Delhi District Court
State vs . Farhad Hussain on 25 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 1185/2010
Unique Case ID: 02404R0339012009
State Vs. Farhad Hussain
S/o Ali Hussain
R/o Jhuggi No. 1126, G,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 225/2009
Police Station : Adarsh Nagar
Under Section : 392/394/395/397/452/ Indian
Penal Code
Section 27/54/59 Arms Act
Date of committal to sessions court : 30.01.2010
Judgment reserved on : 25.04.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 19.05.2011
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts: It is alleged that on 28.09.2009 at about 7:30 PM at House No. F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, the present accused Farhad Hussain along with his coaccused Goldy and Bafi and some other unknown accused (not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery / dacoity of jewellry, cash and mobile phones of complainant Abdul Kadir by showing him a knife and State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 1 of 37 voluntarily caused hurt to him and thus committed the offence under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act.
Case of Prosecution in Brief: The case of prosecution in brief is that on 28.09.2009 on the receipt of DD No.24A, SI Arvind Pratap Singh along with Constable Sanjeev Kumar reached the spot i.e. House No. F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar and found the goods of the room scattered. SI Arvind Pratap Singh found the complainant Abdul Kadir at the spot and recorded his statement who told him that on 28.09.09 at about 7.30 p.m. he was alone at his house when four to five persons entered his house from the front gate which was opened who were armed with desi kata, knife and saria. He further told SI Arvind Pratap Singh that the boy who was having desi katta pointed out the katta towards him and threatened him saying "jo bhi kuch hai de do nahi to jaan se maar dunga" on which he (complainant) got scared and handed over to them five gold rings, two gold chains, six gold kadas and Rs.50,000/ cash, from the Almirah. He further told the police that those boys had also taken away two mobile phones, one make NOKIA 1650, IEMI No. 359326026365003 having No. 9868623164 and was operational and second mobile make NOKIA N70 IMEI No. 354551014441260 which was not operational. The State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 2 of 37 complainant further told the police that those boys threatened him not to raise any alarm and also pushed him and ran away from the house.
On the basis of above statement of the complainant Abdul Kadir, the present case was registered and the investigations conducted. Thereafter, the accused Farhad Hussian was arrested in another case bearing FIR 532/09 Under Section 399/402/34 IPC R/w 25/54/59 Police Station Jahangirpuri, which information was received by the investigating officer of the present case after which the accused was formally arrested in this case. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed before the court. CHARGE:
Charge under Section 392/394/397/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act was settled against the accused Farhad Hussain to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
The prosecution in order to discharge the onus upon it, has examined as many as twelve witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
PW1 Ms. Yasmin has deposed that on 28.9.2009 she was residing at F2 Adarsh Nagar since her present's house was under construction. According to the witness, on that day she had gone to State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 3 of 37 her neighbour's house and at about 7:35 pm when she came back home, she found that five boys had entered her house of which one boy showed her a knife and threatened her saying that "shor machoge to chakoo maar doonga". She has further deposed that the said boy pushed her on which she fell down, while the second boy who was with him showed a pistol to her brother and another boy hit her brother on his leg with a Saria. According to the witness, her brother fell down and the said boys told her brother to hand over all the belongings. She has further deposed that they removed the gold, cash and mobile phone from the Almirah lying in the room and thereafter they all went out and ran away. According to the witness, after this they raise a hue and cry and told their neighbour what had happened on which her cousin called the police and the police came to the spot where her statement was recorded. The witness has correctly identified the accused Farhad Hussain who she has identified was the boy who had shown her the knife and threatened her.
In her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the PW1 has deposed that the police recorded her statement on the same date at her residence which statement is Ex.PW1/DX1. According to the witness, she does not know the name of the accused and can only identify him. She has deposed that she had told the police that the present accused namely Farhad Hussain (whose name she came to State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 4 of 37 know in the court) had threatened her saying " shor machoge to chakoo maar doonga". (The witness was shown the statement Ex.PW1/DX1 where it is not so recorded). She admits that she had not gone to jail for identification of the accused and that the accused was not apprehended in her presence nor at her instance. She did not know the accused previously nor she had ever seen him and states that after the incident she had seen him in the court. According to the witness, at the time of the incident only her brother was alone in the house as her mother had gone to her sister's house. She states that she had told the police the exact description of the accused persons including the accused present in the court. She has deposed that she had told the investigating officer the description of the accused persons while her statement was being recorded. (The witness was shown the statement Ex.PW1/DX1 where it is not so recorded). According to the witness, the accused remained at the spot for about five minutes after she returned to her house and had left the house at about 7:45 pm but did not lock her or her brother inside and left the house open while they were inside. According to the witness, at the time of incident it was dark outside but there was light inside the room. She has further deposed that she was called to the police station for identification of the accused and that it was after one week of the incident that she found two boys in the police station of which one of them was the present accused and one State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 5 of 37 another who was not involved in the incident and she only identified the accused. According to the witness, no sketch of the accused persons was ever prepared by the police or the crime team. She has denied the suggestion that she has wrongly identified the accused at the instance of the IO/ police.
