Delhi District Court
State vs Firoj Khan @ Pappu And Others on 27 August, 2024
CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021
State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
DLNE010032762021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-6
3 Charges 6-8
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 8-16
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 16
6 Arguments of Prosecution & Defence 16-21
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 21-25
8 Identification of accused persons 25-26
9 Conclusion and Decision 26-27
Digitally
Page 1 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)
signed by
PULASTYA
ASJ-03, North-East District,
PRAMACHALA
PULASTYA
Karkardooma
PRAMACHALA Courts, Delhi
Date:
2024.08.27
11:06:01
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021
State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
Sessions Case No. : 324/2021
Under Section : 147/148/427/436 read with 149
IPC & 188 IPC
Police Station : Dayalpur
FIR No. : 114/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-003276-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. Firoj Khan
S/o. Sh. Munnan,
R/o. H.No.1420, Gali No.7,
Vijay Park, Maujpur, N-E, Delhi-53,
2. Mohd. Anwar
S/o. Sh. Zahid Hussain,
R/o. H.No. A-495, Gali No.5,
Old Mustafabad, Delhi-94.
...Accused Persons
Case registered on the Sh. Amit Pal
complaint of: S/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o. H.No. 216, Shiv Vihar, Phase
IV, Gali No.7, Karawal Nagar, New
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2020
Date of reserving order : 09.08.2024
Date of pronouncement : 27.08.2024
Decision : ...........
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by all accused.)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. The above-named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427/436 IPC.Page 2 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed by PULASTYA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:06:35 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
2. Brief facts of the present case are that in the present case FIR was registered on 01.03.2020, pursuant to complaint (recorded vide DD No. 33-B dated 01.03.2020 and Dy. No. 54 dated 03.03.2020) dated 01.03.2020, given by one Amit Pal. Amit Pal alleged that rioters had looted and set ablaze his shop situated at gali no.1, shop no.3, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Main Brijpuri Road, near Rajdhani Public School, Shiv Vihar Tiraha on 24.02.2020 at about 9 PM.
3. On the basis of this complaint, rukka was prepared and DO/ASI Ram Parkash registered this FIR No. 114/20 u/s. 147/148/149/427/436 IPC, which was assigned to SI Rajiv Kumar for investigation. IO/SI Rajiv Kumar, visited placed of incident, prepared site plan and recorded statement of complainant.
4. During the course of investigation, seven more complaints were received in the PS and same were clubbed by IO in this case. Those complaints are as follows: -
4.1 Complaint of Mohd. Yameen (recorded vide Dy. No. 2232/GD/NE dated 02.03.2020; Dy. No. R-62, dated 09.03.2020;
Dy.No. 53-M/CMTS dated 20.03.2020), wherein he alleged that his shop bearing no.27 (ground floor), Khasra no.30/5, main Babu Nagar Road, Mahalaxmi Enclave, near Shiv Vihar Tiraha, Delhi was looted and set ablaze by the rioters on 24.02.2020 at 4.00 p.m. 4.2 Complaint of Mahrun Nisha Rani (recorded vide Dy. No.31 dated 12.03.2020 and Dy. No.370 dated 13.03.2020) wherein she stated that her cart (rehri), upon which she used to sell some articles to Page 3 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:06:52 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur earn her livelihood, was burnt by the rioters on 24.02.2020 at Brijpuri Pulia.
4.3 Complaint of Chand Khan (recorded vide DD No.43-B dated 06.03.2020; Dy. No. 214 dated 07.03.2020), wherein he stated that he used to sell cloth by going from door to door and on 24.02.2020, his bag of cloth was robbed by rioters on 24.02.2020.
4.4 Complaint dated 05.03.2020 of Aadil Malik (recorded vide DD No. 38-B dated 05.03.2020; Dy. No. 252 dated 07.03.2020), wherein he stated that on 25.02.2020 in the evening, he was stopped on the way by a violent mob consisting of about 500 rioters, who were armed with iron rods, guns, country made revolvers, stones etc. and they attacked him as well as burnt his auto rickshaw, which was the only source of his livelihood.
4.5 Complaint dated 03.03.2020 of Mohd. Imran (recorded vide Dy.
No. R-80 dated 09.03.2020), wherein he stated that he used to run an E-rickshaw and on 24.02.2020 when all the passengers travelling in his E-rickshaw from Shiv Vihar to Yamuna Vihar got down, a mob came to him and asked about his religion. When he told them his name as Mohd. Imran, they started beating him with rods and stones due to which he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, the E- rickshaw was not there.
