Delhi District Court
State vs Shamshu @ Shamsuddin on 17 February, 2026
(Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin
IN THE COURT OF BABRU BHAN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KKD
COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No-45030/2015
State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin @ Ors.
FIR No-173/2014
PS-Gokul Puri
(a) Session Case No. 45030/2015
(CNR No-DLNE01-000845-2015)
(b) Date of offence 13.12.2014
(c) Accused 1. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin
S/o- Sh. Anwar Hussain
R/o- Vill-Meerampur, Bega, PS-
Mandawali, Distt- Bijnor, U.P.
2. Shakeel Ahmed
S/o- Sh. Karimulla
R/o- H.No-56, Gali No-1, New
Mustafabad, Delhi.
3. Mohd. Salman
S/o- Sh. Shakeel Ahmed
R/o- H.No-56, Gali No-1, New
Mustafabad, Delhi.
4. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu
S/o- Sh. Shakeel Ahmed
R/o- H.No-56, Gali No-1, New
Mustafabad, Delhi.
5. Naseem
S/o- Sh. Islamuddin @ Buddhu
R/o- H.No- A/436, Gali No-6, New
Mustafabad, Delhi.
(d) Offence U/s 147/149/186/224/225/308/353 of
IPC and 25 of Arms Act
(e) Plea of Accused Not guilty
SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 1 of 26 BABRU
BHAN
Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
Date: 2026.02.17
17:00:45 +0530
(Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin
(f) Final Order Conviction
(g) Date of Institution 02.03.2015
(h) Date when Judgment 11.12.2025
was reserved
(i) Date of Judgment 17.02.2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 13.02.2014, PW3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW10 Shiv Charan were posted at PS Gokul Puri. On that day, their duty hours were from 07:00 Pm to 11:00 PM. During patrolling duty, they reached in Gali No. 2 near Sanjay Chowk, at about 10:15 PM, at corner of Gali, accused Salman with two of his associates was present and was carrying a pistol in his hand. On seeing the pistol, PW3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW10 Ct. Shiv Charan overpowered accused Salman. Two of the associates of Salman tried to assist him in escaping from the custody but they could not.
2. Thereafter, accused Salman and his two associates started beating PW3 Ct. Abrar and PW 10 Ct. Shiv Charan. In the meantime, father of accused Salman namely Shakeel Ahmad, his brother Shan Mohd.,friends Shamshu and some other person came at the spot and tried to get accused Salman released from the police and started beating police personnels.
SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 2 of 26 BABRU
BHAN
Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
Date: 2026.02.17
17:00:46 +0530
(Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin
3. On same day, PW7/SI Anuj and PW15/HC Devender Kumar were busy in disposal of a DD registered in connection with missing of a minor girl, aged about 4-5 years. They had recovered the girl and were going to drop her at her house. At about 10:15 PM, when PW7/ SI Anuj Kumar and PW15 HC Devender reached at Sanjay Chowk, Mustafabad, Delhi, they noticed that a crowd had assembled there. They stopped their bike and went near the crowd. They saw that PW3/Ct. Abrar and PW/10 Ct. Shiv Charan had a boy in their custody and many other persons were trying to get him release from the custody. PW 7 tried to intervene but he was also pushed and dragged. It may be noted that PW7 and PW15 have also identified the accused persons. Thereafter, the crowd started pelting stones upon police party. One of the stone hit on the head of PW7/SI Anuj injured him. PW7 made a PCR call regarding the incident. At the same time, PW5/Irshad was also present nearby and his attention was also drawn towards the place of incident by some unusual noise. One old man requested him to make 100 no. call regarding quarrel. PW5 also made a PCR call regarding the incident.
4. The aforesaid PCR calls made by PW 7 SI Anuj and PW5 Irshad were received at CPCR New PHQ, Delhi by PW9/ Wct. Madhu Nimesh and PW11/ W/ASI Bharti. PW9 and PW11 filled up respective PCR form Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW11/A in this regard. Thereafter, they forwarded the information to District Net for appropriate action.
5. At 10:40 PM, PW2/ASI Braham Prakash received an SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 3 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:43 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin information from wireless operator regarding the assault upon the police officers at Sanjay Chowk and that the assailants were trying to get one person released from custody. PW2 reduced the aforesaid information in form of DD no.56, Ex. PW2/A. PW2 thereafter, passed the information to ERV official and motor cycle riders.
