Delhi District Court
Fir No. 142/2015, Ps : Hauz Qazi State vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors. on 11 October, 2019
FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
FIR No. 142/2015
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s 454/380/411/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 02.06.2015
Date of reserving of order : 09.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 11.10.2019
CNR No. DLCT020118842015
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 302740/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Kripa Ram
3. Date of incident : 18.04.2015
4. Name of accused persons :
(1) Saidul Sheikh S/o Late. Abdul
Fazal R/o Village Kuchaiya, PS
Nalhati, District Virbhoom, West
Bengal & P/Add, Jhuggi, Gali no. 13,
Shastri Park, Seelam Pur, Delhi.
2. Jamil Sheikh S/o Fay Sheikh, R/o
Village Kuchaiya, PS Nalhati, District
Virbhoom, West Bengal & P/Add,
Page 1 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019
FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
Jhuggi, Gali no. 10, Shastri Park,
Seelam Pur, Delhi.
5. Offence for which chargesheet
was filed
:S.454/380/411/
34 IPC.
6. Offence for which charge
has been framed : S. 380/454/34
IPC & S. 411/35
IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 11.10.2019
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Saifuddin Sheikh (Since deceased), Mr. Saidul Sheikha and Mr. Jamil Sheikh had been charge sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 454/380/411/34, the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2015 at about 6 p.m., complainant Kirpa Ram had closed his office bearing property no. 4665, First Floor, Page 2 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
Tonga Stand, Ajmeri Bazar, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. On next day, at about 5 :45 p.m., when he reached at the said property, he found that the window of his office was removed by someone and it was lying on the floor. The items in his office were found scattered. His one two TVs, one Voltage Stablizer, one chair were found missing. Cash amount of Rs.85,000/ and some important documents were also found missing which were stolen after breaking open the lock of an iron almirah. One small refrigerator was also found missing. The complainant informed the local police station. Present FIR was registered. Investigation was initiated. On 20.04.2015 the accused persons were apprehended by the IO on the basis of the secret information from property no. C56, Shastri Park, Seelampur, Delhi. Two TVs, one refrigerator, one chair and one Voltage stabilizer, all items belonging to the complainant were recovered from the said house. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused persons were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 454/380/411/34, Indian Penal Code.
Page 3 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 380/454/34 IPC and Section 411/35 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Retd. Inspector Dhan Singh is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 19.04.2015, after receiving the information from District Control Room, he alognwith Ct. Vikrant, finger print proficient, Ct. Virender, the photographer, reached at the spot i.e., near Chawri Bazar, Hauz Qazi. Ct. Virender had taken the photographs of the crime scene. Ct. Vikrant also tried to obtain the chance prints from the crime scene, however he could not succeed in obtaining any such chance print. He inspected the crime scene and observed that entry was made inside the house Page 4 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
by breaking the window pane. He had prepared the report which is Ex. PW1/A. SI Sher Ali had recorded his statement.
6. PW2 Sh. Kripa Ram is the complainant. He has deposed that on 04.08.2015, he was working as a property dealer at 4665, first floor, tonga stand Hauz Qazi, Delhi. On that day, he closed his office at about 08:00 p.m. At about 09:30 10:00 p.m., he received a call from an unknown person regarding the theft in his office. Thereafter, he came at the office where he found that the shutter of the ground floor was locked and when he went to the first floor at his office, he saw that the window grill was opened and the wall was broken. The lock of the door was also broken. He found that one refrigerator, two TV sets, and ₹85,000/ in cash were missing from his office. The iron almirah lying in his office was also broken. Thereafter, he made a PCR call at No. 100 and police came at the spot. Police official recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. He had also shown the place of incident to the police. After some time, police recovered the refrigerator and two TV sets which he got released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW2/B. Page 5 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
7. PW3 Ct. Virender Singh is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He has deposed that on 19.04.2015, he was posted as photographer in the Crime Team, Central District. On that day, he alongwith Crime Incharge SI Dhan Singh had reached at the spot i.e., H. No. 4665, First Floor, PS : Hauz Qazi, Delhi and thereafter at the direction of SI Dhan Singh, he took the photographs of the spot from different angles. Thereafter, he developed all the photographs and handed over the same to IO.
8. The witness has identified the 10 photographs taken by him. The photographs are Ex.PW3/A (colly 10 photographs). The negatives of the photographs are Ex. PW3/B.