4.6 Complaint dated 19.03.2020 of Julfikar (recorded vide DD No.33-B dated 20.03.2020; Dy. No.47-R dated 19.03.2020), wherein he stated that on 24.02.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., a mob comprising of 100-150 people were outside his house no. B-4, Page 4 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardooma byCourts, PULASTYADelhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:07:13 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Nala Road, CN-12, Bhagirathi Vihar, Sabhapur, Delhi, screaming "Jai Shree Ram" and they broke open the gate of his house and set the same on fire.
4.7 Complaint of Gul Mohd. (recorded vide Dy. No. 449/R dated 18.03.2020), wherein he had mentioned that his cart (rehri) was looted and burnt by the rioters in the night intervening between 24.02.2020 and 25.02.2020.
5. As per chargesheet, Inspector Hukam Singh informed the IO that he had arrested two accused namely Firoz Khan @ Pappu and Mohd.Anwar in another case FIR No.111/2020, who had disclosed that they were involved in acts of rioting, arson etc. in the area of Mahalaxmi Enclave, Chand Bagh and Main Wazirabad Road. Accordingly, IO interrogated these two accused and upon being satisfied about their involvement in the incidents forming subject matter of this case, he arrested them in this case on 03.04.2020. The complainant Amit Pal also reached PS on the same day i.e. 03.04.2020 to make enquiries about status of his complaint and upon seeing the two accused present in the PS, he identified them saying that they were amongst the rioters, who vandalized and set ablaze his shop on 24.02.2020. His statement was accordingly, recorded.
6. As per chargesheet, some video footage of the riotous incident, which had taken place in the area of Mahalaxmi Enclave, shot by several public persons had gone viral. One such video footage, in which the two accused are stated to be seen engaging in rioting, was handed over by S.I. K.P. Singh to the IO in this case. It is stated that the said video footage was sent to FSL in connection Page 5 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally signed ASJ-03, North-East District, by PULASTYA KarkardoomaPRAMACHALA PULASTYA Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:07:26 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur with case FIR no.111/20 and as per report of the FSL, the same was found to be genuine and without any tampering. Ct. Vikas, who was stated to have been on duty to curb the riots on 24.02.2020 and 25.02.2020, was also stated to have seen and identified the two accused indulging in rioting, looting and etc. in Mahalaxmi Enclave area. Accordingly, his statement was recorded by the IO.
7. After completion of investigation, on 16.03.2021, a charge sheet was filed against accused Firoj Khan @ Pappu and Mohd. Anwar for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427/436 IPC. This chargesheet was filed before ld. CMM (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, on 26.03.2021 ld. CMM (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, took cognizance of offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/427/436 IPC. Thereafter, case was committed to the court of sessions on 21.09.2021.
8. On 03.01.2022, first supplementary chargesheet along with complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. with addition of sections 188/380/457 IPC, was filed before ld. CMM (N/E). Ld. CMM (N/E) sent this supplementary charge sheet to the court of sessions vide order dated 14.01.2022. Subsequently, on 15.09.2022 second supplementary charge sheet along with photographs, certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act and certain documents, was filed directly before this court. On 11.09.2023, third supplementary charge sheet along with four sealed parcels containing HDD having mirror image of CCTV footage, was filed directly before this court. CHARGES: -
Digitally signed by PULASTYA Page 6 of 27 PULASTYA(Pulastya Pramachala) PRAMACHALAASJ-03, North-East PRAMACHALA Date: District, 2024.08.27 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 11:07:48 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
9. On 08.03.2022, charges were framed against accused Firoz Khan @ Pappu and Mohd. Anwar for offences punishable under Section 147/148/427/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: -
"That on 24.02.2020 at about 4.00 to 9.00 pm at Mahalaxmi Enclave near Shiv Vihar Tiraha within the jurisdiction of PS Dayalpur, both of you alongwith your associates (unidentified), formed an unlawful assembly and used force and violence in prosecution of a common object of such assembly and committed rioting and both of you knew being member of the aforesaid unlawful assemble that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby both of you along with your associates (unidentified) committed offences punishable under Section (s) 147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, both of you being member of unlawful assembly along with your associates (unidentified) committed mischief and thereby caused loss or damage to the complainants namely Amit Pal, Mohd. Yameen, Mahrun Nisha Rani, Chand Khan, Aadil Malik, Mohd. Imran, Julfikar and Gil Mohd. to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards and as such committed offence punishable under Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, both of you being member of unlawful assembly along with your associates (unidentified) committed mischief by fire or any explosive substance, with the intent to destroy the shop at A-1, gali No. 1, shop No. 3, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Main Brijpuri Road, near Rajdhani Public School, Shiv Vihar Tiraha belonging to complainant Amit Pal, shop bearing No. 27 (ground floor), Khasra No. 30/5, main Babu Nagar Road, Mahalaxmi Enclave, near Shiv Vihar Tiraha belonging to complainant Mohd. Yameen and house No. B-4, Nala Road, CN-12, Bhagirathi Vihar, Sabhapur, Delhi belonging to complainant Julfikar, and as such committed offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC within my cognizance."