6. The aforesaid DD Ex. PW2/A was assigned to PW8/ SI Habib Ahmad. In pursuant to the said DD, PW8 along with Ct. Kunji Lal reached at Sanjay Chowk where they learnt that injured person had already been removed to hospital by PCR officials. It may be noted here itself that PW17/HC Kuldeep had removed injured Ct. Abrar to the hospital. PW8/SI Habib Ahmad and Ct. Kunji Lal went to GTB hospital and collected MLC of Ct.Abrar Ali and SI Anuj. Both of the injured had been declared fit for the statement by the attending doctor. PW8 first recorded statement Ex. PW3/D of Ct. Abrar Ali. Ct. Abrar Ali produced a pistol and stated that it was found in possession of accused Salman. PW8 prepared sketch Ex. PW3/A of the said pistol. Thereafter, he sealed the aforesaid pistol in a parcel sealed with seal of "HAK" and took the same in the possession vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter, PW8 prepared the rukka and sent the same to the PS through Ct. Kunji Lal for registration of FIR.
7. At Police Station, PW1 Yashbir Singh was the duty officer on 14.02.2014. On basis of rukka, he recorded DD no. 3A Ex. PW1/B regarding registration of FIR. Thereafter, PW1 Yashbir delivered the aforesaid rukka to Computer Operator accordingly SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 4 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:45 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin for registration of FIR. Computer operator recorded the present FIR Ex. PW1/C. PW1 has also issued a certificate U/s 65 B of IEA Ex. PW1/D in support of the FIR.
8. After sending Ct. Kunji Lal for registration of FIR, PW8/ SI Habib Ahmad along with PW3/Ct. Abrar returned to the spot. There, at instance of PW3, PW8 prepared visual site plan Ex. PW3/B.
9. On 16.02.2014, PW8 along with PW3 Ct. Abrar went in the search of accused persons namely Shamsu @ Shamshuddin, Shakeel Ahmed, Mohd Salman, Shan Mohd @ Shanu and Naseem. At about 09:00 PM, they reached at Sanjay Chowk. There Complainant Ct. Abrar Ali pointed out towards Mohd. Salman who was standing there. PW8 arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/F1 and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/F2. PW8 interrogated accused Salman and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/G.
10. On 17.02.2014, accused Salman disclosed whereabouts of accused Shamsu @ Shamshuddin and Naseem vide his additional statement Ex. PW3/H.
11. On 05.05.2014, PW 8 arrested accused Shakeel Ahmad and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/I-1 and Ex.PW3/I-2 respectively. PW8 thereafter interrogated accused Shakeel and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/J.
12. On 31.05.2014, accused Shamsu @ Shamshuddin himself appeared in the PS. PW8 interrogated him, personally searched SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 5 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin and thereafter arrested him vide memo Ex. PW3/K-1 and Ex. PW3/K-2. IO also recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW5/L of accused Shamsu @ Shamshuddin.
13. During further course of investigation, PW8 came to know that accused Naseem was running in JC in case FIR no. 455/2014, PS Gokulpuri. He moved an application and obtained production warrant of accused Naseem. On 06.11.2014, PW8 interrogated accused Naseem in presence of PW14 HC Naveen. After interrogation, PW8 arrested accused Naseem vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/B. It may be noted here itself that the said memo is signed by PW14 HC Naveen as attesting witness. On the same day, IO moved an application Ex. PW8/D for the TIP of accused Naseem. On 11.11.2014, TIP of accused Naseem was conducted through Ct. Abrar Ali. During the TIP proceedings, accused was correctly identified by PW3 Ct. Abrar Ali.
14. On 15.11.2014, accused Shamsu @ Shamshuddin came to PS. Complainant/PW-3 Ct. Abrar was also present there. PW-3 identified accused Shamsu @ Shamshuddin and PW8 recorded a statement of U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-3 Ct. Abrar in this regard. Shamsu @ Shamshuddin was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/1.
15. During further course of investigation, IO obtained complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C from PW18 ACP Sandeep Lambha.
16. On completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet accusing the accused persons for committing offence U/s SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 6 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin 147/149/186/353/332/308/323/224/225B/34 of IPC and 25 Arms Act.