PW2 Abdul Kadir is the complainant ans has deposed that on 28.9.2009 he was residing at F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar as his house was under construction. According to the witness, on 28.9.2009 at about 7:30 pm he was alone at his house, 45 persons entered his house from the front gate which was opened and were armed with desi katta, knife and Saria. He has deposed that he was sitting on the bed when two boys lifted him from the bed and made him stand and made him open the safe and again compelled him to sit on the ground. The witness deposed that the accused whose name he does not know (witness correctly identifies the accused Farhad Hussain) was having a knife in his hand. He has further deposed that the boy who was having a katta in his hand stood next to him threatening him. According to him, the other boys including the one who had Saria and the other started removing articles from the Almirah as they key of the safe was hanging along with the almirah and on their threatening he himself handed over five gold rings, two gold chains and six gold Karas and Rs.50,000/ cash, to the boy having a Saria after removing the same from Almirah. He has also State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 6 of 37 deposed that the said boys also removed two mobiles kept the safe of the Almirah one of which was in a working condition whereas as did not have any SIM card and was not operational at that time. The witness has deposed that in the meanwhile his sister who had gone out, also returned while he was still sitting on the ground with his head down as told and threatened by these boys, and the boys also pushed his sister and thereafter ran away. The witness has identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who was having a knife in his hand and had pushed him while running away. He deposed that after the boys had gone away, they (victims) raised a hue and cry and lot of people gathered and they had told them what had happened. Thereafter his cousin called the police and the police came to the spot and his statement was recorded which statement is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point mark A. The witness has further deposed that the investigating officer also asked him to show the place of incident and he pointed out the room where the incident had happened and has proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan on his pointing out. According to Abdul Kadir, he had also received slight injuries on his arm and leg in the scuffle with the accused which injuries he had received with the knife and he was taken to BJRM Hospital by the police for treatment. According to the witness, on 7.11.2009 he had come to the court for State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 7 of 37 getting an affidavit of his sister. He deposed that the investigating officer SI A.P. Singh called him to the court and on his asking he went to Court No. 105 of the Ld. MM and found that the present accused Farhad Hussain (whose name he now came to know) had been apprehended by the police and was being taken to the court. According to the witness, he made an indication to the investigating officer informing him that he was one of the boy who had committed dacoity in his house on 28.9.2009 and was the one who was having a knife with him.
Addl. PP for the State with due permission of the court has put leading questions to the witness wherein the witness has deposed that out of the two mobiles which were taken by the accused, he had told the investigating officer that one mobile was make NOKIA 1650, having IEMI no. 359326026365003 on which mobile no. 9868623264 was operational and second mobile phone was NOKIA N70 IMEI No. 354551014441260. Witness has deposed that Crime Team had also inspected the spot and had taken the photographs of the spot on his pointing out and he had also told the investigating officer that he would handover to them the purchase receipts of the stolen items after searching for them at his house.
During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW2 has deposed that at the time when the accused persons had entered his house it was dark and that he may not be in a position State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 8 of 37 to identify all the accused since they had pushed to the ground and made to sit on the ground with his head towards the floor. He has denied the suggestion that for the same reason he is not in a position to properly identify the accused present in the court and has mistaken him to be the person who had entered his house with the knife. He has deposed that he had seen him properly. According to the witness, till date he has not handed over the receipts of the stolen articles including the mobile, to the police and that till date the items which had been stolen, have not been recovered. According to the witness, the accused was not apprehended either in his presence or at his instance and states that accused was in custody when he identified him. The witness has further deposed that the Crime Team of the police did not prepare any sketch of the accused persons at the his instance and states that he had told the police the description of the various accused persons but could not tell them about it properly. Witness has denied the suggestion that he could not tell the police the complete description of all the accused including the present accused since he had not seen them properly as his head was towards the ground so much so that he did not realize when his sister had come. The witness has deposed that he can recognize the present accused properly since he (accused) had pushed him (witness) while running away. According to the witness, at the time when he was pushed he was near the almirah. He has admitted that he had never gone to the State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 9 of 37 jail for purposes of identifying the accused as he was never called. He has denied the suggestion that he had gone to the police station where he was shown the accused. He deposed that he had seen the accused in the court where he identified him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly and deliberately identified the accused Farhad Hussain at the instance of the investigating officer or that the present accused was not amongst the boys who had entered his house to commit dacoity.