10. Thereafter on 20.09.2022, additional charge was framed against aforesaid both accused persons for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, to which also they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charge was framed in following terms: -
"That, on 24.02.2020 at about 4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m, at and Page 7 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed KarkardoomabyCourts, PULASTYA Delhi PRAMACHALA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:08:25 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur around area of Mahalaxmi Enclave, near Shiv Vihar Tiraha, within the jurisdiction of PS Dayalpur, you both accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr. PC by the competent authority/DCP, North East vide order dated 24.02.2020 bearing No.10094-170 X-1, North East, Delhi dt.24.02.2020, which was duly announced in all the localities of District North East including area of PS Dayalpur , thereby you all committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
11. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions:-
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW1/Sh. In the year 2020, he used to deal in crockery on a Gul Rehri (Handcart) at Okhla Mandi. Mohamad He did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile witness.
PW2/Sh. On 24.02.2020 at about 3 PM, when Ex.PW2/A Amit Pal he alongwith his brother Sachin, was (complaint of present at his Dairy Shop i.e. M/s. PW2); Pal Dairy in Gali No.1, Shiv Vihar Ex.PW2/B (site Tiraha, they heard commotion and plan) saw people running here and there. They brought down the shutters of the shop and remained inside the shop. They remained confined inside the shop for about two hours. At about 05:00-05:30 PM, they went out of the shop. They shut the shop and went towards their home through gali on the back side. They waited in the Gali for about one and a half hours for their workers, who were stuck in their godown in the same Gali. At about 6 PM, they saw Page 8 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally ASJ-03, North-East signed District, by PULASTYA KarkardoomaPRAMACHALA Courts, Delhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:08:37 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties that a mob had gathered in the Gali. The persons in the mob broke open the shutter of their shop, vandalized the shop and set it ablaze.
PW2 submitted his complaint in the PS. Police officials had prepared site plan of the spot at his instance. PW2 did not support the case of prosecution, on the point of identification of accused persons. PW3/ Smt. She deposed that during riots on Ex.PW3/A Mehru 24.02.2020, her handcart upon (complaint of Nisha which she used to sell groundnuts PW3) etc., was set ablaze by the rioters near Brijpuri Pulia. She submitted her complaint in the PS. PW3 was not relied upon by prosecution, on the point of identification of accused persons. PW4/Sh. As per his testimony, on a day in the Ex.PW4/A Yamin month of February 2020 during (complaint of riots, he was present in his home i.e. PW4) H.No. R-164, Gali No. 8, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. On that day at about 4 pm, PW4 received a call from his tenant Shahnawaz, who informed that his shop i.e. a General Store in Mahalaxmi Enclave near Shiv Vihar Tirha, Delhi, had been set ablaze by the rioters.
PW4 submitted his complaint in the PS. He was not relied upon by prosecution, on the point of identification of accused persons. PW5/ In the month of February, 2020, he Ex.PW5/A Mohd. used to ply battery rickshaw in (complaint of Imran Delhi. On 24.02.2020, when the PW5) Page 9 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardoomaby Courts, Delhi PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:08:46 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties passengers of his rickshaw got down at Shiv Vihar, a violent mob came there. They beat PW5 severely as a result of which he became unconscious.
PW5 submitted his complaint in the PS. PW5 was not relied upon by prosecution, on the point of identification of accused persons. PW6/HC On 12.05.2020, he handed over one CD containing Krishan Pal several footages of the riotous incident dated Singh 24.02.2020, to the IO.
PW7/ASI On 04.03.2020, he was posted at PS Ex.PW7/A Ram Dayalpur and he was working as (copy of FIR); Prakash Duty Officer from 4 PM till 12 midnight. On that day at about 05:30 Ex.PW7/B PM, SHO had handed over rukka to ((certificate u/s. PW7 for registration of FIR. PW7 65-B of Indian registered FIR. PW7 handed over Evidence Act original rukka and copy of the FIR in support of to SI Rajeev. PW7 identified his the FIR) endorsement on the rukka from point X to X, bearing his signature at point Y. PW7 also identified his signature at point X on his certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the FIR.