17. On 15.03.2017, amended charges for offence U/s 147/149/332/353/308/186/224/225 (B) of IPC were framed against accused Shamshu @ Shmshuddin, Shakeel Ahmad, Mohd. Salman, Shan Mohd @ Shanu and Naseem whereas additional charges for offence U/s 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Mohd. Salman. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
18. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. Most of the witnesses are formal witnesses who have merely participated in formal process of investigation. Their respective brief roles have already been narrated in the forgoing discussion. Therefore, reproduction of their detailed testimony can be safely avoided for sake of brevity.
19. PW3 Ct. Abrar and PW10 Ct. Shiv Charan are the injured. They have deposed the factual details of the incident which have already been elaborated above.
20. PW6 Rajender Singh has deposed that on 22.12.2014, he was posted as Addl. DCP. On that day, IO of the present case had presented the police file along with requisite document. After perusing the document, he issued the sanction U/s 39 Arms Act Ex. PW6/A.
21. PW12 /Dr. Puneet Puri has deposed that he had examined the pistol in connection with the present case. On examination, he SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 7 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:43 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin found that improvise pistol mark X-F was in working condition. He has further deposed that the pistol successful fired 7.65 MM cartridge. His detailed report in this case Ex. PW8/A.
22. PW13/ASI Masih has deposed that on 10.07.2014, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri. On that day, on instructions of ASI Raj Pal Singh, he had obtained one sealed pullanda from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 87/21/14. PW13 received requisite acknowledgment from the FSL and deposited the same in the malkhana.
23. PW16/ASI Satish had formally arrested accused Naseem on 21.10.2014 when he was running in JC in case FIR No. 455/14, Ps Gokulpuri.
24. PW18 Sandeep Lambha has deposed that on 01.01.2015 he was posted as ACP Sub Division, Gokul Puri. On that day, he had perused the complete case file of FIR No. 173, dt. 14.02.2014 and thereafter, he had given a complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C against the accused persons.
25. PW19 ASI Narender Kumar, appeared from the Logistic Unit and he produced the record relating to the issuance of cartridges for the test fire at the FSL. The record produced by him is Ex. PW19/A to PW19/C.
26. The prosecution evidence was followed by statements of accused persons in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C (351 of BNSS), wherein all the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They were given opportunity to lead defense SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 8 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin evidence, but they opted not to lead any.
27. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
28. The case projected by the prosecution is that on 13.02.2014, PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Gokul Puri. Their duty time was 07:00 PM to 11:00 PM. At 10:15 PM, in gali no-2, near Sanjay Chok, New Mustafabad, Delhi, they saw that accused Salman alongwith his 02 associates was standing with a illegal pistol in his hand. PW-3 and PW-10 overpowered Salman but accused Shakeel, Shan Mohd, Shamshu @ Shamshuddin and Naseem reached there and started beating PW-3 and PW-10. At the same time, PW-15 Ct. Davender and PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi were on disposal of another call in the same area. They reached at the spot and rescued PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan and PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali. The crowd which had gathered there pelted stones upon the police party in which PW-7 SI Anuj and PW-3 Ct. Abrar suffered injuries. They were taken to hospital and treated there. PW-3 Ct. Abrar somehow managed to snatch the pistol from accused Salman which he later handed over to PW-8 IO SI Habib Ahmed in the hospital.
29. To prove the aforesaid allegations against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 04 material eye-witnesses i.e PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali, PW-19 Ct. Shiv Charan, PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi and PW-15 Ct. Davender.
30. In his court statement, PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali has deposed the SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 9 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:47 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin same facts which he had deposed in his statement given to the IO. However, during his cross-examination on behalf of accused Naseem, PW-3 went to exonerate him by accepting the suggestion that PW-3 had not given any beating to them. He has further stated that accused Naseem was standing about 10 steps ahead of him and he had not uttered any word against them. As per PW-3, accused Naseem had just stated "chacha salman ko chor kyu nahi dete".
31. During the cross-examination conducted on behalf of remaining accused persons, Ld. Defense Counsel had asked the witness about the hand in which accused Salman was carrying the pistol. PW-3 answered that he was carrying the pistol in left hand. Ld. Counsel further asked the witness about the age, physical appearance and other features and physical characteristics of the two associates of accused Salman. Witness stated that he did not tell any such details to the IO. Lastly, Ld. Defense Counsel put a suggestion that accused persons were lifted from their residence but the witness denied the suggestion. PW-3 also denied the suggestion that accused persons were implicated because he was holding grudge against them being the Beat Officer.
32. This court has perused the aforesaid cross-examination of PW-3. To the understanding of this court, the defense has failed to bring any material from the cross-examination of PW-3 which can discredit or can adversely affect the truthfulness of this witness on the allegations against accused Shamshu @ Shamshuddin, Shakeel Ahmad, Mohd Salman and Shaan Mohd. As far as SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 10 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:46 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin accused Naseem is concerned, this witness has exonerated him.
33. On material factual points, PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan has deposed in sync with PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali. PW-10 has also narrated the same details of the incident as narrated by PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Naseem, PW-10 failed to identify accused Naseem. He explained that he had heard his name only and had never seen him before. So, PW-10 has also not stated anything against accused Naseem.
34. After the examination-in-chief recorded on 15.10.2019, PW-10 was called on 26.05.2025 for cross-examination on behalf of remaining accused persons. During cross-examination conducted on 26.05.2025, PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan turned hostile. He has deposed in his cross-examination conducted on 26.05.2025 that on the date of incident, he alongwith 03 police-officials had left on 02 bikes. Thereafter, they reached the spot in 10 minutes. When they reached the spot they noticed that public persons had already gathered there. Someone from the crowd told them about the incident. PW-10 has further deposed in his cross-examination that SI Anuj Tyagi and Ct. Abrar Ali had already apprehended one accused but he did not remember his name. They remained at the spot for 05 mintues and thereafter returned to the PS with the accused. On next day, he had signed some blank papers at instance of police. PW-10 has further deposed that he had not sustained any injury in the incident.
35. Ld. Defense Counsel has argued that since PW-10 has turned hostile in his subsequent cross-examination on 26.05.2025, SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 11 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin therefore, his entire statement is not trustworthy and same should not be taken into judicial calculus. Ld. Addl. PP for State has assailed this argument of Ld. Defense Counsel stating that in his initial statement recorded on 15.10.2019, PW-10 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, he turned hostile in his subsequent statement recorded on 26.05.2025. Ld. Addl. PP has further argued that PW-10 has not explained anywhere that if he had reached the spot subsequent to the incident, then why he narrated in his statement recorded on 15.10.2019 that on 13.01.2014, he and Ct. Abrar Ali had apprehended accused Salman and other accused persons had assaulted them. Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that in absence of any explanation from PW-10, this court can rely upon his earlier incriminating version and can validly reject the exculpatory statement given during the cross-examination.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567, after referring to a plethora of judgments held as under:
"83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence."
"23. Recently, when the same question again came up before Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon while relying upon Bhagwan Singh's case(supra), Khujji's case(supra) and C. Muniappan's case (supra), reiterated the position of law SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 12 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:47 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin while stating as under:
"22. The expression "hostile witness" does not find a place in the Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party. We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief-examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief-examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first CRA-D-761-DB-2018 (O&M) ( 11 ) 2023:PHHC:161666-DB category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief-examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross- examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief-examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion."
37. So, the evidence of a witness who has supported the case of the prosecution during the examination-in-chief but has changed his version in favour of the accused during the cross-examination cannot be discarded in entirety. His entire evidence has to be seen as a whole and if the incriminating part is corroborated by the other evidence and the exculpatory part is not explained properly, court can safely accept the incriminating part.
38. In this case, the examination-in-chief of PW-10 was conducted on 15.10.2019, thereafter, he was cross-examined on 26.05.2025 i.e. after a whopping delay of about 06 years. The SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 13 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:45 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin recording of cross-examination was unduly prolonged (probably due to Covid-19 forced lock-down), affording all the time to the accused persons and his supporters to win him over. These facts are to be taken into consideration while considering the evidentiary value of PW-10. Keeping in view the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court is of the opinion that it would be safe to rely on that part of the statement of this witness, which is corroborated by other evidence on record. Since the prosecution, in order to lend corroboration to version of PW-10 has relied upon testimony of PW-3, PW-7, PW-8, PW-15 as well as some public witnesses and the medical documents, the inculpatory part of the statement can be relied upon safely.