9. PW4 Ct. Narender is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 20.04.2015, he alongwith ASI Ali Sher and Ct. Hakim Singh had reached at Shastri Park at the instance of secret informer. They reached at H.No. C56, First Floor, Shastri Park. All the three accused persons i.e., Jameel Sheikh, Saifuddin Sheikh and Saidul Sheikh were present there in the said room. All the three accused persons were Page 6 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
apprehended by the IO in his presence. All the stolen property was recovered from the said room which contained two TVs, one refrigerator, one chair and one voltage stabilizer of AC. Accused Saidul Sheikh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/A. The accused was personally searched vide memo Ex PW4/B. Accused Saifuddin Sheikh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/C and his personal was conducted vide memo Ex PW4/D. Accused Jameel Sheikh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo vide memo Ex PW4/F. The stolen property recovered from accused persons was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/G. Thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons i.e., Saifuddin Sheikh, Saidul Sheikh & Jameel Sheikh which are Ex. PW4/H, Ex. PW4/I & Ex. PW4/J. The pointing out memos were prepared which are Ex. PW4/K and Ex. PW4/L. The accused were brought to office No. 4665, 1st Floor, Tonga Stand, Ajmeri Gate. The accused pointed out the place where they had committed offence. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO and accused persons went to H. No. 4705, 3rd Floor, Gali Razia Begum, Chawri Bazar. The accused persons had also pointed out Page 7 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
that there also they had committed an offence. The accused persons were got medically examined and they were sent to lockup. IO recorded his statement.
10. PW5 Retd. SI Ali Sher was the IO. He has deposed similar to PW4 regarding apprehension of the accused, the recovery of case property, preparation of seizure memo, preparation of pointing out memo etc. He has also deposed that on 19.4.2015, after receiving DD No. 14PP, he went to the place of incident i.e., H. No. 4665, First Floor, Ajmeri Gate alognwith Ct. Fakruddin. There, he met with complainant Kripa Ram. He recorded the statement of complainant, which is Ex. PW2/A. He then prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW5/A. He handed over the same to Ct. Fakruddin to get the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, Ct. Fakruddin reached at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, the crime team arrived at the spot consisting of incharge SI Dharam Singh and photographer Ct. Virender. The photographer Ct. Virender took the photographs of the spot as per instructions which are Ex. PW3/A (colly). Thereafter, he prepared the site plan of the place of offence at the instant of the complainant. He also recorded Page 8 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
the supplementary statement of the complainant and handed over a copy of FIR to the complainant and left the place of offence to trace the stolen property. He came back to the PS alognwith Ct. Fakruddin. On that day, the accused persons could not be traced. On the next day i.e., 20.04.2015, he went to Ajmeri Gate alognwith Ct. Narender, Ct. Hakim Singh and SI Nassu Ahmed to trace the accused persons and the stolen property and interrogated the public persons. There, one secret informer informed that the persons who had committed the crime were present at H. No. C56, Shastri Park. He prepared a raiding party. He requested public persons present there to join the investigation. However, they refused to join the same. Due to paucity of time, they proceeded further alongwith secret informer, Ct. Narender, Ct. Hakim Singh and SI Nassu Ahmed. After reaching Shastri Park, he requested public persons to join investigation. However no one came forward. On being pointed out by the secret informer, they went to the H. No. C56, Gali No. 14, 1 st Floor, Shastri Park. There, the three accused persons were present. They were apprehended. They pointed out the stolen property which was kept in the same room on the Page 9 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
first floor. He recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons which are Ex. PW4/H, Ex. PW4/I and Ex. PW4/J. He arrested the accused persons vide memo Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/C & Ex PW4/E. The accused persons were personally searched vide memo Ex. PW4/B, Ex.PW4/D & Ex. PW4/F. The case property was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/G. They returned to the PS. He prepared the pointing out memo which are Ex. PW4/K & Ex. PW4/L. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He alongwith Ct. Narender and accused went to the aforesaid place of offence as disclosed by accused Saifuddin. The accused were also medically examined. He had recorded the statements of all the relevant witnesses. He had prepared challan and filed in the Court.
11. The witnesses were crossexamined. The accused persons had admitted, under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the registration of FIR which is Ex.A1, the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A 2, registration of DD No. 14 PP dated 19.04.2015 which is Ex. A3.
12. The prosecution evidence was closed. The matter was fixed for examination of accused persons under Page 10 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
Section 313 Cr.P.C., r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. However, before recording of the statement, accused Shaifuddin Sheikh had expired. Vide order dated 28.09.2019 criminal proceedings against accused Sheifuddin Sheikh was abated.
13. Accused Saidul Sheikh and Jamil Sheikh were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to them separately. They denied the incriminating evidence. They would state that they were innocent and that they were falsely implicated. They would also stated that nothing was recovered as stated by the police officials.
14. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused were apprehended with the case property immediately after one day of the theft and house breaking. Hence, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 454/380/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC. The guilt of Page 11 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
16. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. The alleged items had been planted upon the accused persons. There is no evidence to show that the accused persons had committed house breaking and they had committed the theft. The complainant has not produced any invoice/bills of the alleged items which were allegedly recovered. There is no material to show that those items belongs to the complainant. The complainant did not participate in any TIP proceedings of the case property. There is no evidence to show that any secret information was received by the police as alleged. The accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case to extort money from them. Hence, it is prayed that the accused persons may be acquitted.
17. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
Page 12 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
18. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
19. The accused herein have been charged for offences punishable under section 454,380/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC. Section 454 IPC provides punishment for committing lurking house trespass or house breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. Section 445 IPC defines house breaking. Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass and Section 442 IPC defines house trespass. The Sections read as under : "441 Criminal Trespass Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person or in possession of such Page 13 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is aid to commit "criminal trespass".
"442. House Trespass Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, ten or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "housetrespass"
20. Section 443 IPC defines lurking housetrespass. When housetrespass is committed after taking precaution to conceal such house trespass from the person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building etc which is subject of the trespass, it is called lurking house trespass. When a person commits house trespass by effecting his entrance into the house or any part of which in any of the six manners mentioned under Section 445 IPC, it is called house breaking.
21. Section 380 IPC provides punishment for committing theft, as defined under Section 378 IPC, in any building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or is used for the custody of property. Section 411 IPC provides punishment for dishonestly receiving or Page 14 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
retaining any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Section 34 IPC provides that whenever a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
22. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show even primfacie that the accused persons or any of them had entered in the property belonging to to the complainant and they had committed the house breaking. There is not even a single piece of evidence to show that any of the accused was even present near the shop of the complainant on the relevant day. The alleged disclosure statements of the accused persons are not relevant and they can not be used and proved against the accused being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly the alleged pointing out memo also can not be used and proved against the accused being hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Act.
23. The entire story of the prosecution is based on the fact of alleged recovery of part of the case property from the house of the accused persons after their Page 15 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
apprehension. The police officials have deposed in their statements that a secret information was received by the IO that the thieves were present at a house at Shastri Park. Thereafter they had reached at the said house and apprehended the accused persons. They had also recovered the case property from the said house.
24. Section 100 Cr. P.C., provides for searching or inspecting any place which is reasonably suspected of concealing any person or article for which search should be made. Subsection (4) provides the duty of an officer or other person making a search as abovementioned. It provides that before making a search the officer or the other person about to make the search shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search. The section also provides for issuing a notice in writing to such public persons. SubSection (5) provides that search is to be made in the presence of public persons and list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places Page 16 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
in which they were respectively found is to be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses.
25. In the present case, as the record would reveal, public persons were available. However, they were not joined during the search. PW5 Retd. SI Ali Sher has stated in his examination that after receiving the secret information he had requested some public persons to join the raiding party. However, they had refused to join the same. He has also stated that after reaching at the spot again he had asked some public persons to join the proceedings. However, they had also refused. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. There is nothing on record to show that the IO had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. It is a well settled proposition that nonjoining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official Page 17 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case.
26. Nonavailability of a public witness is one thing and not joining public person as a witness despite their availability is altogether different thing. In case a public person is available, it is duty of the police official to make sincere efforts to persuade such person to join the legal proceedings to become a witness. However, in the present case no such efforts are shown to be made by the police officials. In the case titled as Nank Chand Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Revision No. 169/81, decided on 07.11.1990, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under: "The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.''
27. Further, in Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has Page 18 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigors of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."(emphasis supplied)
28. Further, in Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 1999(1) C.L.R.69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as under:
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the Page 19 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police of officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating of officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police of officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the Page 20 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
prosecution case highly doubtful".(emphasis supplied)
29. Thus, it is settled position of law that non joining of public persons at the time of recovery, even after their availability, create reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution. In the present case also, there is no reasonable explanation for non joining of public witnesses.
30. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that the IO had received a secret information and thereafter they had left for Shastri Park to apprehend the accused persons. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II " The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered"(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the Page 21 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019 FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
latter personally by signature or seal. "Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
31. In the present case, as the record would reveal, since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure entry of the IO and other police officials after receiving the secret information could have been a vital piece of evidence. However, no DD entry record of the secret information and for departure to Shastri Park has been proved on record. Hence, the fact of receiving of secret information and departure of the police official has come under the clouds of reasonable doubts.
32. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the facts that no independent witness was cited or examined and no DD entry regarding secret information and departure for Shastri Park had been proved on record, are the facts which create reasonable doubts on the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
Page 22 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019FIR No. 142/2015, PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs Saifuddin Sheikh & Ors.
33. In view of the foregoing analysis, I hold that the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused persons. The accused are therefore acquitted.
34. The accused have already furnished bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C., with one surety each along with photographs and copies of address proof.
Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2019.10.11
17:28:10
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar)
this 11th Day of October 2019. MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 23 of 23 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/11.10.2019