PW8/Ct. On 24.02.2020, he was on duty from 8 AM in his beat Ankit i.e. Mahalaxmi Enclave Beat. At about 08:15 AM, he received a call from Reader to SHO that an order was passed by DCP, North- East u/s. 144 Cr.PC and he told PW8 to announce that order in the area of PS Dayalpur. PW8 took a TSR auto from Shiv Vihar Tiraha. PW8 went to Brijpuri Pulia; Mustafabad; Brijpuri T point; Brijpuri; Chand Bagh; 25 foota road Mustafabad; old Mustafabad; Babu Nagar; and Mahalaxmi Enclave and announced that order through loud hailer.Page 10 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed by PULASTYA KarkardoomaPRAMACHALA PULASTYA Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:08:54 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW9/HC On 24.02.2020, PW9 remained on Ex.PW9/A and Vikas duty in Mahalaxmi Enclave till Ex.PW9/B about 10-10:30 PM. At about 9 PM, (arrest memo the mob which was there since day of accused time, vandalized shop No.3. The Firoz and members of the mob were carrying Anwar, danda, rod, bottles etc. This was respectively); shop of dairy items. The mob threw Ex.PW9/C and out articles from this shop and also Ex.PW9/D set this shop on fire. At that time, (personal PW9 was around 20-25 meters away search memo from the aforesaid shop at of accused Mahalaxmi Enclave. PW9 knew 2 Firoz and persons in this mob, who were Anwar, accused Firoz and Anwar. respectively) On 06.03.2020, SI Rajeev had recorded his statement, and in his statement, PW9 had told him about the names of accused Firoz and Anwar, being part of the mob, which was involved in the aforesaid incident.
On 03.04.2020, PW9 was present in the PS. His room was in front of the room of SI Rajeev. During afternoon period, PW9 saw that SI Rajeev was present alongwith 4-5 boys in his room. Accused Firoz and Anwar were also among those boys and PW9 informed SI Rajeev that they were involved in the aforesaid incident. SI Rajeev arrested and personally searched accused Firoz and Anwar.
PW9 correctly identified accused Firoz and Anwar before the court. PW10/HC He had brought daily diary register Ex.PW10/A Deepak containing entries of 24.02.2020 in (OSR) PS Dayalpur. As per this register, (photocopy of Page 11 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Digitally Delhi signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties departure entry of several officials DD entry including Ct. Vikas was made at No.28 dated S.No. 28 on 24.02.2020. PW10 had 24.02.2020) also brought photocopy of the relevant page i.e. copy of DD entry No.28 dated 24.02.2020.
PW11/Sh. On 23.03.2023, he was working as Ex.PW11/A Kailash Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical (Forwarding Kumar Examiner (Cyber Forensic letter dated Division), FSL Rohini, Delhi. On 28.04.2023); that day, PW11 received a request letter from ld. Addl. DCP (N/E), Ex.PW11/B Delhi dated 21.03.2023 along with (certificate u/s. copy of order dated 16.12.2022 as 65-B of I.E. passed in FIR No.112/20 by this Act); court. Vide aforesaid request letter, a Ex.PW11/ demand was made to prepare mirror Article-1 (hard copy of exhibit/DVR deposited for disk) examination in the FSL in FIR No.134/20, PS Dayalpur, for the purpose of five other FIRs i.e. 131/20, 114/20, 132/20, 135/20 and 112/20, all PS Dayalpur. It was requested to provide four mirror copies for the purpose of each of aforesaid five FIRs. The aforesaid exhibit in FIR No.134/20 was already examined by this time and the exhibit was already sealed in the year 2020 in his division. Thereafter, the extracted data from that exhibit was forwarded to other division for further examination. In his division an office copy of the extract of the aforesaid DVR was maintained. On receipt of aforesaid request letter, PW11 took permission from Director FSL and used the office copy of the extract of aforesaid DVR to prepare 20 mirror copies of the Page 12 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardoomaby Courts, PULASTYA Delhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:11 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties same for all aforesaid 5 FIRs.
The mirror copies were prepared in separate hard drives, which were provided by Delhi Police. PW11 also issued certificate u/s. 65-B I.E. Act in respect of preparation of the mirror copy. The mirror copy was handed over along with a forwarding letter and certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act in each of the aforesaid five FIRs. PW11 identified signature of his Supervising Officer Dr. Jagjeet Singh at point X on the forwarding letter for this FIR and certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act.
A parcel sealed with the seal of "FSL CFD Delhi" was produced.
PW11 identified this seal as applied by him. Parcel was bearing endorsement of "SFSL (DLH)/2452/CO/357/20" and "for FIR No. 114/20, PS Dayalpur", apart from other endorsements. Same was opened. A hard disk make Toshiba with a data cord was taken out from the same. PW11 identified his initial appearing at point X on the back side of hard disk. In FIR No.134/20, PW11 had extracted the data from the DVRs, of which mirror copy was prepared.
PW12/Insp He was holding IO of FIR No.134/20, PS Dayalpur, Pankaj since the year 2022. He was approached by IO of this Thakran case i.e. SI Rocky, on 08.09.2023 and PW12 was informed that the footages contained in DVRs seized in FIR No. 134/20, were relied upon in this case also. On his demand, PW12 provided him copy of report received from FSL regarding mirror copy of DVRs.