39. In view of the above discussion, this court is not inclined to accept the argument made by Ld. Defense Counsel that the statement of PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan should be thrown away in its entirety because he has turned hostile during the cross- examination. This court will rely upon the incriminating part recorded on 15.10.2019 because same has been supported by the other witnesses whereas any other witness or circumstance has not supported the exculpatory version given by PW-10 during the cross-examination.
40. In addition to statements of PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan, PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi and PW-15 Ct. Davender, both have stated that on 13.02.2014, they were busy in disposal of a DD entry in connection with missing of a minor girl. At about 10:15 PM, when they reached at Sanjay Chowk, Mustafabad, SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 14 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:45 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin Delhi, they noticed that a crowd had gathered there. PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi has deposed that they had heard voice of Ct. Abrar Ali. When PW-7 and PW-15 entered the crowd, they saw that Ct. Shiv Charan was holding hand of a person who was in custody of Ct. Abrar Ali. Several persons were trying to get him released from the aforesaid police officers. PW-7 intervened and tried to push the public persons away. PW-7 has further deposed that Shakeel Ahmad (father of accused Salman), Shaan Mohd, Naseem and Shamshu were trying to take Salman away. Salman was holding a pistol in his hand. He has further deposed that thereafter all the accused persons with their other unknown associates started pelting stones. One of the stone hit his head and injured him. He made PCR call in this regard. PCR official reached there, took him and another injured to GTB Hospital where he was examined. PW-15 Ct. Davender has also made a statement in sync with PW-7.
41. During cross-examination, Ld. Defense Counsel has asked some questions regarding the DD No which was assigned to him for disposal on that day. Ld. Defense Counsel also asked questions regarding the name and address of the missing girl. The witness failed to tell the DD No and the name of the minor girl. However, this court is of the opinion that the credibility of the witness cannot be visited with any suspicion merely because he failed to tell DD No he was assigned to dispose of on the date of incident and the name of missing girl. The reason being the incident had taken place in 2014 whereas the cross-examination of PW-7 has been conducted in year 2019 I.e after delay of 05 years. During SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 15 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:46 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin this period, this witness must have disposed of hundreds of PCR calls. A normal human being is not expected to remember such minor details after such a long time.
42. Further, PW-7 has stated in his court statement that Ct. Davender had dropped the minor girl at her home on his own bike. That part of statement of PW-7 has been fully corroborated by PW-15 Ct. Davender who has deposed that although he did not remember the exact address but the child was dropped at Nehru Vihar. It is relevant to note here that besides some questions relating to the name, address and age of the minor child whose missing DD entry PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi and PW-15 Ct. Davender were assigned with, Ld. Defense Counsel has not cross-examined PW-15 on the facts of the incident. Thus, that part of the statement of PW-15 where he has stated that Ct. Abrar Ali and Ct. Shiv Charan had apprehended a person and the public persons were trying to get him released has gone unrebutted.
43. So, the testimony of PW-15 has also supported the version of PW-7 and also the case of the prosecution to a considerable extent.
44. Although, he has not specifically named any assailant but PW-5 Irshad has also supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 13.02.2014, some incident of quarrel had taken place near Sanjay Chowk, New Mustafabad and he had made a PCR call and had informed the control room that some persons were beating the police officials. This witness has not also been cross-examined effectively, therefore, his statement shall also SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 16 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin corroborate the version of PW-3, PW-7, PW-10 and PW-15 that some incident had taken place at Sanjay Chowk, Mustafabad on 13.02.2014, when some persons had given beatings to some police officials.
45. PW-17 HC Kuldeep has deposed that on 13.02.2014, he was posted as Ct. at PS Gokul Puri. On that day, duty officer informed him that there had been some quarrel at Sanjay Chowk. He reached there and removed Ct. Abrar to GTB Hospital. The statement of Ct. Kuldeep is corroborated by MLC Ex.PW3/C of Ct. Abrar where his name is mentioned in the column meant for brought by.
46. The version given by injured PW-3 Ct. Abrar and PW-7 Ct. Anuj Tyagi is further supported by MLC Ex.PW3/C and MLC Ex.PW7/A. The MLC Ex.PW3/C records that Ct. Abrar was brought to GTB Hospital at about 11:35 PM with alleged history of physical assault. Similarly, MLC Ex.PW7/A of SI Anuj Tyagi records that he was brought to GTB Hospital with alleged history of physical assault on 13.02.2014 at about 11:35 PM. As per the version given by the injured and eye witnesses, the incident had taken place at about 10:30 PM and as per MLC, injured were removed to hospital at 11:35 PM. So the time mentioned in the MLC aligns with the time of incident. Further, PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali has stated that he was beaten by the crowd with kick and fist blows. The MLC of PW-3 records some abrasions and swelling on his hands, nose and other part of body. Thus, these injuries are compatible with the ocular version of PW-3. Further, PW-7 has SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 17 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:45 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin deposed that the crowd (including the accused persons) had started pelting stones upon the police party and one stone had hit his head and he suffered injuries. This version of PW-7 is supported by MLC Ex.PW7/A which records a laceration wound on right temporal region of the head of SI Anuj Tyagi. In nutshell, the medical documents are fully complimentary to the oral evidence given by the police witnesses.
47. Furthermore, in case titled as "BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Crl Apl No-1910 of 2010, dated 29th March 2023, SCC. The hon'ble apex court has discussed the evidentiary value of injured witness in the following words:-
"25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 18 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:47 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 19 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:46 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)]
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 20 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
48. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that appreciation of oral evidence is a hard task. While appreciating the oral evidence, court has to keep multiple factors in mind which may affect the credibility of the witness. Evidence given by an injured witness has to be given high evidentiary value because the injury caused to the witness firstly probablize his presence at the spot. Secondly, such witness would seldom let the actual culprit escape and implicate an innocent person. Evidence of such injured witness generally should not be visited with suspicion unless there are apparent contradictions.
49. Here in this case also, the MLC of PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW-7 SI Anuj Tyagi have established that they had suffered injuries. It is not the case of the defense that these injuries are self- inflicted as no such suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses in this regard. So, why PW-3 and PW-7 would falsely construct a story and implicate the accused persons, it has not been explained anywhere. Therefore, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-7 stands on a higher pedestal because they are the injured SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 21 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:43 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin witnesses.
50. Further, the incident had taken place at about 10:15 PM as stated by PW-3, PW-7, PW-10 and PW-15. As per PW-9 W Ct. Madhu Nimesh, the incident was reported to the CPCR, PHQ at 22:31 hours. This fact is proved by PCR form Ex.PW9/A. PW-2/SI Braham Prakash has deposed that on 13.02.2014, at about 10:40 PM, wireless operator transmitted an information to him that police officials were being beaten at Sanjay Chowk. PW-2 recorded that information in form of DD No-2A. So, the incident was immediately reported to the control room and the concerned PS. There is no dispute upon the same. PW-2 has further deposed that he assigned DD Ex.PW2/A to PW-8 SI Habib Ahmad. PW-8 has deposed that he went to GTB Hospital and recorded statement Ex.PW3/A of injured Ct. Abrar. Thereafter, FIR was registered at 01:30 AM. So, after the incident, matter was immediately reported to the police without any delay and FIR was registered within 03 hours. When this court looks into the chronology of different steps taken by the victims and police, no unusual delay or loophole is seen. Practically, there was no time or even the reason for the injured police witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons.
51. During course of argument, Ld. Defense Counsels have pointed out some minor contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses. Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention of this court that PW-7 and PW-15 were allegedly on disposal of a DD entry regarding missing of a minor girl. However, neither they produced SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 22 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:47 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin the said DD entry nor disclosed the name of the girl. They also failed to tell the address where she was dropped. Ld. Counsels have also pointed out that some of the witnesses have deposed that all the accused persons had participated in the offence whereas some have stated that accused Naseem was merely a by- stander.
52. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SSC 457, has considered the minor contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of Para 42 of the judgment reads as under:
"42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness."
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the afore- noted judgment that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the testimony of truthful witnesses. The sense of observation of SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 23 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:46 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin every person is different and it also depends upon the quality of memory of a witness.