Medical Evidence:
PW3 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed on behalf of Dr. Rajan Kumar Mishra who had examined the patient Yasmin aged about 21 years, female, vide medical examination report Ex.PW3/A on 29.09.09 under the supervision of Dr. Seema, CMO BJRM Hospital which bears the signature of Dr. Rajan Kumar Mishra at point A and bears the name of Dr. Seema at point B. According to the witness, as per Ex.PW3/A, the nature of injury was 'simple'. The witness has further deposed that on 29.09.09 Dr. Rajan Kumar Mishra also examined the patient Abdul Kadir aged about 19 years Male, vide medical examination report Ex.PW3/B which also bears the signature of Dr. Rajan Kumar Mishra at point A and as per record the nature of injury is 'simple' and same bears the name of Dr.Seema at point B. During his cross examination by Ld. defence State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 10 of 37 counsel, the witness PW3 has deposed that the history how the patient had received the injuries has not been mentioned in the MLC and therefore he is unable to tell how the patient received injuries. Police / Official Witnesses:
PW4 Ct. Parvinder is a witness from the Crime Team. He has deposed that on 28.09.2009 he was a member of Crime Team, North West District, as Photographer and on that day at about 8.45 they received a call on which they reached the spot i.e. F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, where he took six photographs of the spot from his digital camera which photographs are Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/F and the the C D of the same is Ex.PW4/G. His statement was recorded by the investigating officer at the spot. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW5 ASI Pushpa Verma has deposed that on 30.09.2009 she was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, as DD Writer from 9.00AM to 5.00PM and at about 11.25 AM, she received a telephonic information from Police Station Jahangir Puri that one boy namely Farhad had been apprehended who was wanted in FIR No. 225/09 of Police Station Adarsh Nagar (i.e.present FIR). She thereafter, recorded the said information vide DD No. 15A copy which is Ex.PW5/A and after recording the same, handed over the State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 11 of 37 DD to the MHC (R). This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW6 SI Mahesh Chandra has deposed that on 28.09.2009 he was posted as a Shift Incharge, Crime Team, North West District, Pitam Pura and at about 8.45 on receipt of information from Control Room regarding robbery at F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, he reached at the spot and conducted the site inspection till about 10.00 PM and gave his report Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A to the Investigating Officer SI AP Singh who also recored his statement. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW6 has denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot or that he did not carry out any inspection or that he had given this report at the instance of the investigating officer.
PW7 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that on 28.09.2009, he was posted as a Constable at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM and at about 7.45 PM, he was told by SI AP Singh to accompany him for investigation as he had received an information regarding robbery at F2 Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar he along with SI AP Singh reached the spot and found that household article were lying scattered inside the house. According to the witness, he met Abdul Kadir who told the investigating officer that four to five boys had come to their house all of whom were armed and committed robbery. The witness State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 12 of 37 has further deposed that SI AP Singh recorded his statement and prepared a rukka and handed over to him for taking the same to Police Station for registration of the case. He left for the Police Station along with the rukka at about 8.45 PM and took the the same to the Police Station and handed over the same to the duty officer who after recording the FIR hand over the copy of FIR to him along with original rukka which he took to the spot and handed over to SI AP Singh. According to the witness, in the meanwhile SI AP Singh had called the crime team to the spot and thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of Ms. Yasmin who was an eye witness to the incident.
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW7 has deposed that he did not make any entry regarding his departure from police station. He has denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the investigating officer nor he joined any investigation and it is for this reason that his signatures are not present in any of the proceedings at the instance of the investigating officer.
PW8 HC Ranjeet Singh has deposed that on 28.09.09, he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and was posted as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM (midnight). According to him, at about 7.42 PM, he received a call from PCR Control Room regarding robbery act F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar on the basis of which State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 13 of 37 he registered DD No. 24A and passed on the information to SI A.P. Singh who was already called on the area through Ct. Sanjeev. The copy of the said DD is Ex. PW8/A. The witness has deposed that again at about 9.00 PM, he received a rukka which was brought to him by Const. Sanjeev. He made an endorsement on the said rukka which is Ex. PW8/B and thereafter recorded the FIR no. 225/09 u/s 392/397/34 IPC copy of which FIR is Ex. PW8/C. According to the witness, the investigation of the case were handed over to SI A.P Singh. He handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to Ct. Sanjeev for handing over the same to SI A.P. Singh. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW9 ASI Ram Bhau has deposed that on 29.09.2009 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri as ASI and was handling the investigation of case FIR 532/09 Under Section 399/402/34 IPC r/w 25/54/59 Police Station Jahangirpuri. According to the witness, in the said case four accused persons were apprehended, out of which the present accused Farhad Hussain (correctly identified by the witness), made a disclosure regarding his involvement in the present case. He thereafter recorded disclosure of accused Farhad Hussain which is Ex.PW9/A and pursuant to the aforesaid, passed on the said information to Police Station Adarsh Nagar vide DD No. 15 A dated State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 14 of 37 30.09.2009 recorded at 11.25AM copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. The witness has further deposed that on receipt this information, SI A.P. Singh came from Police Station Adarsh Nagar on which he handed over to him copies of the FIR No.532/09 Police Station Jahangir Puri, seizure memo of the knife and sketch and disclosure statement made by the accused Farhad Hussain. The copy of the FIR No. 532/09 Police Station Jahangir Puri is Ex.PW9/B and seizure memo of the knife recovered from the possession of the accused Farhad Hussain in the said case is Ex.PW9/C and its sketch of the said knife is Ex.PW9/D. (The original file of FIR No. 532/09 pending in the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ASJ, Rohini, Delhi, has been summoned and the original documents as aforesaid seen and returned).