Page 13 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03,Digitally North-East District, signed Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:25 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW13/SI In the first week of August, 2023, he was assigned Rocky further investigation of this case. Katingal On 04.08.2023, HC Rahul handed over 4 sealed envelopes to PW13, which pertained to this case. He had brought these envelopes from FSL Rohini. He also handed over one covering letter with one certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. On 08.09.2023, PW13 obtained copy of R/C and case acceptance acknowledgment alongwith FSL report, related to a DVR sent by Crime branch in FIR No.134/20 of PS Dayalpur, from Insp. Pankaj Thakran. PW13 also obtained copy of authority letter in favour of HC Rahul, so as to bring the 4 sealed envelopes from FSL Rohini, from MHC(M) PS Dayalpur.
On 10.09.2023, PW13 prepared supplementary charge-sheet in this case and filed it in the court on 11.09.2023, alongwith 4 sealed envelopes and documents.
PW14/SI On 04.03.2020, DO handed over original FIR of Rajiv present case with rukka to him, for investigation of the Kumar case. On same day, PW14 visited shop of complainant Amit Pal, situated at A-3, gali No.1, Mahalaxmi Enclave. PW14 prepared site plan of scene of crime. On 04.03.2020 alongwith the FIR, PW14 was also handed over 8 other complaints as made by Mehru Nisha, Yameen, Chand Khan, Imran, Julfikar etc. These complaints were handed over after clubbing the same for investigation in this case. PW14 examined all the 8 complainants by visiting their respective places. Their shops were situated in gali No.1 and nearby areas.
On 03.04.2020, Insp. Hukam Singh came to him and informed that he had arrested 2 persons in FIR No.111/20, PS Dayalpur. He informed PW14 that those 2 persons namely accused Firoz and Anwar, had confessed their involvement in the incidents related to this case. PW14 interrogated them and he formally arrested them vide their arrest memos Ex.PW9/A and Page 14 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Digitally Delhi signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Ex.PW9/B, respectively. At the same time, complainant Amit Pal had come to PS to know the status of his complaint. He identified both accused and told PW14 that they both had burnt his shop. At the same time, Ct. Vikas also visited his office. He also identified both accused persons and informed PW14 that they had set fire in shop No.A-3, gali No.1, Mahalaxmi Enclave.
On 12.05.2020, HC Krishan Pal handed over video in CD, to him. He also gave PW14 a certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. In December 2020, PW14 filed main chargesheet against both accused before the court. On 10.02.2021, PW14 again examined complainant Amit Pal in respect of incident at his shop and in respect of photographs of his shop. On this day, Amit had handed over photographs of his shop alongwith certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. On same day, PW14 obtained photographs from Mehru Nisha, Yameen and Chand Khan alongwith certificate u/s 65B of IE Act. On 26.11.2021, PW14 obtained permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from ld. DCP/NE, in respect of offence u/s. 188 IPC. On 28.12.2021, PW14 filed first supplementary chargesheet alongwith aforesaid materials before the court. The copy of order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. was also filed alongwith aforesaid supplementary chargesheet.
On 04.09.2022, he recorded statement of Ct. Ankit, who had made announcement of order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C., in the area from Shiv Vihar Tiraha to Brijpuri road, Wazirabad road and in the streets of Chand Bagh and Mustafabad.
On 14.09.2022, PW14 filed second supplementary chargesheet alongwith aforesaid statement before the court. PW14 correctly identified accused Firoz and Mohd. Anwar before the court.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. prohibitory order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-1 and complaint u/s. 195 Page 15 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardoomaby Courts, PULASTYA Delhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:40 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Cr.P.C. as Ex.A-2.
PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 CR.P.C.
12. Both the accused persons denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence, taking plea that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They further took plea that they have nothing to do with the commission of alleged offences.
They also took plea that witnesses falsely deposed against them. Accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & DEFENCE
13. I heard ld. Special PP and ld. counsels for accused persons. Separate written arguments were filed for prosecution. I have perused the written arguments and entire material on the record.
14. Sh. Abdul Gaffar, ld. counsel for accused Firoj Khan @ Pappu, argued that PW2/Amit Pal and PW9/HC Vikas were the star witnesses of the prosecution. It was further argued that PW2 deposed about time of incident at 5-6 PM. He did not see anyone in the mob. It was further argued that PW9 claimed to be an eyewitness and he deposed about time of incident at 9 PM. It was further argued that PW10/HC Deepak proved duty roster and as per duty roster, PW9/HC Vikas was to be at Sherpur Chowk. Ld. counsel further argued that neither PW9 made any DD entry, nor did he make call at 100 number in respect of the incident of the present case. Ld. counsel further argued that there is no other evidence against the accused Firoj.