54. Here in this case, none of the contradictions highlighted by Ld. Defense Counsels are so major which can go to the root of the entire case. Even if, PW-7 failed to tell the name of the girl and the DD entry regarding her missing, his medical documents and the injuries suffered by him are sufficient to show that he was present at the spot and was assaulted by the crowd including the accused persons. Similarly, presence of injured Ct. Abrar is proved by his medical documents and other surrounding circumstances. Thus, despite some minor contradictions, the statements of the witnesses shall inspire sufficient confidence.
55. Now, coming towards the role of accused Naseem. PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali was asked during cross-examination about the role of accused Naseem. PW-3 has explained that accused Naseem was standing about 10 steps ahead from the spot. He had neither given beatings nor had instigated any other assailant to assault the police. He had just stated that "chacha salman ko chor kyu nahi dete". PW-3 has further clarified that accused Naseem was standing merely as a passer-by. Similarly, PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan was cross-examined on behalf of accused Naseem on the same day when his examination-in-chief was recorded. PW-10 has clarified in his cross-examination that he did not recognize accused Naseem as he had never seen him at the spot and had just heard his name. As far as PW-15 is concerned, he has neither named accused Naseem as assailant nor has identified him in the SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 24 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:45 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin court. He has not named accused Naseem as an assailant in his court statement. Although, PW-7 has deposed that accused Shamshu and Naseem were trying to take custody of accused Salman from Ct. Abrar and Ct. Shiv Charan but since PW-3 Ct. Abrar and PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan have not identified accused Naseem in the court, a reasonable doubt about the role of accused Naseem has arisen. Needless to say, the benefit of that doubt shall go in favour of accused Naseem. Accordingly, accused Naseem is hereby acquitted from all the charges.
56. All the accused persons have been charged for offence U/s 308 r/w 149 of IPC. The essential mens rea required for offence U/s 308 is the knowledge of the assailant that his act is likely to cause death. That knowledge has to be gathered from the circumstances including the number and nature of injuries suffered, the weapon used, part of body targeted and many other factors. The list of circumstances cannot be exhausted. In case in hand, accused persons who were much more in number, had assaulted the police party resulting into simple injuries to Ct. Abrar and SI Anuj Tyagi. To the understanding of this court, had there been any intention on part of the accused persons to cause any serious injury which they knew was likely to cause death, nothing had prevented them from doing so. They could have easily caused the same as they were more in number. The fact that police party escaped with simple injuries indicates that there was no such intention on part of the accused persons. Thus, offence U/s 308 of IPC is hereby reduced to 323 of IPC.
SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 25 of 26 BABRU
BHAN
Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
Date: 2026.02.17
17:00:43 +0530
(Judgment) State Vs. Shamshu @ Shamsuddin
57. Conclusion of above discussion is that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on date of incident, when PW-3 Ct. Abrar Ali and PW-10 Ct. Shiv Charan had apprehended Mohd Salman with an illegal pistol, the accused persons namely Shamshu @ Shamshuddin, Shaan Mohd and Shakeel Ahmad alongwith unidentified crowd opened an assault upon the police party with common object to get Mohd. Salman released from the lawful custody. In that pursuit, they assaulted the police personnel, pelted stones upon them, caused injuries to Ct. Abrar Ali and SI Anuj Tyagi. Thereafter, they got accused Salman released from the lawful custody. Accordingly, accused Shamshu @ Shamshuddin, Shakeel Ahmad and Shaan Mohd are hereby convicted for offence U/s 147 of IPC and for offence U/s 186/332/353/225/323 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, accused Salman is convicted for offence U/s 147 of IPC and for offence U/s 186/332/353/224/323 r/w 149 of IPC. Since, accused Mohd Salman was apprehended while being in possession of an illegal pistol, he is liable to be convicted for offence U/s 25 of Arms Act additionally.
58. Copy of this Judgment be provided to the accused persons for free of cost.
59. File be consigned to Record Room.
60. Matter be put up for arguments on order on sentence on 25.02.2026.
61. Ordered accordingly. BABRU BHAN Announced in open court Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN on 17-02-2026 Date: 2026.02.17 17:01:08 +0530 (BABRU BHAN) ASJ-04, North-East District KKD/DELHI/17.02.2026 SC No-45030/2015 FIR No-173/2014 Page 26 of 26 BABRU BHAN Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.17 17:00:43 +0530