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the accused has denied the suggestion the accused Farhad Hussain was falsely implicated in case FIR 532/09 and he was lifted from his house. Witness has further denied the suggestion that Farhad Hussain has not made any disclosure statement Ex.PW9/A to him and it is for this reason that the disclosure has not been witnessed by any public person. He has denied the suggestion that there was no recovery of knife in FIR No.532/09 and the knife has been planted upon the accused in the said case or that the disclosure Ex.PW9/A State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 15 of 37 was wrongly recorded by him and accused had not made any such statement regarding his involvement in the present case.
PW10 Ct. Kuldeep Singh has deposed that on 03.10.2009 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and had joined the investigation of the present with SI AP Singh. He deposed that on the say day, the accused Farhad Hussain had been produced in the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MM from Judicial Lock Up in a muffled face. According to the witness, the accused was handed over to SI AP Singh for interrogation on which accused was taken outside the court where he was formally arrested and his personal search memo was prepared and the arrest memo is Ex.PW10/B; the personal search memo is Ex.PW10/B on which the witness has identified his signatures at point A respectively. According to the witness, the accused was also interrogated and his statement was recorded by SI AP Singh which disclosure is Ex.PW10/C bearing his signatures at point A and thereafter the accused was taken back to the court in a muffled face. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Ld. MM and investigating officer SI AP Singh moved an application before the Ld. MM for getting the Test Identification Parade of the accused conducted. The witness has further deposed that the Ld. MM directed the production of accused before Ld. Link MM and the accused was thereafter produced before the Ld. Link MM who gave a date for conduct of Test Identification Parade and State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 16 of 37 remanded the accused to Judicial Custody.
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW10 has deposed that only he and SI AP Singh had left for the court and there was no other person with them. He did not make any separate entry with regard to his departure and states that SI AP Singh must have recorded the same. According to the witness, he was present at the time when the disclosure was being recorded but he is unable to tell all what the accused had disclosed as he does not remember the same. According to the witness, it must have taken about two hours to complete the entire proceedings regarding the arrest, personal search and recording of disclosure of the accused. The witness has deposed that the accused was taken into custody during the prelunch session and was produced after interrogation in the post lunch session and the entire proceedings took place while the accused was in muffled face and that the muffler of the accused was not removed in his presence when he was formally arrested. The witness has further deposed he is unable to identify the accused as the accused was kept in muffled face by the investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not joined any investigation in the present case and it is for this reason that he cannot identify the accused. He has further denied the suggestion that all proceedings had been conducted by the investigating officer in a routine manner and even the disclosure had already been prepared State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 17 of 37 which the accused was compelled to sign during the investigations.
PW11 Ct. Vipin Kumar has deposed that on 08.10.2009 he was posted as a Constable at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and had joined the investigations with SI AP Singh who took the accused Farhad Hussain present in the court and correctly identified by the witness, on police remand for two days. According to the witness, after taking the custody of the accused from the Ld. Court the accused Farhad Hussain was taken to BJRM Hospital where his medical examination was conducted and after the medical examination of the accused he took them to the spot of the incident i.e. F2 Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar via Shah Alam Bandh Road, near Sai Baba Mandir where he pointed out House No. F2 Ashoka Road, as the same house where he and his two other associates had committed robbery about ten days ago and SI AP Singh prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW11/A bearing signature of this witness at point A. According to the witness, the accused also took them at G Block Jahangir Puri for search of his other associates namely Buffy and Goldy. He has deposed that they tried to search these two associates namely Buffy and Goldy and Farhad took them to his house but they could not find his associates since he had told the police that he had never been to their houses. According to the witness, they also tried to make enquiries from the residents of the area regarding Buffy and Goldy but could not success and therefore State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 18 of 37 the accused Farhad was taken back to the police station.
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he did not make any separate entry regarding his departure from the Police Station but it was SI AP Singh who had made the entry. The witness has deposed that they had hired a TSR during the investigations and did not have any official vehicle. According to the witness, the accused was handed over to them from the court and during the investigation they used the same TSR for taking the accused to various places. Witness is unable to tell the number of the said TSR. He has admitted that the place where the spot of incident i.e. F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar is situated in a thickly populated area with large number of residential houses around it. He has further deposed that none of the neighbour or public persons were joined during the investigation and states that nobody was ready to join the investigations and that the investigating officer did not give any notice to any public persons who had refused the join the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that they did not go to the spot and all documents were prepared by them while sitting in the police station and it is for this reason that no public person has been made a witness to any of the proceedings. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had never taken them to F2, Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi nor he had stated anything about Buffy and Goldy. He has further denied State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 19 of 37 that the accused has nothing to do with the persons by the name of Buffy and Goldy and fictitious names have been introduced to mislead the investigations. This witness has further denied the suggestion that the accused did not get anything recovered in his presence or that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.
PW12 SI Arvind Pratap Singh has deposed that on 28.09.2009 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar as Sub Inspector and on receipt of DD No. 24A Ex.PW8/A, he along with Ct. Sanjeev Kumar reached at house No. F2 Ashoka Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, where goods of the room were scattered. According to the witness, Abdul Kadir S/o Mohd. Yameen, the victim met him and gave his statement on the basis of which tehrir which Ex.PW2/A was prepared and FIR was got registered. The Crime Team was also called to the spot and inspected the same who took photographs of the spot which report is Ex.PW6/A. He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of complainant Abdul. Kadir which site plan is Ex.PW12/A and thereafter he recorded the supplementary statement of Abdul Kadir and also recorded the statement of Ms. Yasmeen D/o Mohd. Yamin and thereafter left the spot and searched for the accused but did not get any information about the accused and hence returned to the police station. He recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev in the police station. The witness has further deposed that on State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 20 of 37 29.09.2009, he got conducted the medical examination of complainant Abdul Kadir and Yasmeen at BJRM Hospital and collected their MLCs which are Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively. Thereafter, on 30.09.2009 on receipt of DD No.15A, he reached at Police Station Jahangirpuri where ASI Ram Bhau met him who handed over the photocopies of FIR No. 532/09 which is Ex.PW9/B, disclosure statement of the accused Farhad in the said FIR which is Ex.PW9/A, seizure memo of knife which is Ex.PW9/C and sketch of knife which is Ex.PW9/D. According to the witness, he also recorded the statement of ASI Ram Bhau and came back to the police station. On 01.10.2009, he moved an application before the Ld. MM seeking production of the accused before the court pursuant to which he was produced in the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MM in a muffled face on 03.10.2009. On the said date i.e. 03.10.2009, he sought permission from the Ld. MM for the interrogation and formal arrest of the accused Farhad which was allowed. The witness has further deposed that he thereafter interrogated the accused Farhad Hussain who had been produced in a muffled face, outside the court room and thereafter arrested him vide memo Ex.PW10/A; and his personal search was also taken vide memo Ex.PW10/B. According to the witness, he also recorded the disclosure of accused Farhad wherein he admitted his involvement in State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 21 of 37 the present case which disclosure is Ex.PW10/C which documents bear his signatures at point B. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he filed an application before the Ld. MM for conducting the Test Identification Parade of accused Farhad Hussain which application was marked by him to the Ld. Link MM who listed the same for 06.10.2009. On 06.10.2009 the accused refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade, which proceedings are Ex.C1. (including the application which proceedings are not disputed by the accused). According to the witness, on 08.10.2009 he took the police remand of accused Farhad Hussain for two days and thereafter he got his medical conducted from BJRM hospital and thereafter the accused took them to the spot of the incident i.e. F2, Ashoka Road and pointed the place occurrence on which he (witness) prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW11/A. The witness has further deposed that the accused Farhad Hussain also disclosed the involvement of his two other associates namely Buffy and Goldy in the said incident and also informed that they were residents of G Block Jahangir Puri, but the accused was not aware about their exact addresses. According to the witness, they tried to locate the said persons and also made enquiries but they could not be traced as their addresses were not known. The witness has further deposed that on the next date i.e. 09.10.2009 he again tried to search for the remaining accused and the accused also took them to Mahendra Park, State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 22 of 37 Bhalsawa Dairy, Mukundpur Chowk, ISBT Kashmere Gate and Old Delhi Railway station but they could not find the other two boys. The witness has further deposed that, the accused was thereafter handed back to the court on the expiry of the police remand period and was sent to JC. Thereafter, on 07.11.2009, when he (witness) went to get the JC remand of accused Farhad, he met Abdul Kadir and Ms. Yasmeen outside the Rohini Court Complex and while the accused Farhad Hussain (correctly identified by the witness) was being produced in the court on that day from the lock up, the victims Abdul Kadir and Yasmeen immediately identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who had come to their house along with his four other associates and committed robbery. According to the witness, the victims have also identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who was carrying knife in his hand and had shown the same to Abdul Kadir and threatened him. The witness has deposed that he thereafter recorded supplementary statements of the victims and got the judicial remand of the accused extended. Thereafter, since despite efforts, the associates of the accused could not be apprehended, the charge sheet was prepared against the present accused and filed in the court.
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW12 has deposed that when he reached the spot, only Abdul Kadir was present there and Yasmeen came later as she had State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 23 of 37 gone to the neighbours house. The witness has further deposed that Abdul Kadir and Yasmeen did not have any external injuries and therefore he did not take them to the hospital on the day of incident itself. According to the witness, he had asked them if they (victims) had received injuries on which they refused to get themselves medically examined on the date of the incident stating that they had been pushed and there was not much requirement of medical assistance, however, it was on the next date when he had gone to search for the accused that he met both Abdul Kadir and Yasmeen who told him that they were having internal injuries which were paining when he took them for medical examination. The witness has admitted that no injuries were visible to the eye and has denied the suggestion that they did not receive any injuries on account of which no medical was got done initially and the MLCs have been prepared later on only get the charges aggravated. The witness has deposed that the complainant Abdul Kadir and Yasmeen did not give him the complete description of the accused persons and therefore the description was not recorded in their statement. He deposed that the sketches of the accused persons / suspects were not prepared but he had requested the victims to inform about the details of the accused but they said that they were not certain about the exact description of the accused since at the time of incident, they became perplexed. He had also made investigations form neighbourhood but State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 24 of 37 did not record any statement of any of the neighbours as they had refused. He admits that no chance prints could be found at the spot though efforts were made to lift the same. The witness has admitted that there is no recovery from the accused of any of the stolen articles. He further deposed that the accused had disclosed that his other associates had taken the stolen property with an assurance that it shall be distributed after twothree days but in the meanwhile he was arrested. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused refused for the Test Identification Parade as his photographs were shown to the various persons. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused was never identified by the victims when he was being taken for judicial remand or that the accused did not make any disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C and it was recorded by him of his own. He has further denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused only to work out the present case or that the accused had never made any statement regarding the involvement of four other persons including Buffy and Goldy. The witness has further denied the suggestion that they had not gone for search of any accused person and all proceedings were conducted during the police remand while sitting in the police station.
Statement of Accused and Defence Evidence:
After concluding the evidence of prosecution, statement State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 25 of 37 of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC in which all incriminating material which has come on record during trial was put to him which he has duly denied. The accused has not examined any witnesses in his defence despite opportunity in this regard. FINDINGS I have gone through the testimony of various witnesses and other material placed on record. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and duly considered the same.
Identity of the Accused Farhad Hussain:
In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same has been duly proved. PW1 Yasmin and PW2 complainant Abdul Kadir have identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who had come to their house along with four other boys and had shown a knife to the complainant Abdul Kadir and also to Ms. Yasmin while committing the robbery / dacoity in the house at about 7.35 PM on 28.9.2009. Both these witnesses have been cross examined in detail. A specific suggestion was put to them that it was dark outside and they could not identified the accused on which the witness Yasmin has stated that there was sufficient light inside the room and she had seen the accused. In so far as the victim Abdul Kadir is concerned, he in his cross examination has deposed that he State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 26 of 37 could identify the present accused as he was the person who pushed him while running away. Both these witnesses have denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused at the instance of the investigating officer. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Farhad Hussain stands established.
Refusal of Test Identification Parade by the Accused:
It is evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that the accused after his arrest has refused to participate in Test Identification Parade despite the fact that Ld. MM has given a date in this regard. In this regard, the accused has taken a defence that he refused because his photographs were already shown to the complainant and other witnesses.
I have considered the submissions made before me and also the aspect regarding refusal of the accused to participate in the judicial Test Identification Parade. I may observe that the fact that the photographs of the accused had been shown to the victim in the present case is something which was required to be proved by him in his defence. Merely making an oral statement is not sufficient since both the witnesses Abdul Kadir and Yasmin have in their deposition before the court denied having seen the photograph of the accused and had identified him only when he was being produced in the court State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 27 of 37 subsequently. Hence an adverse inference is liable to be taken against the accused.
Role Attributed to the Accused Farhad Hussain:
The case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.2009, the accused Farhad Hussain along with our other boys entered the house of the complainant at about 7:30 to 7:35 PM and committed robbery / dacoity. The present accused was the boys who was having knife in his hand and had shown the same to the complainant. At the relevant time when the robbery / dacoity was taken place, the complainant Abdul Kadir was alone at the house and his sister Yasmin was away to her neighbour's house and who came back and found these boys in her house on which she was also threatened. The relevant portion of the deposition of the complainant Abdul Kadir is as under:
"...... On 28.9.2009 at about 7:30 pm I was alone at my house, 45 persons entered my house from the front gate which was opened. They were armed with desi katta, knife and Saria. I was sitting on the bed. Two boys lifted me from the bed and made me stand and made me open the safe and again compelled me to sit on the ground. The accused present in the court whose name I do not State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 28 of 37 know (witness correctly identifies the accused Farhad Hussain) was having a knife in his hand. The boy who was having a katta in his hand stood next to me threatening me. The boys including the one who had Saria and the other's started removing articles from the almirah as they key of the safe was hanging along with the almirah. On their threatening I myself handed over 5 gold rings, two gold chains and 6 gold Karas and Rs.
50,000/ cash, to the boy having a Saria after removing the same from Almirah. The said boys also removed two mobiles kept the safe of the Almirah one of which was in a working condition whereas as did not have any SIM card and was not operational at that time. In the meanwhile my sister who had gone out, also returned while I was still sitting on the ground with my head down as told and threatened by these boys. They also pushed my sister and thereafter ran away. I can identify these boys if shown to me. The accused present in the court was having a knife in his hand and had pushed me while running away" .......
State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 29 of 37 Similarly, PW1 Ms.Yasmin, the sister of the complainant has also deposed as under:
" ........ On 28.9.2009 I was residing at F2 Adarsh Nagar since my present house was under construction. I had gone to my neighbour's house.
At about 7:35 pm I came back home, I found that five boys had entered my house of which one boy showed a knife and threatened me saying that "shor machoge to chakoo maar doonga". The said boy pushed me and I fell down. The second boy who was with him showed a pistol to my brother and another boy hit my brother on his leg with a Saria. My brother fell down and the said boys told my brother to hand over all the belongings. They removed the gold, cash and mobile phone from the almirah lying in the room and thereafter they all were going out. Thereafter they all ran away from my house. After this we raise a hue and cry and told our neighbour what had happened and my cousin call the police. After the police came to the spot my statement was thereafter recorded by the police.
I can identify the said boys. At this State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 30 of 37 stage, the witness has correctly identified the accused Farhad Hussain who she states is the boy who had shown her the knife and threatened her."........
Both PW1 Yasmin and PW2 Abdul Kadir have been cross examined at length by Ld. defence counsel and nothing much has come out from their cross examination. Further, the role attributed to the accused has been specifically explained by the witnesses. PW1 Yasmin has identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who had threatened her by showing a knife. She has further deposed that when she came to her house, she saw that accused were holding of her brother. Also, according to the complainant Abdul Kadir (PW2), the accused Farhad Hussain was the boy who was having a knife in his hand and while running away he had pushed him.
In view of the above, there is nothing on record to show that PW1 Yasmin and PW2 Abdul Kadir were previously known to the accused and had any history of animosity and therefore there is no reason to the complainant to implicate the accused and I hereby hold that the role attributed to the accused Farhad Hussain has been proved and established.
State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 31 of 37 Causing Hurt to the Victims The case of the prosecution is that while committing robbery the accused Farhad Hussain had caused injuries to both the victims Yasmin and Abdul Kadir. In this regard, Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has been examined as PW3 who has proved the medical examination reports of victims Yasmin and Abdul Kadir which are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B showing the nature of injuries as 'simple', which aspect has gone unrebutted and hence in view of the aforesaid I hereby hold that while committing robbery the accused Farhad Hussain has caused simply injuries upon both the victims Yasmin and Abdul Kadir which aspect stands established. Arrest of the Accused Farhad Hussain The accused Farhad Hussain had been arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 532/2009, Under Section 399/402/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act of Police Station Jahangirpuri, on which the investigating officer of the present case was duly informed and the accused was formally arrested in the present case also. Thereafter, the accused has disclosed his involvement in the present case. Further, PW9 ASI Ram Bhau has also proved the arrest of the accused which finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW10 Ct. Kuldeep Singh and there is no dispute on the said aspect. State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 32 of 37
I have considered the submissions made before me. Whether the arrest of the accused in case FIR No. 532/2009 Police Station Jahangirpuri was illegal or not, is an issue which cannot be adjudicated by this court. In so far as the arrest of the accused in the present is concerned, the same had been made after the accused was arrested in case FIR FIR No. 532/2009 Police Station Jahangirpuri, and the arrest of the accused in the present case has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law. Recovery of the Stolen Articles:
The case of the complainant is that five gold rings, two gold chains, six gold karas, Rs.50,000/ cash and two mobile phones have been stolen by the accused ans his associates. There is nothing on record to show that there was any recovery of the stolen articles. The witness Abdul Kadir has proved that both mobile phones which were stolen were make Nokia 1650 having IEMI No. 359326026365003 and the second mobile which was operational was Nokia N70 IMEI No. 354551014441260. This being the background, I hereby hold that the details of the above articles have been proved by the complainant though there is no recovery of the same. Benefit of the same cannot be given to the accused. State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 33 of 37 Use of dangerous Weapon / Knife while committing Robbery:
Case of the prosecution is that the present accused was armed with knife and used the same in threatening the complainant / victims and therefore under these circumferences he is also liable to be charged for the offence under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. The weapon of offence so used, has not been recovered in the present case. Further, it has not been proved that the knife so recovered from the accused in FIR No. 532/2009, Police Station Jahangirpuri is the same weapon which was used in the present offence. This being the circumstances, I hereby hold that the provision of Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act would not apply the prosecution having failed to prove the recovery of the weapon of offence. FINAL CONCLUSION In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 34 of 37
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officers. Further, the identity of the accused Farhad Hussain has been proved. The fact that the present accused along with his other associates namely Bafi and Goldy had entered in the house of complainant State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 35 of 37 Abdul Kadir, stands proved. It is further proved that the complainant Abdul Kadir was initially alone at home and the accused showed him knife and one of his associate showed him a deshi katta while one of the boys was carrying a saria and thereafter they made him (victim) to sit on the bed with his head down and the accused who was having deshi katta stood guard to him and the other boy who was having saria removed the articles from the Almirah and being scared the complainant has also handed over some of the articles to that boy. It has been proved that meanwhile Yasmin, sister of complainant, came back to the house and witnesses the entire incident and she was also threatened by the accused Farhad Hussain by showing her a knife and soon thereafter all the accused ran away from the house. The FIR No. 532/2009, Police Station Jahangirpuri stands established. It has been proved that the accused thereafter made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case and was formally arrested. It also stands established that the Investigating Officer moved an application for conducting the Test Identification Parade but the accused refused to participate and he was subsequently identified by the victims in the court while he was being produced before the court of Ld. Magistrate at the time of remand and also at the time of their examination before this court. State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 36 of 37
This being the circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Farhad Hussain under Section 392//394/397 Indian Penal Code for which the accused is held guilty and accordingly convicted.
Be listed for arguments of sentence on 24.5.20011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 19.05.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 37 of 37 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 1185/2010 Unique Case ID: 02404R0339012009 State Vs. Farad Hussain S/o Ali Hussain R/o Jhuggi No. 1126, G, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. (Convicted) FIR No. : 225/2009 Police Station : Adarsh Nagar Under Section : 392/394/395/397/452/ Indian Penal Code And Section 27/54/59 Arms Act Date of Judgment: 19.05.2011 Arguments heard on: 24.5.2011 Date of Sentence: 25.5.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Farhad Hussain in judicial custody with Amicus Curiae Sh. Manish Sharma Advocate.
State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 38 of 37 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 19.5.2011, the accused Farhad Hussain has been held guilty of the offence under Section 392/394/397 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act.
As per the allegations on 28.9.2009 at about 7:30 pm the accused Farhad Hussain along with his coaccused Goldy and Bafi and some other unknown accused (not arrested) entered the house of the complainant/ victim Abdul Kadir while they were armed with desi katta, knife and saria. The boys compelled the complainant to open the safe and threatened the victim Abdul Kadir who handed over five gold rings, two gold chains, six gold karas and Rs.50,000/ cash to the intruders who also removed two mobile phones which were kept in the safe. In the meanwhile the sister of the complainant namely Ms. Yasmin came back to the house when the accused Farhad Hussain who was having a knife in his hand threatened her and pushed her on which she fell down. Both the victims/ eye witnesses i.e. Ms. Yasmin and Abdul Kadir have appeared in the court and identified the accused Farhad Hussain as the boy who has having a knife in his hand and threatened them. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, this court has held the accused Farhad Hussain guilty of the offence State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 39 of 37 under Section 392/394/397 Indian Penal Code. However, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is a young boy of 22 years having a family comprising of father, mother, three sisters and two brothers. He is totally illiterate and is a labour by profession. The convict is also involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No. 322/08, Police Station Model Town, under Section 457/380/411/34 IPC; FIR No. 532/09, Police Station Jahangir Puri under Section 399/402 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted) and FIR No. 546/08, Police Station Jahangir Puri, under Section 186/332/333/353 IPC which is still pending. He is in judicial custody since 3.10.2009. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is a young boy and has not been convicted in any other case so far. He requests that a lenient view be taken against him. Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved and the nature of crime.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict is a young boy and has been acquitted in two other cases which were pending against him. Keeping in view the above and also in view of the fact that any harsh view would be prejudicial to the convict and his family members, a lenient view is taken against him, the State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 40 of 37 minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is imprisonment not less than seven years and therefore, under these circumstances, I award the following sentences to the convict Farhad Hussain:
The convict Farhad Hussain is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 394 and Section 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
I am informed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the alleged two other accused namely Goldy and Bafi are not traceable. State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 41 of 37 It is evident from the record that no proceedings have been conducted by the investigating officer qua the said accused. The SHO, Police Station Jahangirpuri is directed to ensure that further investigations / appropriate proceedings are conducted qua the accused Goldy and Bafi, as per law under intimation to Ld. Illka Magistrate. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. ACMM concerned for onward transmission to the Ld. Illika Magistrate for information and appropriate action.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 25.5.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 42 of 37 FIR No. 225/2009 PS Adarsh Nagar State Vs. Farhad Hussian 19.5.2011 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused in JC with Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court, the accused Farhad Hussain is held guilty for the offence Section 392//394/397 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. Be listed for arguments of sentence on 24.5.20011.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/19.5.2011 24.5.2011 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Farhad Hussain in JC with Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
Medical status report of the convict has been received from the Superintendent, Jail, which I have perused and I am satisfied. The report is taken on record. Heard arguments on the point of sentence. Be listed for order on sentence on 25.5.2011.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ/NWII, Rohini/24.5.2011
State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 43 of 37
25.5.2011
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Farhad Hussain in JC with Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the convict Farhad Hussain is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 394 and Section 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
I am informed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the alleged two other accused namely Goldy and Bafi are not traceable. It is evident from the record that no proceedings have been conducted by the investigating officer qua the said accused. The SHO, Police Station Jahangirpuri is directed to ensure that further investigations / appropriate proceedings are conducted qua the accused Goldy and Bafi, as per law under intimation to Ld. Illka Magistrate.
Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. ACMM concerned State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 44 of 37 for onward transmission to the Ld. Illika Magistrate for information and appropriate action.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/25.5.2011 State Vs. Farhad Hussain, FIR No. 225/2009, PS Adarsh Nagar Page 45 of 37