Page 16 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:50 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
15. Mohd. Danish, ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Anwar argued that presence of accused has not been proved by the prosecution. It was further argued that presence of PW9 is doubtful at the place of crime in view of duty roster i.e. Ex.PW10/A.
16. Per contra, Sh. Madhukar Pandey, ld. Special PP for State argued that by nature of riots, police were moved from one place to another place, as per requirement. Ld. Special PP filed written arguments on behalf of prosecution. In his written arguments, Sh. Madhukar Pandey, ld. Special PP strongly placed reliance upon two witnesses i.e. PW2/Amit Pal and PW9/HC Vikas, in support of this case. It was further submitted that PW2 has supported the prosecution story to the extent that he had filed a complaint (Ex.PW-2/A) in Police Station with regard to the alleged incident, which took place on 24.02.2020 and police officials prepared site plan of the incident's place at his instance. It was further submitted that PW2 for the rest part of his complaint, he turned hostile as he was won over by the defence side through his family members. It was further submitted that PW9 who was in reserve force and remained on duty at Mahalaxmi Enclave on 24.02.2020 till about 10-10:30 P.M. PW-9 saw the incident from a distance of 20-25 metres away from the aforesaid shop no.3. PW9 deposed that the rioters, who had gathered there since day time, were carrying danda, rod, bottles etc., vandalized shop no.3. PW9 further deposed to have seen the rioters throwing out the articles from the aforesaid shop and setting ablaze the same. PW9 also deposed that he knew 2 persons in the said mob, who were accused Firoz and Anwar. During his testimony PW9 further deposed that on 06.03.2020, SI Rajiv recorded his Page 17 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Digitally Courts,signed Delhi by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:09:57 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur statement, wherein he stated names of accused Firoz and Anwar, who were part of riotous mob and involved in the aforesaid incident allegedly taken place on 24.02.2020. It was further submitted that PW9 deposed that on 03.04.2020, he was present at PS in his room located in front of the room of SI Rajiv and during afternoon period, he saw that SI Rajiv was present along with 4-5 boys in his room, wherein he saw Firoz and Anwar also among those boys and he informed SI Rajiv that they were involved in the aforesaid incident, which took place on 24.02.2020.Thereafter, SI Rajiv arrested accused Firoz and Anwar and conducted their personal search in the present case.
Ld. Special PP further submitted that PW9 correctly identified accused Firoz and Mohd. Anwar before the Court. It was further submitted that even presence of PW9 near the spot of offence was proved by Ex.PW10/A, and no cross examination was conducted by the defence to discredit this document. It was further argued that PW11/Sh. Kailash Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Cemical Examiner (Cyber Forensic Division), FSL, Rohini, had prepared Mirror Image of the DVRs seized in FIR No. 134/20, PS Dayalpur containing footage of rioters, which also corroborated the presence of accused persons in riotous mob prior to the incident. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons were part of the riotous mob.
17. Ld. Special PP placed reliance upon the case of Pramod Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 588 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"12. ...The witnesses from the Department of Police cannot per se Page 18 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardoomaby Courts, Delhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:08 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony.
13. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [1988 Supp SCC 686: 1989 SCC (Cri) 48], State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil [(2001) 1 SCC 652: 2001 SCC (Cri) 248] and Ramjee Rai v. State of Bihar [(2006) 13 SCC 229: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 626] has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana [(2013) 6 SCC 595: 2013 AIR SCW 3102] that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same.
If, in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
18. Ld. Special PP further submitted that it was the quality and not quantity of the evidence which was necessary for proving or disproving a fact. To buttress for the evidence of PW9/HC Vikas being cogent, credible and trustworthy, ld. Special PP placed reliance upon the case of Mohd. Nasim v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7073, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that: -
"12. ....It was observed in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera v. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eyewitness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important. The Supreme Court in Veer Singh v State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under: -
Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly Page 19 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Digitally Delhi signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:21 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur reliable."
13. The prosecution does not require number of eyewitnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is one eyewitness and his testimony is up to the mark, the conviction can be based upon the same. The Supreme Court in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 held as under: -
"In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs.......""
19. Ld. Special PP further placed reliance upon the case of Girja Prasad v. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "......it is not the law that police witness should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. ......."
