the DO. Further investigation of this case was assigned to Insp. B. K. Singh. On 27.07.2009, Insp. Hans Raj Singh after apprehending accused Abbas Mirza and Nazish and in the custody of Insp. Hans Raj Singh, He identified both the said accused persons who were involved in commission of offence on 16.04.2009. Thereafter Insp. Hans Raj Singh recorded his statement. On 29.08.2009, he also identified accused Bilal at PS Bhajanpura as accused Bilal was on anticipatory bail. Insp. Hans Raj Singh recorded his supplementary statement. He correctly identify accused Bilal, Abbas Mirza and Nazish.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell names of those persons who had accompanied accused Dilshad Ali but he could identify them by faces. Broken articles were not seized in his presence. Window glasses of various vehicles were broken. Fire rounds in the air were fired on instructions of ACP FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 26 of 61 Data Ram and ACP Mahender. ASI Anuradha, ASI Manohar Lal, HC Rakesh, Ct. Anuj, Lady Ct. Indu, Ct. Sewa Singh and others had received injuries. He did not recollect what injures and on which part of body were received by these persons. He did not remember whether the IO got conducted any judicial TIP of any of the accused persons.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Nazish and Abbas Mirza, he affirmed that prior to the incident, he did not know names of these accused or recognize their faces.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, he deposed that accused Dilshad was not known to him prior to the incident. He was not aware if accused Dilshad Ali was contesting Lok Sabha Election from BSP He was not aware if ACP Veer Singh had called accused Dilshad Ali to pacify the matter. Accused Dilshad Ali in the room of SHO for about 20-25 minutes. He denied the suggestion that accused Dilshad Ali did not instigate the crowd to take law in its hands.

(xiii) PW13 HC Shri Pal is the MHC(M) posted at PS Bhajan Pura at the relevant time. He deposed that on 17.04.2009, he was posted in police station Bhajanpura. On that day, he was working as MHC(M) of Government Property. He mentioned entry regarding damage of two CCTV cameras of police station in FIR No. 152/09 PS Bhajanpura in Reg. No. 16 i.e. Electronic and Electric Gadgets Register. Copy containing relevant entry of Reg. No. 16 as Ex.PW13/A. On the same day, he also entered entry in Reg. No. 16 relating to furniture and almirahs regarding breaking of full size mirror fixed near Duty Officer's seat. Copy FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 27 of 61 containing relevant entry in Reg. No. 16 as Ex.PW13/B. Original registers compared, seen and returned to the him. He mentioned DD No. 52B in roznamcha register regarding the property damaged in the police station. He had brought roznamcha register containing DD No. 52B. Photocopy of the same as Ex.PW13/C (OSR).

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material found in his cross-examination.

(xiv) PW14 SI Suresh Hiwarkar is the investigating police official. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted in police station Bhajanpura. On that day, he alongwith Insp. B.K. Singh and other officers at the house of accused Hazi Dilshad Ali bearing No. C-12/61, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi at 05.00 p.m. Insp. B.K. Singh arrested the accused Hazi Dilshad Ali in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A. They took the accused to GTB Hospital and got him medically examined. Thereafter, accused was produced before concerned Duty MM and he was sent to judicial custody. His statement was recorded. On the same day at 10.30 p.m., accused Ram Prasad and Raziul Hasan were arrested by IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C respectively. He further deposed that on 17.04.2009, Insp. B.K. Singh called the accused Firoz, Dal Chand and Sarfraz in the police station and arrested them in this case. Their arrest memos bear his signature at point A. He has correctly identified all the accused persons except accused Firoz.

(xv) PW15 ASI M.M. Khan is the investigating police official. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted in police station Bhajanpura. On that day, he was present in police station. At about 10.45 a.m., SHO, PS Khajuri Khas, SHO PS Gokul FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 28 of 61 Puri, SHO, PS Seelampur, Addl. SHO, PS New Usmanpur, ACP Seelampur brought 8-10 public persons to the office of SHO, PS Bhajanpura. Sh. M.R. Gotwal, Addl. DCP, North-East was also present. They were talking in the office of SHO, PS Bhajanpura. At about 11.00 a.m., Hazi Dilshad Ali came there with 100-200 persons and entered in the room of SHO. One public person namely Ishrat Ali picked a glass from the table and hit on her head and after coming out from the SHO Room, told the public person that he was beaten by the police officials. Accused Dilshad Ali also instigated the mob of 400-500 persons. Accused persons alongwith mob broken CCTV, telephone, computer, mirror, chairs etc. of the police station. They also damaged the officials vehicles. Police officials released tears shells to disperse the mob and also fired in the air. After dispersing the mob, Insp. B.K. Singh registered the FIR of this case. On the same day, he alongwith IO and other police officials reached the house of accused Hazi Dilshad Ali at about 05.00 p.m. IO arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW14/A. He was got medically examined in GTB Hospital and produced before the Court. Accused Hazi Dilshad Ali, Abbas Mirza, Bilal, and other accused persons were present in the Court today damaged the government property and caused injuries to the police officials on that day. Thereafter, the said accused persons were produced in GTB Hospital and they were got medically examined. He further deposed that on 17.04.2016, he again joined the investigation in this case. On that day a phone call was received by SHO from secret informer stating that 4-5 persons involved in this case were present at Shaitan Chowk, Bhajan Pura. If raid was conducted they can be apprehended. A team was constituted at FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 29 of 61 the instructions of SHO and the team was comprised of him, HC Abdul Rahim, 3-4 constables and they waited at the aforesaid place. There at the instance of secret informer they apprehended four persons whose names were revealed as Irfan, Firoz, Sarfaraj and Dal Chand. They were interrogated and on interrogation they confessed their guilt. Then they were brought to PS Bhajan Pura and they were produced before Insp. B.K. Singh. Accused Irfan was arrested by the IO Insp. B.K. Singh vide memo Ex.PW15/A. Accused Dal Chand was arrested. Accused Sarfaraj was also formally arrested. Personal search of all the four accused persons was conducted by Insp. B.K. Singh.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Sarfarz, Firoz, Rahisuddin, Devender and Bilal, he deposed that assailant Israt Ali picked up the glass from the table of the SHO and hit himself on his head. Ishrat Ali was not apprehended by them at that time. The assailants had broken two computers, 4-5 chairs, two telephones, glasses of door of DO and glasses of door of SHO room. One car, one scooter, 5-6 motorcycles and scooters were damaged. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation neither on 16.04.2009 nor on 17.04.2009. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not arrested in his presence.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, he deposed that he was aware that accused Dilshad Ali was contesting Lok Sabha Election from BSP. He was not aware if ACP Veer Singh had called accused Dilshad Ali to pacify the matter.

(xvi) PW16 Insp. Pankaj Sharma is the investigating police official. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was working FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 30 of 61 as SHO PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi. On 11.04.2009, one Arif Kallu was murdered and in this regard case FIR No. 84/09 u/s 302/34 IPC was lodged at PS Khajuri Khas on 12.04.2009. In this regard, some persons including brother Nazish, father Taukir and other relatives of deceased namely Abbas Mirza, Arif, Danish, Bilal, Abbas Sami, Ishrat Ali, Razibul Hasan were pressurizing the police to arrest some innocent persons on 16.04.2009 in this case. They alongwith 100-150 persons jammed the traffic at Bhajanpura Chowk. On receipt of the information, he alongwith his staff reached at Bhajanpura Chowk where SHO PS Bhajanpura Insp. Dinesh Kumar, ACP Gokal Puri Sh. Mahender Singh Dabas alongwith staff were already present there. They tried to persuade the father of deceased, brother of deceased, Hazi Dilshad Ali who was leading the crowd and other relatives to remove the jam. They were told by them that three persons involved in the case had already been arrested and the remaining accused persons will be arrested soon. However, all the said persons stated to them that the police would have to arrest all the persons whom they wanted to be arrested. They tried to make them understand that they could not arrest any innocent person in a murder case. On this, the father, brother and other relatives of deceased instigated the crowd and crowd shouted slogans and became violent. ACP Mahender Singh Dabas told about the situation to the senior officers. Thereafter, SHO PS Gokal Puri alongwith staff, SHO PS Seelampur alongwith staff, Addl. SHO PS New Usman Pur, HRD DCP reserve and other police officials from other police stations had also reached at the spot. Addl. DCP Sh. M. R. Gotwal reached at PS Bhajanpura and he called father, brother and other relatives of deceased and some other FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 31 of 61 persons at the PS to talk with them. Thereafter, he alongwith ACP Gokal Puri and father of deceased, relative Abbas Mirzam brother Nazish, Arif, Bilal, Danish, Abbas Sami, Ishrat Ali and alongwith 2-3 persons reached in the office of SHO PS Bhajanpura, there Sh. M. R. Addl. DCP met them and the talk between DCP and those persons started. In meantime, Hazi Dilshad Ali alongwith 7-8 persons also entered in the said office. Thereafter, Addl. DCP told them that the police was trying its level best to arrest the remaining accused persons wanted in the said case but they insisted that the police was to arrest the persons in accordance with their wishes. On this, he alongwith ACP Seelampur and ACP Gokal Puri told them that no innocent person would be arrested in this case. On this, all the persons present there started raising slogans against the police stating that they would see the police. They also sent 2-3 persons to Bhajanpura Chowk and through them, crowd of the persons was called inside the PS Bhajanpura. At the instigation of father, brother and other relatives of the deceased, the crowd became violent and started fighting with the police. On hearing the slogans and seeing the crowd, Duty Office, Santari, DD Writer, B-2 operator and HC Rakesh Kumar also entered in the office of the SHO. On this, Abbas Mirza, Nazish, Abbas Sami and Ishrat Ali had hit themselves with the glasses kept on the table of SHO and they also hit their heads against the wall and table and inflicted self injuries resulted into bleeding. Thereafter, they went outside the office of SHO and instigated the crowd by telling that they were beaten by the police. On this the crowd became angry and was provoked. ACP M. S. Dabas warned the crowd that since crowd had turned into violence and if the crowd did not disperse, FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 32 of 61 appropriate action would be taken against them but there was no effect on the violent mob of the warning. The crowd started entering into the Duty Officer room. When the police officers pushed them back and on the instigation of relatives, father and Hazi Dilshad Ali who was leading the crowd, started attacking the police. On this, the police started releasing tear gas shells to disperse the crowd even then the crowd did not disperse. The assailants had broken/damaged articles kept in the office of SHO Bhajanpura, CIPA Room, DO room including CCTV. They also damaged the Ambassador car of Addl. DCP M. R. Gotwal, gypsy of SHO Seelampur and PCR van. Thereafter the police lathicharged the crowd and pushed the crowd outside the PS. Thereafter the crowd started pelting heavy/big stone from all side on the police officers. At that time, Nazish and Danish also started firing towards the police party. In reply, police party also fired in the air and after about 20-25 minutes, police succeeded in dispersing the mob. Several officers received injuries due to acts of the accused persons. A crowd of about 400-500 persons in the leadership of father, brother and other relatives of deceased committed the offences in prosecution of their common object. He further deposed that he alongwith his staff apprehended accused Razibul Hasan and Ram Prasad. The witness has correctly identified accused Nazish, Dilshad and Bilal. He deposed that IO recorded his statement as Ex.PW16/A. In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Nazish and Abbas, he deposed that Addl. DCP M.R. Gotwal arrived at PS Bhajan Pura subsequent to their arrival. He, ACP Seelampur Data Ram and SHO Bhajanpura had called relatives of deceased Arif i.e. father, brother and other FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 33 of 61 relatives for talks with Addl. DCP M.R. Gotwal on his instructions. He affirmed that all these persons namely, Nazish, Arif, Bilal, Danish, Abbas Sami, Ishrat Ali and alongwith 2-3 persons arrived inside the PS Bhajanpura at their instance. The persons who were having conversation with Addl. DCP were not having any arms. There were around 200 police officials collected with PS Bhajanpura from different police stations i.e. PS Gokal Puri, Usman Pur, Seelampur, Khajuri Khas, Bhajanpura.

(xvii) PW17 Insp. Hans Raj is the investigating police officer. He deposed that on 18.07.2009. He was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Bhajan Pura. On that day, case file of this case was marked to him for further investigation. He had received the case file from the MHC(R). He had gone through the same. On 26.07.2009, when he was present at the PS, on that day, two accused persons Abbas Mirza and Mirza Nazis had come to him at the PS. He had made interrogated them and after interrogation, they were arrested by him in the present case. He prepared their arrest memos as Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B respectively. He had also conducted their personal search and prepared their personal search memos as Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D respectively. He had also recorded disclosure statements of both the accused as Ex.PW17/E and Ex.PW17/F respectively. After arrest, both the aforesaid accused were put into the lock up. On the next day, both the aforesaid accused persons were taken out from the lock up. Efforts were made to find out the weapon of offence used in the offence at the instance of both the accused in the area of Khajuri Khas but the same could not be recovered. After that they came back to the PS. At FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 34 of 61 that time, CL Anuj, SI Balbir Singh and SHO Insp. Dinesh Kumar were present at the PS and on seeing both these accused, they had identified them as the persons who were also committed the offence. He recorded statements of Ct. Anuj, SI Balbir and SHO u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After that both the accused were produced before the concerned court and from there they were sent to JC. He had also deposed MLC of injured persons and obtained result on their MLC regarding nature of injuries sustained by him. He had also met with injured Lata Jain for conducting her re-medical examination but she had refused for the same. He further deposed that on 12.08.2009, accused Nasir Ahmed was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and on 29.08.2009, accused Bilal Ahmed had come to at the PS alongwith his anticipatory bail order. At that time, he was formally arrested vide arrest memo as Ex.PW17/G. At that time, police official, namely, Ct. Anuj, St Balbir Singh and SHO Insp. Dinesh Kumar were also present and they also identified accused Bital Ahmed as one of offenders. Their supplementary statements were also recorded by him at that time. On 28.09.2009, accused Nasir Ahmed had also come to him at the PS alongwith his anticipatory bail order and he was also formally arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/H. After that both the accused were released on bail. Accused Nasir has already been discharged in this case. During investigation, he had collected list of government property damaged by the accused persons from MHC(M) which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/1. During investigation, he had recorded statement of Sh. Bansidhar u/s 161 CrPC who had produced CD of incident to the earlier IO. He had also recorded statement of FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 35 of 61 photographer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He had also placed on record copy of DD No. 6B, 7B, 15B and 3A dated 16.04.2009 regarding the duty of police officials at the relevant time. Same are on record as Ex.PW17/K (colly.) (running into three pages). During investigation, he had filed complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C before the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, Ld. MM made by ACP Mehender Singh Dabas vide his application Ex.PW17/L. After completion of the investigation, he had filed charge-sheet against 13 accused persons as mentioned in the charge-sheet.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaurdary, ld. Counsel for accused Najees and Abbas, he stated that he recorded the statement of photographer after one month of handing over the case to him. He did not remember the date when he had received the compliant u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from ACP Mahender Singh Dabas. He was not familiar with accused persons, namely, Abbas Mirza and Mirza Nazis prior to the incident. He affirmed that ACP Sh. M. Dabbas had not received the statement of any police officials/ witnesses who were cited as PWs in the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C.

(xviii) PW18 Ct. Sewa Singh is the injured as well as eye witness. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted as Constable at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, when he was present at PS at about 11.00 am, a crowd of 400-500 people led by Haji Dilshad Ali had gathered there. They were shouting slogans by saying "Delhi Police Murdabad, Khoon Ka Badla Khoon". The members of the crowds also started pelting stones on the police officials. When the police officials objected to the same, they also started scuffling with the police officials. He alongwith 7-8 other police officials had sustained injuries. There was firing also FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 36 of 61 from the side of the said crowd. Police officials had also fired in retaliation in the air and they also fired teargas shells. Two persons were apprehended by the police officials whose names he came to know as Rajaul Hassan and Ram Prasad. The crowd also damaged property of police station which included official vehicles and some articles kept in the cabin of the PS. He alongwith other injured persons was taken to GTB hospital. After treatment, he came back to PS where IO had made inquiries from him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 21.04.2009, when he was present at the PS, IO had shown him one photograph of a boy. On seeing the photograph he told the IO that the said photograph was of one Akeel, who was also present at the spot and pelted stones on the police officials. Nazish was present in the crowd. Other accused persons who are present in the dock were also members of the crowd and took part in the offence. However, he did not know their names. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Nazish and Abbas, he deposed that he could not tell from which side of the crowd, the fire was made. He could not tell the name nor he could identify the person who had fired from the crowd.

In his cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Haji Dilshad Ali, he affirmed that he knew Haji Dilshad Ali prior to the incident. It was not in his knowledge whether ACP Vir Singh had called Haji Dilshad Ali to PS to pacify the matter between the complainant party of FIR No. 84/09, PS Khajuri Khas and the police. He affirmed that Haji Dilshad Ali was contesting the elections of Lok Sabha from FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 37 of 61 North-East District. He could not tell as to which of the accused had caused injury to which of the police officials. He denied the suggestion that he and other police officials had caused self inflicted injuries to create false case.

(xix) PW19 W/SI Anuradha Tyagi is the injured as well as the eye-witness. She deposed that on 16.04.2009, she was posted as ASI at PS Bhajan Pura, Delhi. On that day at about 11:00 am, when she was present at the PS, a crowd of people had entered the PS. They started damaging the articles available in the PS. SHO Dinesh Kumar and ACP Data Ram were trying to pacify the mob but the mob became more aggressive and continued damaging articles i.e. telephone, CCTV camera and other articles. The members of the mob started attacking on the police officials. He also sustained injuries on her thigh. One more lady Ct. Anju had also sustained injuries. The members of the mob had also opened fired. At which police officials also opened tear gas and also opened fire to threaten the mob. Due to which members of the mob started disbursing. He was taken to GTB hospital. After treatment, he came back to the PS. In the evening, his statement was also recorded by the IO. They had also assaulted the police officials and damaged the articles in the PS. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons.

In her cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, she denied the suggestion that she had not sustained any injuries by the mob or that she was giving false evidence at the instance of IO. She denied the suggestion that her injury was self inflicted injury.

In her cross-examination by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Rahisuddin, Devender, Sarfraj, Firoz and FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 38 of 61 Bilal, she deposed that no attendance register was maintained at the PS regarding the attendance of the police officers. No DD entry was lodged at the PS regarding the attendance of the police officers. She could not tell number of articles, number of registers, number of CCTV cameras and number of vehicles etc. which were damaged.

(xx) PW20 Retired SI Balbir Singh was the duty officer posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved the DD entry No. 3A, DD entry No. 6B regarding joining of duty of W/Ct. Indu, DD No. 7B regarding changing of duties of Santri, DD No. 15B regarding arrangement duty of the staff i.e. HC Abdul Rahim, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Mahender, Ct. Jeet Pal, Ct. Kulbir and Ct. Brahm Prakash as Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW17/K, Ex.PW20/B and PW20/C respectively. He has also proved the factum of registration of present FIR as Ex.PW20/D. Endorsement made by him on the rukka is Ex.PW20/E. In his cross-examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad Ali, he denied the suggestion that all the DD entries were manipulated, ante dated and ante timed or for this reason same were not mentioned in statement Ex.PW20/DX.

(xxi) PW21 Insp. Birender Kumar Singh is the IO of the present case. He deposed that on 16.04.2009, he was posted as ATO at PS Bhajan Pura, Delhi. On that day, after registration of this case, the investigation was assigned to him. After receiving him case file, he had inspected the scene of crime and found that CCTV cameras telephone, glasses of SHO room and others room, police vehicles were damaged by the mob. The scene of crime was got photographed by him through a private FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 39 of 61 photographer namely Sanjay Bhatnagar. Videography of the scene of crime was also got done. He had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence on the pointing out of Insp. Dinesh Sharma. After that he had taken into possession two damaged vehicles i.e. one police gypsy bearing no. DL-1CH- 9708 (Qualis PCR) vide seizure memo Ex.PW21A and one Ambassador car of white colour bearing no. DL-1HC-8857 vide seizure memo EX.PW21/B. One TATA 407 bearing no. DL-1LD- 1503 was also damaged but it was not taken into possession by him. Injured persons Ct. Anuj, ASI Anuradha, Ct Kulbir Singh, Ct. Sewa Singh, Ishwar Singh and others including one Lata Jain (who was public person) had sustained injuries. Total eight persons were sustained injuries due to pelting of stones. Lata Jain had sustained bullet injury. The injured persons were already sent to hospital. Two members of the mob namely Ram Prasad and Razi-Ul-Hasan were already apprehended by the police staff. He further deposed that on the same day, he alongwith ACP Seelampur and ACP Gokal Pun and other staff including ASI Suresh Hiwarkar had left the PS in search of accused Hazi Dilshad who was named in the FIR. He was found present in his house at Yamuna Vihar. He was arrested by him in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that on 21.04.2009, ASI Rameshwar brought one suspect namely Devender to the PS and produced before him. On that day, ASI Mahesh brought another suspect namely Rahisuddin and produced before him. After interrogation both these persons were arrested by him in this case. The arrest memo of accused Devender as Ex PW21/K and the arrest memo of accused Rahisuddin as Ex.PW1/A. He had also conducted their personal search and prepared their FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 40 of 61 personal search memos. The personal search of accused Devender as Ex.PW21/L. The personal search of accused Rahisuddin as Ex.PW1/8. He had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Devender as Ex.PW21/M. After arrest, both these accused were kept in muffled face and were produced before the concerned court. He had moved an application for conducting judicial TIP of both these accused which was fixed for 24.04.2009 and on that day, both these accused refused to participate for TIP. His application for TIP as Ex.PW8/K. Application for receiving copy of TIP as Ex.PW8/P. During investigation, one Bansidhar Sharma met him who was Press Reporter of NDTV. He had handed over to him six CDs of news clipping which was being telecast regarding the incident on different channels. We had obtained still photographs from the said clippings from the CDs. Accused persons were visible in the same. Seizure memo was not prepared regarding these CDs. The said CDs and photographs are available in the file. Witness correctly identified six CDs and 43 photographs as these are the same CDs which he had taken from Bansidhar Sharma, Press Reporter. The CDs are Mark N-1 to N-6. The photographs are Mark PW21/0-1 to 0-43. During the course of investigation, he had got conducted the mechanical inspection of damaged vehicles i.e. Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1CH-8257, Tata bearing no. DL-1LD-1503, Qualis bearing no. DL-1CH-9708 and gypsy no. DL-ICJ-3220. He had also obtained mechanical inspection report regarding the same. Report of vehicle no. DL- 1CH-9708 as Ex.PW11/A. Joint report of vehicle no. DL-1LD- 1503 and gypsy no. DL-1CJ-3220 prepared by SI Santok Singh as Mark PW21. Report of vehicle no. DL-1CH-8857 prepared by FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 41 of 61 SI Santok Singh as Mark PW21/Q. Separate report of vehicle no. DL-1LD-1503 as Mark 21/R. Photographs of all damaged vehicles were taken by the private photographer. He had placed on record those photographs. Four photographs of Ambassador car were available in the file as Mark PW21/S-1 to S-4. The photographs of other vehicles were not available in the file. However, four photographs of Qualis car were available in the police file. (At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP prays for taking on record these photographs. Heard. Allowed). These photographs Mark PW21/S-5 to S-8. He had also placed on record separate photographs showing the accused persons by mentioning their names on the paper sheet. Photograph Mark 18 shows the photo of accused Hazi Dilshad and photo of accused Devender. Photograph as Mark PW21/T-1 shows photo of accused Hazi Dilshad at point B. Photograph as Mark PW21/T-2 shows photo of accused Bilal at point A. Photograph as Mark PW21/T-3 shows photo of accused Bilal at point A. Photograph as Mark PW21/T-4 shows photo of accused Amir at point A. Photograph as Mark PW21/T-5 shows photo of accused Bilal at point A. Accused Hazi Dilshad who was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex PW14/A. At the time of arrest of accused Hazi Dilshad, his personal search was conducted. One wrist watch, three mobile phones and Rs 19,000/- were recovered from his personal search. Personal search memo is not available in the file. However, this fact was mentioned in the case diary. Similarly, site plan is not available in the file. Private photographer Sanjay Bhatnagar had also Videographed of the spot and prepared CDs as Ex. Art.1 and Art.2. He further deposed that on 16.04.2009, after arrest, accused Dilshad was produced FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 42 of 61 before the concerned court and sent to JC. After that on the same day, accused Razi-ul-Hasan and Ram Prasad who were already apprehended by the other police staff were arrested by him in this case. He had prepared their arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements. Disclosure statement of Hazi Dilshad was also recorded by him at the time of his arrest (Objected to). Arrest memo of accused Ram Prasad as Ex.PW14/B. His personal search was also conducted by me vide Ex.PW21/C. The disclosure statement of accused Ram Prasad was not available in the file. Arrest memo of accused Razi-ul- Hasan as Ex PW14/C. His personal search was also conducted by him vide Ex.PW21/D. The disclosure statement of accused Razi- ul-Hasan is also not available in the file. He had also recorded statements of witnesses including injured persons. Statement of injured Lata Jain was also recorded by him later on. On 17.04.2009, HC M.M. Khan apprehended four persons and brought them to PS as suspects of the incident. He lodged DD No. 4A dated 07.04.2009 in this regard at PS Bhajan Pura. Copy of the same is already on record as Mark PW21/E. He interrogated all these four suspects, namely, Dal Chand, Sarfraj, Irfan and Firoz. Thereafter, he arrested them and prepared their arrest memos. Arrest memo of accused Sarfraj as Ex.PW21/F. Arrest memo of accused Dal Chand as Ex.PW21/G. Arrest memo of accused Irfan as already Ex.PW15/A. Arrest memo of accused Firoz as Ex.PW15/B. He had also conducted personal search of all the aforesaid accused persons and prepared their personal search memos. The personal search memo of accused Sarfraj as Ex.PW21/H. The personal search memo of accused Dal Chand as Ex.PW21/I. The personal search memo of accused Firoz as FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 43 of 61 Ex.PW21/J. Personal search memo of accused Irfan is not available in the file. All these four accused persons were kept in muffled face after arrest and produced in the court. He had moved application before the concerned court for judicial TIP of these four accused but they had refused for participation. His application as Ex.PW8/I. He received copy of TIP proceeding vide his application Ex.PW8/J. He further deposed that at the time accused persons namely Sarfraj, Irtran, Firoz and Dal Chand were produced before him at the PS by HC M. M. Khan, he had made DO No. 6A dated 17.04.2009 regarding their arrest by him vide Ex.PW21/U. On 15.05.2009, SI Subey Singh had submitted his report with SHO PS Bhajanpura regarding approximate expenses on the damaged Govt. vehicles. The same as Ex.PW21/V. During the course of investigation, he had recorded statements of all the relevant witnesses. On 17.07.2009, he was transferred from PS Bhajanpura, hence, he had submitted the case file to MHC(R). Various CDs/DVDs (Ex.PW21/N-1 to N-6) were played on the laptop. On playing CD/DVD EX.PW21/N-3, various police officers were seen marching. On playing CD/DVD Ex.PW21/N-5, accused Hazi Dilshad was seen giving interview to the press. On playing CD/DVD Ex.PW21/N-6, police officers were seen firing towards the mob to disperse them and accused Hazi Dilshad was seen talking with the police officers and media. On playing CD/DVD Ex.PW21/N-4, footage of damaged vehicles and case property in the PS was seen; accused Hazi Dilshad Ali and Devender were also seen talking with the media; and there was mob also behind them. On playing CD/DVD Ex.PW21/N-1, accused Nazish, Abbas Mirza and Bilal were seen alongwith the aggressive mob indulging in violence in the police FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 44 of 61 station. On playing CD/DVD Ex.PW21/N-2, footage of damaged public property after the incident was seen. He further deposed that two vehicles bearing no. DL-1LD-1503 Tata 407 and DL- 1CJ-3220 gypsy were not seized as they were slightly damaged. Mechanical inspection of both the vehicles was got done and thereafter, they were released. The photographs of aforesaid vehicles were taken out from the envelope which was placed on record. The photograph of police gypsy bearing no. DL-1CJ- 3220 as Ex.PW21/W. The photograph of Tata 407 vehicle blue colour of Delhi Police as Ex.PW21/X. . He deposed that he could also identify Ambassador car bearing registration no. DL-ICH- 8857 and Qualis vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CH-9708. As per record, both these vehicles had been destroyed vide Order dated 11.02.2016, issued from the office of DCP/PHQ/GA, as Ex.PW21/X-1 (running into three pages). The photographs of the said Ambassador car had already been marked as Mark PW21/S- 1 to S-4. They were exhibited as Ex.PW21/Y-1 to Ex.PW21/Y-4 as mode of their proof is not being objected by Id. Defence counsels. The photographs of the aforesaid Qualis vehicle had already been marked as Mark PW21/S-5 to S-8. They were exhibited as Ex.PW2L/Y-5 to Ex.PW21/Y-8 as mode of their proof is not being objected by Id. Defence counsels. Thereafter, he was transferred from PS Bhajanpura. Therefore, further investigation of this case was handed over to some other IO. He handed over the case file to MHC(R).

In his cross examination by Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. for accused Dilshad Ali, he affirmed that damaged CCTV cameras, telephone, glasses of SHO room and of other rooms, were not seized by him. It is not within his knowledge in case ACP Veer FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 45 of 61 Singh had called accused Dilshad Ali to the spot in order to mediate between the police and the persons protesting at that time. He affirmed that the said photograph no where shows accused Dilsahd Ali either leading the mob or pelting stones on anyone. He volunteered that the said photograph was prepared with the help of videography contained in VCD, wherein accused Dilshad Ali was shown addressing the media persons.

In his cross-examination by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Mirza Najish, Abbas Mirza and Dalchand, he deposed that he had returned to PS Bhajanpura when the incident had already taken place. He affirmed that since the incident in question did not take place in his presence, whatever, he had deposed during chief-examination, same was based upon the record.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused persons, which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.

Accused Bilal Ahmed in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is totally innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case as he was member of BSP Party and Hazi Dilshad Ali had contested election of Lok Sabha on the ticket of BSP Party so being the member of BSP Party. He was falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case.

Accused Abbas Mirza in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 46 of 61 in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offneces involved in this case. On the date of incident in question, he alongwith Mirza Nazish went to know the progress about the case of his brother who was murdered some days ago at PS Khajuri Khas but the ACP of PS Khajuri Khas used to sit at Bhajanpura as he was eyewitness in that murder case wherein Mirza Nazish's brother Kallu @ Arif Hussain was murdered.

Accused Mirza Nazish in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case. On the date of incident in question, he went to know the progress about the case of his brother who was murdered some days ago at PS Khajuri Khas but the ACP of PS Khajuri Khas used to sit at Bhajanpura.

Accused Dilshad Ali in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was called by ACP Veer Singh to pacify the matter between public and police as he was contesting Lok Sabha Election from North-East Delhi on the ticket of BSP Party. He had not led the mob or instiated the mob at any point of time nor he had given injuries to any police official nor he had damaged any government property. One Smt. Lata Jain sustained bullet injury fired from the side of police during the said incident due to this reason, the present false case was registered against him and other co-accused persons by the police in order to save their skin from the criminal case against them. He had not committed any offence as alleged.

Accused Sarfraj Ahmed in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is totally innocent. He was lifted from Bhagat FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 47 of 61 Singh Park when he was going to play a cricket match and thereafter, he was wrongly arrested by the police in this case. He was member of BSP Park and Hazi Dilshad Ali had contested election of Lok Sabha on the ticket of BSP Party so being the member of BSP Party, he was falsely implicated in the present case. He had nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case.

Accused Firoz in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is totally innocent. He was lifted from his gali in front of his house and was falsely implicated in the present case as he was member of BSP Party and Hazi Dilshad Ali had contested election of Lok Sabha on the ticket of BSP Party so being the member of BSP Party. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case.

Accused Dal Chand in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.stated that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case. He was present on the road during late night hours after consuming liquor at the time when police officials lifted him from the road and later on, wrongly arrested in this case.

Accused Rahisuddin in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is totally innocent. He was lifted from near his house and thereafter, he was wrongly arrested by the police in this case. He was member of BSP Party and being the member of BSP Party, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case.

Accused Devender Kumar u/s 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he is FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 48 of 61 totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was member of BSP Party and Hazi Dilshad Ali had contested election of Lok Sabha on the ticket of BSP party so being the member of BSP Party. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences involved in this case. Accused persons denied to lead evidence in defence.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record. It is submitted by Sh. Ravi Karan Vaishnav, ld. Counsel for accused Sarfaraz, Firoz, Rahisuddin, Devender Kumar, Bilal Ahmed and Dalchand that there are many contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of all prosecution witnesses with regard to the strength of the mob, place and time of incident, number of injured persons, number of damaged vehicles and on the point of specific role of accused persons.

It is submitted by Sh. Z. Babar Chahuhan, ld. Counsel for accused Dilshad that no witness has deposed about the use of fire arm by any of the accused. No video recording of the incident has been placed on record by the prosecution. There is no recovery of any weapon used in the commission of offence has been effected during the investigation of the present case. As per the MLCs, all the injured police officials have received only superficial injuries. All the witnesses got examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses i.e. police officials. Not a single witness has deposed as to who has fired upon PW4 Smt. Lata Jain neither any fired bullet nor any empty shell has been recovered from the spot by the investigating agency. As per the prosecution case, many articles lying on the premises of police FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 49 of 61 station have been damaged. However, the investigating agency has not seized any damaged articles for fulfilling the evidentiary requirement. One of the injured Ct. Indu was not even cited as witness in the present case. As per the prosecution case, CCTV cameras installed at the PS Bhajanpura have been damaged but it is not the case of the prosecution that DVR in respect of those CCTV cameras have also been damaged. The prosecution could have produced the DVRs in respect of the damaged CCTV cameras. No plausible explanation is offered as to why the DVRs have not been produced during the trial. The prosecution has got examined one Sanjay, who is the Photographer, as PW10. However, PW10 was not made to identify the photographs clicked by him at the spot. Nor he has produced necessary certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.

It is submitted by Sh. B.S. Chaudhary, ld. Counsel for accused Bilal Mirza and Nazis that PW7 Ct. Manish did not even state as to how he has received the injury. It is submitted that PW11 is the Mechanical Inspector who had examined the damaged vehicles. As per the prosecution case itself, he was called after one month of date of incident i.e. 16.05.2009 for the purpose of mechanical inspection of damaged Government vehicles. The attention of the Court was drawn towards the cross- examination of PW1 wherein he stated that the damages caused to the vehicle were only 2-3 days old. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the cross-examination of PW12 wherein he stated that broken articles were seized in his presence. It is submitted that the version of PW21 is hearsay as he came at the spot later on and he has stated so in his cross-examination. It is submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is planted case. There is no FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 50 of 61 mention of any specific police official, who was specifically targeted. No victim got examined by the prosecution had explained as to on which body part and with what weapon they have received the injury.

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.No major contradiction/discrepancy is there in ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

7. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some applicable provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case:

''141. Unlawful assembly--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an ''unlawful assembly'', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-- First--To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, [the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second--To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third--To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth--By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth--By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation--An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon.--

Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

145. Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse.--Whoever, joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

146. Rioting--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

147. Punishment for rioting--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

148. Rioting, arms with deadly weapon--Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions--Whoever, voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

299. Culpable homicide--Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

300. Murder--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or - Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--

Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

307. Attempt to murder--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.''

353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-

"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."

09. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 53 of 61 S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence is that:

"....... The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused....."

10. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence which are reproduced as under:

"The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved."

11. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof."

12. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 54 of 61 guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.

The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real.

It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether."

13. It is noted that as per the prosecution case, some of the accused persons had fired upon the police and during firing, one Lata Jain (PW4) had received injuries. However, PW4 Lata Jain did not depose as to who had fired bullet shot upon her despite the fact that she was residing in a house which is situated in the vicinity of PS Bhajanpura (i.e. the place of incident). Remaining injured persons got examined by the prosecution are all police officials. Perusal of their respective MLCs revealed that none of FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 55 of 61 the injured persons have received any major injury. As per MLC Ex.PW9/E of injured Sewa Singh (PW18), he has received abrasions on right forearm, left forearm and right knee. As per MLC Ex.PW9/C of injured Rakesh Kumar, he hasn't received any visible injury mark. There is only pain and tenderness over left side of back and over left knees. Injured Anuradha (PW19) had only bruise over left calf and left lower thigh vide her MLC Ex.PW9/G. No injury is reported in the MLC Ex.PW9/H of injured Ct. Indu. Injured Avnish Kumar had only pain and tenderness over right upper glutoal region vide MLC Ex.PW9/I. Ct. Kulbir Singh (PW9) had only abrasion in the dorsal aspect of forearm - 3 cm long. All the injured persons were discharged on the same day and none of the victims were admitted in the hospital. Perusal of MLCs revealed that one Ct. Indu was also got medically examined at GTB hospital. However, no plausible explanation is furnished as to why she was not cited as witness in the present case. Even the victims, in their respective deposition before the court, have not stated with full clarity about the body parts on which they have sustained injuries. PW9 Doctor Mrigender Das, who was examined by the prosecution, to prove the MLC Ex.PW9/A to Ex. PW9/I, has stated in his cross examination that there is possibility that injuries stated in MLC Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/E, Ex. PW9/G, Ex PW9/F and Ex. PW9/B can be self-inflicted.

14. It is further noted that as per the prosecution case, all the accused persons/ rioters had damaged CCTV cameras, telephone, glasses of SHO room and other room and police vehicles. Perusal of record reveals that none of the damaged articles have been got exhibited by the prosecution. In order to substantiate the factum FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 56 of 61 of damage caused by the accused persons, the prosecution has placed reliance upon certain photographs Mark PW21/0-1 to 0- 43, which were clicked by reporter Bansi Dhar Sharma. The CDs are Mark PW21/N-1 to N-6. Four photographs of Ambasador car which are available in the file are Mark PW21/S-1 to S-4. Photographs of Qualis car are Mark PW21/S-5 to S-8. Photograph Mark PW21/T-1 shows photo of accused Hazi Dilshad and photograph Mark PW21/T-2 shows photos of accused Bilal. Photograph Mark PW21/T-3 shows photo of accused Bilal. Photograph Mark PW21/T-4 shows photo of accused Amir. Photograph Mark PW21/T-5 shows photo of accused Bilal. Photographs and video recordings done by Private photographer Sanjay Bhatnagar are Ex. Art.1 and Art.2, Ex. PW21/W-2, Ex. PW21/X, Ex. PW21/X1, Ex. PW21/Y1 to Ex. PW21/Y8. Not a single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution who claims to have clicked the said photographs. It is claimed by IO/Insp. Virender Kumar Singh that he has got the scene of crime photographed through a photographer, namely, Sh. Sanjay Bhatnagar (PW10). It is claimed that Sh. Sanjay Bhatnagar had also carried out video recording of the incident. The prosecution has got examined Sh. Sanjay Bhatnagar as PW10. He was got examined on 16.07.2016 and 08.08.2016. It is noted that testimony of PW10 Sanjay Bhatnagar is not going to help the prosecution as the photographs taken by him were not shown to him at the time of recording of his evidence on 16.07.2016 and 08.08.2016. PW10 has also failed to identify the VCDs as he stated that the VCDs were given by him in different envelope. Further, it is noted that an attempt was made to play the VCDs Ex. Article 1 and Ex. Article FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 57 of 61 2 on the laptop brought by the IO but the same could not be played. No plausible explanation is given as to why no certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act has been placed on record with regard to the video recordings and photographs of the incident which are being relied upon by the prosecution.

At this stage, it is pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court of India titled as Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushal Rao Gorantyal on 14.07.2020 that, "59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer and ors., 2014 10 SCC 473, and incorrectly "clarified" in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose".

15. One of the injured persons, namely, Ct. Anuj Malik (PW3) had stated on seeing the photographs of the incident Mark 1 to 18 that these photographs do not belong to the incident. From the foregoing findings, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove the above stated marked and exhibited photographs and video recording of the incident.

16. It is further observed that prosecution has got examined all the injured persons except injured Ct. Indu. However, perusal of testimony of injured persons revealed that there is nothing in their respective testimonies to indicate as to on which body part FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 58 of 61 and with what weapon they have received the injuries reflected in their respective MLCs. There is no mention of any specific role of accused persons in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. Neither pelted stones nor any weapon of offence has been recovered by the Investigating police agency. It is claimed that the rioters have also damaged the CCTV cameras installed at the Police Station. Neither the damaged CCTV cameras nor the DVRs attached to the said CCTV cameras have been produced at the time of recording of prosecution evidence.

11. In order to prove offences punishable u/s 144/145/147/148/149 of IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that an unlawful assembly as defined in section 141 of IPC has been formed. As per the prosecution case, the common object of the gathering of 400- 500 public persons, which includes the accused persons, is that they were demanding arrest of some more persons in a murder case bearing FIR No. 84/09 PS Khajuri Khas. However, there is nothing in the prosecution to indicate the name of persons, whose arrest was demanded by the mob. No record pertaining to FIR No. 84/09 PS Khajuri Khas got exhibited by the prosecution and no cogent explanation is furnished as to why the said record was not placed on record. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish as to for what common object, an unlawful assembly was formed by the accused persons.

17. It is further observed that there is major discrepancy in the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW11/A got exhibited by the prosecution. The date of inspection of Government Vehicle No. DL1CH9708 is 16.05.2009 whereas the date of incident is 16.04.2009. AS per report Ex.PW11/A, fresh damages were FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 59 of 61 noted by mechanical Insp. Sh. Manohar Lal Dhyani (PW11) on the rear wind screen, rear left and right side window glass and rear left tail light. As per the cross-examination of PW11, it was elicited by the ld. defence counsel that the damages mentioned in report Ex.PW11/A were only 2-3 days old. No plausible explanation is offered as to why the mechanical inspection was got conducted after one month from the date of incident and not immediately after the occurrence of incident. DECISION OF THE COURT

18. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, all accused persons namely, Dilshad Ali, Mirza Nazis, Abbas Mirza, Razi-ul- Hasan, Irfan, Sarafraz Ahmad, Firoz, Rahisuddin, Devender Kumar, Bilal Ahmad and Dal Chand are hereby acquitted from the charge for the offences punishable u/s 144/145/147/148/186 r/w 149/ 332 r/w 149/ 353 r/w 149/ 307 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Let Bail bond u/s 437 A of Cr.P.C. be furnished by the accused persons. Accused be set at liberty forthwith. File be consigned to record room after compliance of mandate of Section 437A of Cr.P.C with the option to the prosecution to get the present case reopened as and when accused Razi-ul-Hasan and Irfan are FIR No. 152/2009 State Vs. Dilshad & Ors. Page 60 of 61 Digitally signed by PANKAJ ARORA apprehended/arrested. PANKAJ Location:

                                               ARORA    Karkardooma
                                                        Court, Delhi
                                                        Date: 2023.08.18
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT                             17:47:13 +0530


ON 16.08.2023
                         (PANKAJ ARORA)
             ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                      KARKARDOOMA/16.08.2023




FIR No. 152/2009        State Vs. Dilshad & Ors.              Page 61 of 61