20. Ld. Special PP further submitted that PW2/Amit Pal has supported the prosecution story in his examination in chief dated 07.05.2022 to the extent that he had filed a complaint and narrated the incident dated 24.02.2020 and about site plan, which proved that PW2 had seen the incident took place on 24.02.2020 and he identified the aforesaid both the accused persons at police station at the time of their arrest. In support of his contentions regarding PW2 being hostile, ld. Special PP placed reliance upon the case of Atmaram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (5) SCC 738, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"13. It is a settled cannon of criminal jurisprudence that every statement of the witness must be examined in its entirety and the Court may not rely or reject the entire statement of a witness merely by reading one sentence from Page 20 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:30 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr. SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur the deposition in isolation and out of context."
21. It was further submitted that deposition of a witness who had been cross examined by the Prosecutor for resiling away from his statement given to police was considered in the case of Jodhraj Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, 2007(15) SCC 294, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: -
"14. It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The Courts even in such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for a Court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile."
22. Ld. Special PP further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jodhraj Singh (supra) also considered and approved the dictum laid down by it in the judgment of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Another (1996) 10 SCC 360, wherein it was held that: -
"7. The question is whether the first respondent was present at the time of death or was away in the village of DW 1, his brother-in-law. It is rather most unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, having given the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, under Section 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why the investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOTS
23. As per chargesheet, eight complaints were probed and prosecuted in this case. However, it is appropriate to refer and reproduce a Page 21 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed by PULASTYA Karkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:38 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur part from the testimony of IO/PW14 touching upon this aspect. The relevant part of testimony of IO/PW14 is as under: -
"Q- Did you make any kind of investigation in respect of other complaints except the complaint of Amit Pal? A- I had examined Chand Khan, Mehru Nisha and Yameen in this FIR. I had examined other 5 complainants separately from this case. I have not filed chargesheet in respect of other 5 complaints so far."
24. Details of all the complaints clubbed in this case, have already been mentioned herein above. Complainants Mehru Nisha and Yameen were examined as PW3 and PW4. PW3 was not present at the time of incident i.e. burning of her cart. As per her testimony, she had put her cart near Brijpuri Pulia. In her complaint Ex. PW3/A, PW3 had stated that she had left her cart (Rehri) at Brijpuri Pulia on 24.02.2020 on situation getting disturbed. Except for Ex.PW2/B, no other site plan was proved by prosecution. IO/PW14 did not say about preparing separate site plans regarding each incident or a composite site plan showing places of incident pertaining to every complaint. Ex.PW2/B, was prepared only to show location of shop of complainant Amit Pal/PW2. Brijpuri Pulia is far away from the shop of PW2. IO did not examine any witness who would have been present at Brijpuri Pulia and would have seen incident at that place, including burning of cart of PW3. Thus, except for recording statement of PW3, IO did not conduct any investigation on her complaint. IO did nothing to find out culprit for this incident.
Page 22 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03,Digitally signed North-East by PULASTYA District, PULASTYAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:45 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
25. PW4 in his complaint Ex. PW4/A itself had mentioned that on 24.02.2020 at about 4 PM, he had received telephonic call from his tenant and his tenant informed him that rioters had looted and set ablaze his shop, which was situated at Shop-27, Khasra No. 30/5/1, Main Babu Nagar Road, Mahalaxmi Enclave near Shiv Vihar Tiraha. In his testimony before the court, PW4 deposed that his tenant Shahnawaz had made call to him. IO did not bother to examine this Shahnawaz, to confirm if he had seen this incident. In fact, IO did not examine any witness who would have seen incident at the shop of PW4.
26. As far as Chand Khan is concerned, he was not examined at all. Complaint made by Chand Khan, Adil Malik and Julfikar were found placed in the file, but they were not tendered in evidence. These complainants were not examined in this case.
27. Adil Malik in his complaint had mentioned that he was intercepted by a mob on 25.02.2020, which attacked him and set ablaze his TSR Auto. Apparently, this incident had taken place on a different date, still this complaint remained lying in the record of this case. This case since inception dealt with an incident of 24.02.2020. Apparently, this complaint was not investigated to a logical end and was hushed up.
28. Complaint made by Julfikar mentioned about incident taken place at his house situated at B-4, Nala Road, Bhagirathi Vihar, on 24.02.2020 at about 6.30 PM. His complaint also mentioned that this mob was raising slogans of 'Jai Shree Ram'. Apparently, this complaint referred to a different incident at a different place, and probably caused by a different mob (as can be anticipated on Page 23 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) Digitally signed ASJ-03, North-East District, by PULASTYA Karkardooma PULASTYA Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:10:56 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur the basis of slogan raised by this mob). Still, this complaint remained attached in this case, without any investigation.
29. IO though mentioned that other 5 complaints were investigated by him separately, but no one can be sure about actual status of those complaints, especially when IO himself deposed that chargesheets had not been filed in those cases by 07.06.2024. In this case PW9 was examined as eye witness of the incident, but even he was examined only in respect of incident at the shop of PW2. Thus, there remains no doubt that though IO clubbed several complaints in this case and filed a chargesheet showing prosecution for all the complaints, prosecution was actually only in respect of complaint made by PW2/Amit Pal. Rest of the complaints still require complete investigation. It is amply clear that these complaints were clubbed without any material before police to show that all those incidents were part of single transaction. Thus, these complaints were clubbed in this case without any legal and just basis.
30. As far as incident at the shop of PW2 is concerned, he deposed that at about 6 PM a mob gathered in Gali 1 and they broke open the shutter of his shop. This mob vandalized and set ablaze his shop. Ideally during the investigation, crime team is called for inspection and photographs of the scene of crime, but no such witness was examined in this case. Perhaps IO had not taken such steps. However, defence did not raise any dispute to the deposition of PW2 and on the basis of unchallenged version of PW2, it can be presumed that an unlawful assembly vandalized and set ablaze shop of PW2, which was being run in the name Page 24 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03,Digitally by signed North-East PULASTYA District, PULASTYAKarkardooma Courts, Delhi PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:11:03 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur and style of M/s. Pal Dairy in Gali 1, near Shiv Vihar Tiraha. IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
31. Prosecution examined two witnesses to show that both the accused herein were part of the mob, which was behind the incident at the shop of PW2. They were PW2/Amit Pal and PW9/HC Vikas. PW2 denied having seen any rioter and did not support the claim of prosecution about having identified any rioter. PW9 was thus, only witness left to establish presence of accused persons in the culprit mob. Defence challenged credibility of evidence of PW9, raising questions over his presence at the place of incident.
32. I have already mentioned the respective arguments herein-above. PW9 mentioned that at about 9 PM, a mob vandalized the shop of dairy and set it on fire. On the other hand, PW2 i.e. complainant and shop owner, claimed that his shop was vandalized and set ablaze at about 6 PM. This contradiction in the given time of the incident, is material one, which cannot be overlooked. PW2 was cross examined by ld. prosecutor, but in the cross examination also prosecution did not challenge the time of incident as mentioned by PW2.
33. Secondly, PW9 claimed that he knew both accused by their name and he gave statement before IO/PW14 on 06.03.2020 thereby mentioning their names. Still, IO was not looking for these accused persons. His testimony shows that IO of another case ASI Hukum Singh informed him on 03.04.2020 that he had arrested both accused in his case, and they had confessed their involvement in the incident of this case. If PW9 had already told him name of both these accused on 06.03.2020, then on Page 25 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma DigitallyCourts, signed Delhi by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:11:11 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur 03.04.2020 IO needed only information of arrest of these accused, irrespective of their confessional statement. There could not be any occasion for IO to be dependent on confessional statement of accused persons, in order to arrest them in this case.
Thus, it appears that statement of PW9 before IO on 06.03.2020, was not the same as shown and claimed by these two witnesses.
34. Another important aspect of case is the duty roster Ex. PW10/A. Both parties have relied upon this document, in their respective arguments. This document shows that on 24.02.2020, PW9 was assigned and sent for duty at Sherpur Chawk. Sherpur Chawk is situated at a different location and around 3 KM away from Shiv Vihar Tiraha. Ld. Special P.P. argued that on account of movement, PW9 might have come to this place. However, PW9 did not claim that he reached this place being sent from Sherpur Chawk or during his movement. He represented that he alongwith other staff, was sent to the area of Chand Bagh. When he was asked about any documentary evidence to show his presence at Mahalaxmi Enclave, then he also referred to the record of DD entry made for sending him to that place. That DD entry Ex.PW10/A, however, proved that PW9 was sent to Sherpur Chawk with other staff. Thus, this evidence creates a doubt over presence of PW9 at the place of incident of this case. The case laws relied upon by ld. prosecutor, do not help prosecution to establish and enthuse credibility in the evidence of PW9. They lay down the legal principles and can be applied only on satisfaction of credibility of the evidence on the record. Thus, they cannot be applied in this case to help prosecution. CONCLUSION & DECISION Page 26 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Digitally signed Karkardooma by PULASTYACourts, Delhi PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:11:19 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-003276-2021 State v. Firoj Khan @ Pappu & Anr.
SC No. 324/2021, FIR No. 114/2020, PS Dayalpur
35. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against both the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubts in respect of complaint made by PW2. Hence, accused 1. Firoj Khan @ Pappu and 2. Mohd. Anwar, are acquitted of the relevant part of the charges. It is made clear that for want of complete investigation on the remaining complaints, which were clubbed in this case, no finding on merits of those complaints is being returned herein. Those complaints are referred back to police for making complete investigation and to file final report separately.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA Date:
2024.08.27 11:11:26 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 27.08.2024 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 26 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 27 of 27 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi