State vs Shahid @ Guddu@Bhura on 7 December, 2023

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Shahid @ Guddu@Bhura on 7 December, 2023

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


SESSIONS CASE NO. 44992/15
CNR No.: DLNE01-000124-2010
FIR No.  60/2009
P.S.     Jafrabad
U/s :    302/147/148/149/120B/34 IPC
         u/s 27/54/59 of Arms Act

STATE

                                  Versus

(1) Saleem @ Bobby (abated)
s/o Sh. Mohd. Ali
r/o A-16/3, Gali no. 12,
Chauhan Bangar, Delhi

(2) Jamal @ Ranjha
s/o Iqbal Gazi
r/o H. No. K-228,
New Seelampur, Delhi

(3) Kamaluddin @ Kamal
s/o Iqbal Gazi
r/o H. No. K-228,
New Seelampur, Delhi

(4) Wasim s/o Mohd. Rafiq
r/o A-414, E-Block, G. No. 10,
Shastri Park, Delhi

(5) Javed s/o Sabir
r/o E-16, Jhuggi no. 2,
K-Block, near Madarsa,
Seelampur, Delhi

(6) Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura
s/o Jamil Ahmed
r/o K-293, Jhuggi near Madarsa,

FIR No. 60/2009    State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc.   Page 48 of 48
 New Seelampur, Delhi


Date of Institution :      13-05-2011
Date of Argument :         18-11-2023
Date of Judgment :         07-12-2023


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 02-12-2019, an information was received at PS Jafrabad through Wireless Operator that one lady caller had informed that her brother has been shot at Chauhan Bangar pulia. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 18A (Ex. PW1/A), which was marked to investigating officer (hereinafter referred to as IO)/ ASI Jeet Singh. Thereafter, first IO along with Ct. Riazul reached the spot i.e. Gali no.9, near Chauhan Bangar pulia, Chahan Bangar, Delhi where they noticed that blood was lying in large quantity in front of H.No. A-135. During inquiry, the first IO was informed that Mohd. Naushad had been shot, who was already taken to GTB hospital. No eyewitness was found by the first IO at the spot. The first IO then proceeded towards GTB hospital along with PSI Deepak after deputing Ct. Riazul for guarding the place of incident. On reaching the hospital, the first IO received MLC of Mohd. Naushad whereby the concerned doctor had endorsed therein that "unfit for statement, type of injury u/o, blunt". Even at GTB hospital, no eyewitness was found. Meanwhile, at about 9:05 pm, one Ct. Subhash produced DD no.19A with regard to death of Mohd. Naushad. On the basis of above-stated circumstances, the first IO got the present FIR registered for the offence u/s 302 of IPC. Further investigation was marked to FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 Inspector Udaibir Singh. Place of incident was got photographed and inspected through Crime Team. Blood sample along with earth control blood sample and one empty shell were lifted from the spot.

2. On 23-12-2009, statement of mother of deceased namely Afroz Begum was recorded, who stated that she had seen Salim @ Bobby, Javed and Wasim fleeing from the spot. One witness namely Yunus had stated that he had seen the incident of firing and he can identify the culprit. On 25-12-2009, wanted criminal Saleem @ Bobby was formally arrested, who was already arrested in case FIR no. 78/09, PS Jafrabad. During interrogation, accused Saleem had disclosed that he along with co-accused Jamal @ Ranjha, Javed, Guddu @ Bhura, Wasim and CCL 'S' were also involved in the murder of Naushad. Thereafter, on 14/01/2010, wanted criminal CCL 'S' was formally arrested in the present case, who was already arrest in case FIR no. 216/09, PS Crime Branch and he was also wanted in this case. He was subjected to TIP proceedings. During TIP proceedings, witness Yunus had correctly identified CCL 'S'. After obtaining necessary permission from Senior police official, five live cartridges of .315 bore were purchased on 20-02-2010 for the purpose of comparison of exhibits recovered in case FIR no. 78/09 at FSL. The IO got prepared scaled site plan through official draftsman. Thereafter, efforts were made to arrest accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal, Jamal @ Ranjha, Wasim, Guddu @ Bhura, Javed but they were found absconding from their respective homes. Thereafter, IO obtained NBWs for their arrest from the concerned court. Initially, chargesheet was filed only against accused Saleem @ Bobby and CCL 'S' for the offences FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 punishable u/s 302/147/148/149/ 120B/34 IPC.

3. On 29-01-2010, one wanted CCL 'S' was correctly identified by witness Yunus in TIP proceedings. On 30-01-2010, one day PC remand of CCL 'S' was obtained from the concerned court and he led the police to place of incident.

4. On 29-01-2010, CCL 'S' was subjected to TIP proceedings. On 19-02-2010, mother of deceased came to PS Jafrabad and got recorded her statement wherein she alleged that on 19-02-2010, she was threatened by accused Jamal @ Ranjha, Shahid @ Guddu near Chauhan Bangar Pulia who were forcing her to withdraw her case.

5. On 30-03-2010, one Sumaira came to PS along with her mother and alleged that on 02-12-2009, she was threatened by accused Jamal @ Ranjha and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura to go inside the house when she was present in the balcony of house after hearing gunshot and accused Javed had fired gunshot towards her while giving threats.

6. On 11-04-2010, an information was received about arrest of accused Javed and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura in some Arms Act case by HC Jagbir. The said accused persons were interrogated and formally arrested in the present case. Their disclosure statement was recorded and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at their instance. Supplementary chargesheet qua above-stated accused Javed and Shahid @ Guddu was prepared and filed in the court. On 04-02-2011, IO got accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin, Jamal @ Ranjha and Wasim declared as proclaimed offender from the concerned court.

7. On 13-02-2011, an information was received from PS Kotwali Meerat regarding arrest of accused Kamal @ FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 Kamaluddin in case FIR no. 54/11 under Arms Act and he was formally arrested, interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded.

8. On 02-12-2011, accused Mohd. Wasim was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.

9. On 11-09-2022, an information was received from PS Seelampur regarding arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha in case FIR no. 258/12 who made disclosure regarding his involvement in the present case. His production warrants were got issued from the concerned court and on 13-09-2012, accused Jamal @ Ranjha was formally arrested in the present case and his disclosure statement was recorded. Subsequently, FSL reports from the ballistic and biology department of FSL whereby blood was detected on all the exhibits except Ex. B-3 i.e. earth control and Ex. B-4 i.e. a cloth parcel. As per the report of Ballistic expert, results of examination carried out is as follows:-

(1) The 8mm /.315" prime prime cartridge case marked exhibit "EC1' is a fired empty cartridge.

(2) The bullet marked exhibits `EB1' to `EB4' and 'EB6' correspond to the bullet of 8mm /.315'' prime prime cartridge. (3) The bullet marked exhibit 'EB5' corresponds to the bullet of . 32" cartridge.

(4) Four 8mm /.315'' prime prime cartridges from the cartridges sent for firing were test fired through the country made pistol.

315" bore already marked as 'F1' in case FIR No.78/9 PS:

Jafrabad (FSL - 2010 / F - 477) . The test fired cartridge cases were marked as "TC1' to 'TC4' and recovered bullets were marked as 'TB1' to 'TB4'.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

(5) The individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence fired cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' and on test fired cartridge cases marked as 'TC1' to 'TC4' were compared under comparison microscope model Leica DMC and were found identical. Hence, exhibits 'EC1' has been fired through the country made pistol .315" bore already marked as 'F1' in case FIR No. 78/09,PS: Jafrabad (FSL-2010/F-0477). (6) The individual characteristics of striation marks present on bullets marked exhibit 'EB1' to 'EB4' and 'EB6' are insufficient for comparison and opinion whether these have been discharged through the country made pistol .315" bore marked exhibit 'F1' in case FIR No. 78/09, PS: Jafrabad (FSL-2010/F-0477) or not. (7) On the basis of physical examination, microscopic examination and gun shot residue particle analysis on Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) the holes marked as 'H6' to 'H10' on kurta marked exhibit 'C1', the hole marked as 'H11' on T-shirt marked exhibit 'C2', the hole 'H18', 'H20', 'H21', 'H22' on the baniyan marked exhibit 'C3' and hole marked as 'H24' on the pajama marked exhibit 'C4' have been caused by bullet discharged through the firearm.

(8) On the basis of physical examination, microscopic examination and gun shot residue particle analysis on Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) the holes marked as 'H3' & 'H4' on kurta marked exhibit 'C1', the hole marked as 'H17' on T-

shirt marked exhibit 'C2' could have been caused by bullet discharged through the firearm.

(9) No opinion can be given on the holes marked as 'H1', 'H2' and 'H5' on kurta marked exhibit 'C1', the holes 'H12' to 'H16' on T- shirt marked exhibit 'C2', the hole marked as 'H19' on the FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 baniyan marked exhibit 'C3' and the hole marked as "H23' & 'H25' on the pajama marked exhibit 'C4' due to insufficient data.

10. After completion of necessary formalities, supplementary charge-sheets were filed in the Court of Ld. Ilaqa ACMM. Proceedings qua CCL 'S' were sent for trial to the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 01-07-2010 after conducting age enquiry as per law.

COMMITTAL

11. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions by the order of Ld. MM/NE/KKD vide order dated 13-05-2011. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.

CHARGE

12. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons namely Saleem @ Bobby, Javed, Guddu @ Shahid, Mohd. Wasim and Jamal @ Ranjha for the offences punishable u/s 302/34, against accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal for the offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC. Accused Saleem @ Bobby was also charged for the offence u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Charges were framed vide order of ld. ld. Predecessor, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 26 witnesses.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

13. (i) PW1 HC Mustaq Ali was the duty officer posted at PS Jafrabad at the relevant time. He has proved the entry made by him in daily register with regard to the information received at police control room at 100 number that the brother of the caller FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 was shot fired at Puliya of Chauhan Banger, as Ex.PW1/A. He has also proved the information received regarding admission of one Naushad at GTB Hospital, which was recorded by Entry No. 19A as Ex.PW1/B; the rukka prepared by ASI Jeet Singh was proved as Ex.PW1/C; the copy of FIR was proved by him as Ex.PW1/D. The witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW1 HC Mustaq Ali was recalled for re-examination on 22.09.2016. However, PW1 HC Mustaq Ali deposed on the same lines.

(ii) Ct. Vinod Sharma was examined as PW2. He is the police official who had deposited 13 exhibits at FSL Rohini for analysis from the custody of MHC(M) on the directions of IO.

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

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW2 Ct. Vinod Sharma was recalled for re-examination on 22.1.2011 However, PW2 Ct. Vinod Sharma deposed on the same lines.

(iii) PW3 Ms. Sumera is the eye witness in the present case as well as sister of deceased. She deposed that in the year 2009, she was student of 10th standard. On 02.12.2009, at about 07:45pm, she was present in a room, at first floor at H.No. A-135, Street No. 09, Chauhan Banger, New Seelampur, Delhi and was busy in study. She heard a bang of gun shot fire in the gali. She came in the balcony (barja) of their house and saw that her brother Naushad, aged 30 years, was lying in front of main gate of their house in gali. No one was in the gali except injured at that time. She came down and called her mother as she was inside the FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 house of their neighbour. Her mother, Smt. Afroz, came at the spot on her raising alarm. She made call at 100 number to police. Her neighbour Ajim with the help of other neighbour, namely, Jahid took injured to GTB Hospital. She did not know by whom injuries were caused to her brother. Police officials of P.S. Jafrabad met her after about two months as she had returned to her house from the house of her maternal uncle after two months. She did not know the other facts of this case.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she affirmed that police had met her on 30.03.2010 and recorded her statement on that day. She denied the suggestion that when she had seen in the gali, she had noticed that accused Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura Guddu @ Shahid (all were present in court), along with their associate Ranjha @ Jamal (not challaned) were standing around injured having pistols in their hands. She further denied the suggestion that Ranjha @ Jamal (not arrested) had opened fire towards her with an intention to kill her while she was looking towards her injured brother from the balcony. She denied the suggestion that accused Bhura @ Guddu Shahid had also threatened to kill her when she was looking towards her injured brother from the balcony. She denied the suggestion that she was narrating incorrect facts before the court in order to save the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not identifying accused persons present in court, namely, Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely on the facts that her mother was inside the house of one neighbour at the time of incident. She affirmed that on the same night it came into her notice that her injured FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 brother had been declared dead in GTB Hospital. She volunteered that she had gone to the house of her maternal uncle after 1-2 days from the incident. She denied the suggestion that it had come into her notice next day of incident that her brother Naushad had been encircled by four-five persons, near, the sewing machine repairing shop, in gali no.09, or that accused Saleem @ Bobby had fired upon her brother Naushad. She denied the suggestion that it had also come into her notice that her brother Naushad had rushed towards his house after sustaining gun shot injury to save his life, or that he was chased by accused Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @, Shahid and Ranjha @ Jamal (not arrested). She denied the suggestion that it had also come into her notice that accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal was also involved in the murder of her brother, or that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy along with his associates namely Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid and Ranjha @ Jamal. She denied the suggestion that her mother was present at her house at the time of incident, or that she had also seen accused persons Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid and Ranjha @ Jamal while running from the gali after committing offence. She denied the suggestion that one Shahnawaz was also involved in the murder of her brother. She denied the suggestion that I.O. had recorded her supplementary statement in this case on 11.04.2010. She denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2010 police officials of P.S. Jafrabad had come at their house alongwith accused Javed and Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid or that they had pointed out the place of murder to police in her presence, or that her mother had identified them before police as FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 assailants. She denied the suggestion that she had put her signature as a witness on the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Javed and Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid. She denied the suggestion that she had identified accused Javed and Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid before police as assailants when they had come at the spot along with police on 11.04.2010. She denied the suggestion that she had been won over by the accused persons or that she and my family had settled the matter with accused persons outside the court. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely in order to save accused persons.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in her cross-examination.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW3 Sumera was recalled for re-examination on 26.03.2013. However, PW3 Sumera deposed on the same lines.

(iv) PW4 Smt. Afroz is the eye witness as well as mother of the deceased. She deposed that on 02.12.2009, at about 07:30/45pm, she was present at the house of her neighbour. At that time, she heard a noise raised by her daughter Km. Sumera and she immediately came in the Gali. She noticed her son Naushad was lying in gali in front of the gate of their house in pool of blood. No one was seen in the gali by her at that time. She did not know what happened with her son and by whom bullet injury was caused to him. Her injured son Naushad, aged about 30 years, was taken to hospital by their neighbours, namely, Ajim and Jahid on their bike. After about one hour, it came into her notice that doctor had declared dead the injured Naushad. She had gone to GTB Hospital where she had seen the dead body of Naushad. No police official had met her there. She FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 returned to her house at about 08:30 pm at that time police officials were taking photographs of the spot and inspected the same. No incriminating articles were lifted from the spot in her presence, however, blood had been taken from the spot by the police as sample which was sealed and seized. No documents were prepared by the police there in her presence. He had not identified accused persons of this case before police. He had not seen accused Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid along with their associate Ranjha Jamal (not arrested) and CCL 'S' (juvenile), in the gali while running after firing upon her son Naushad. She did not know the other facts of this case.

In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she denied the suggestion that she was narrating incorrect facts before the court in order to save the accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not identifying the accused persons present in court namely Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid and Kamal @ Kamaluddin. She denied the suggestion that she and her daughter Km. Sumera both were the eyewitnesses of the incident which had happened in their presence. She affirmed that Km. Sumera had made call at 100 number about the incident. She denied the suggestion that one Ranjha @ Jamal (not challaned), associate of aforesaid accused persons had also opened fire towards her daughter Sumera with an intention to kill which went away without causing injury to her. She affirmed that I.O. had prepared site plan of place of occurrence Mark X and Y on her pointing out. She affirmed that seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bears her signatures. She affirmed that police had lifted blood, blood smeared earth and earth control from the spot, and that same FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 were converted into three separated sealed parcels and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. She denied the suggestion that I.O. had lifted one empty cartridge of 8 mm and two bullet leads from the spot in her presence, or that same were also sealed and seized in her presence. She affirmed that police had taken photographs of the spot. She also affirmed that photographs Mark Z-1 to Z-5 available on judicial file were depicting the spot and blood. She affirmed that pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Saleem @ Bobby is Ex.PW4/A. She denied the suggestion that it had come into her notice that accused Saleem @ Bobby had fired upon Naushad in front of the shop of one Yunus when Naushad had been encircled by his associates, namely, Javed, Wasim, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid, Shahnawaj and Ranjha @ Jamal. She denied the suggestion that it had also come into her notice that accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin had entered into a criminal conspiracy along with aforesaid associates to commit murder of Naushad, or that he had provided arms and ammunition for the same purpose to the aforesaid associates. She denied the suggestion that at the instance of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin, his 4-5 associates had caused bullet injury to Naushad. She affirmed that her statement was recorded by the police on 02.12.2009. She denied the suggestion that she had named accused Saleem @ Bobby, Javed and Wasim as assailants, or that she had told to police in her statement that they had been seen by her at the spot having country-made pistols in their hands, or that she had seen running them in the gali when she had reached at the spot just after hearing the bangs of firing. She denied the suggestion that she had also stated before police that she could identify accused Saleem @ Bobby, Ranjha @ Jamal FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 (not challaned) and CCL 'S' (juvenile) whom had been seen while running in the gali along with aforesaid three accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she had told to police in her statement that accused Ranjha @ Jamal (not arrested), Guddu @ Shahid @ Bhura, Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim and Javed, present in court that day had committed murder of her son Naushad in front of her house in her presence as well as of her daughter Sumera. She denied the suggestion that police had recorded her statement in this case on 30.03.2010. She denied the suggestion that she had told to police on 30.03.2010 that accused Guddu @ Shahid @ Bhura had extended threats to her daughter Km. Sumera and accused Ranjha @ Jamal (not arrested) had opened fire towards her with an intention to kill when she had raised alarm on seeing the incident from the balcony of our house. She denied the suggestion that IO had recorded her statement on 11.04.2010. She denied the suggestion that on 11.04.2010, accused Guddu @ Shahid @ Bhura and Javed, present in court that day, had been brought at the place of murder by the police officials, or that they had pointed out the place of murder, or that she and her daughter Km. Sumera had identified them before police saying that they had fired upon her son Naushad along with their associates. Photographs already Mark Z-1 to Z-5, available on judicial file, were shown to this witness. On seeing the same witness admitted that these were depicting the scene of crime. She affirmed that it had come into her notice that doctor had taken out one bullet from the body of deceased at the time of operation and one bullet during postmortem. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally refusing to identify the clothes of deceased which had been seized in the GTB Hospital.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

She denied the suggestion that police had prepared site plan of place of occurrence in her presence. She further denied the suggestion that during investigation police had told her that one country-made pistol used in the murder of her son had been recovered from accused Saleem @ Bobby. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not identifying accused Saleem @ Bobby, Javed, Guddu @ Shahid @ Bhura, present in court on that day. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons as she had been won over by them. She further denied the suggestion that it was told to her by the I.O. during investigation that accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin was also involved along with his other co- accused persons in the murder of her son Naushad. She denied the suggestion that it was also told to her by the I.O. during investigation that accused Wasim was also involved in the murder of her son Naushad, or that she and her daughter Sumera had identified him before the police during investigation. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely as she had settled the matter with accused persons outside the court.

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

(v) PW5 Ct. Arif is the police official who had purchased five sample cartridges from M/s. Kewal Krishan Sharma Arms and Ammunition Shop, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on 06.13.2010, on the direction of Additional DCP, North-East. He has proved the purchase receipt regarding the purchase of cartridges as Ex.PW5/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW5 Ct. Arif was recalled for re-examination on 24.11.2016. However, PW5 Ct. Arif deposed on the same lines.

(vi) PW6 Ct. Karam Veer is the duty Constable at GTB Hospital. He has proved DD No. 18A dated 02.12.2009 whereby the deceased Mohd. Naushad had expired at GTB Hospital. He claimed that he has passed on the information to PS Jafrabad vide DD No. 19-A. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(vii) PW7 Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain is the Draftsman engaged by the IO for the purpose of preparation of scaled site plan. He claimed that on 19.03.2010, he has prepared the scaled site plan on the pointing out of Insp. Udaiveer Singh. The scaled site plan was proved as Ex.PW7/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW7 Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain was recalled for re-examination on 18.01.2017. However, PW7 Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain deposed on the same lines.

(viii) PW8 HC Pawan Kumar was the MHC(M) of PS Jafrabad. He has proved the entries with regard to deposit of case properties by the IO, and dispatch of case property to FSL Rohini. The relevant entries in Register No. 19, and copy of RC was proved by him as Ex.PW8/A to PW8/C. The acknowledgment from FSL was proved as Ex.PW8/D. He further claimed that on 06.03.2010, on the instructions of IO, he reached in the office of ACP, Head Quarter, PHQ and obtained one FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 permission letter for purchasing five live cartridges of .315 bore. He took the said letter to the office of Addl. DCP, North-East and from there, he obtained a letter in the name of DCP, Licensing for obtaining permission/ permit for purchasing five aforesaid said cartridges. Thereafter, he obtained permit/ license from the office of DCP, Licensing. Thereafter, Ct. Arif purchased five live cartridges of .315 bore from M/s. Sharma Gun House, Shakarpur, Laxmi Nagar on 05.03.2010 and handed over it to him. He kept the same cartridges in safe custody and later on sent to FSL, Rohini. During his custody, above exhibits were remained intact and not tampered with. His statement were recoded by the IO.

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

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW8 ASI Pawan Kumar was recalled for re-examination on 18.01.2017. However, PW8 ASI Pawan Kumar deposed on the same lines.

(ix) PW9 Dr. Meghali Kelkar was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem on the body of Mohd. Naushad on 03.12.2009. She proved her PM report as Ex.PW9/A. The cause of death was opined by her as Hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to lungs and internal abdomen organs produced by projectile of a firearm. She has proved her PM report as Ex.PW9/A. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(x) PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha was the doctor who had examined the deceased Mohd. Naushad at GTB Hospital on 02.12.2009. He has proved the MLC prepared by him as Ex.PW10/A. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 opportunity.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha was recalled for re-examination on 18.01.2017. However, PW10 Dr. P.K. Saha deposed on the same lines.

(xi) PW11 Kewal Kishan Sharma is the Arms and Ammunition dealer from whom Ct. Arif had purchased five rifle cartridge on 06.03.2010. He has proved the cash memo in this regard as Ex.PW5/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW11 Kewal Kishan Sharma was recalled for re-examination on 18.01.2017. However, PW11 Kewal Kishan Sharma deposed on the same lines.

(xii) PW12 SI U. Balashankaram is the In-charge of mobile crime team who had inspected the spot. The inspection report prepared by him was proved as Ex.PW12/A. Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW12 SI U. Balashankaran was recalled for re-examination on 24.11.2016. However, PW12 SI U. Balashankaram deposed on the same lines.

(xiii) PW13 SI Deepak Kumar deposed that on 02.12.2009, he was posted in police station in Jafrabad as PSI. On the instruction of Duty Officer, he alongwith Ct. Prem Pal reached at the spot i.e. in front of H.No. A-135, Gali No. 9, Chauhan Bangar, Jafrabad, Delhi. ASI Jeet Singh and Ct. Riyazul were present there. Blood was lying in the street in front of H.No. A-135, Gali FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 No. 9, Chauhan Bangar. ASI Jeet Singh made enquiry. It was revealed that someone shot Mohd. Naushad s/o Alimuddin and he was taken to GTB Hospital. ASI Jeet Singh tried to find out eye-witness but no one traced out. ASI Jeet Singh left Ct. Riyazul and Ct. Prem Pal at the spot. He alongwith ASI Jeet Singh reached GTB Hospital. ASI Jeet Singh obtained MLC of Mohd. Naushad who was found admitted in the hospital. He was endorsed unfit for statement. ASI Jeet Singh tried to find eye- witness in the hospital but no one met him. He alongwith ASI Jeet Singh were remained in the premises of the hospital. Ct. Subhash produced DD No. 19A to ASI Jeet Singh at about 09.05 p.m. regarding the death of injured Mohd. Naushad. ASI Jeet Singh prepared rukka and sent Ct. Subhash to police station for registration of FIR after handing over rukka to him. He received direction of SHO Insp. Udaiveer Singh to reach the spot. Thereafter, he reached at the spot. Insp. Udaiveer Singh, Ct. Prem Pal, Ct. Riyazul and members of Crime Team were present at the spot. Insp. Udaiveer Singh inspected scene of crime and prepared site plan. Ct. Subhash reached at the spot and handed over rukka and of FIR to Insp. Udaiveer Singh. Insp. Udaiveer Singh (IO) recorded ement of crime team officials and relieved them from the spot. Insp. Udaiveer Singh lifted blood on a gauze, blood stained earth control and earth control without blood in separate plastic containers and prepared parcels. Insp. Udaiveer Singh also lifted one empty cartridge case of 8 MMKF and 2 bullet leads and kept in plastic container which was converted into a pulanda. Insp. Udaiveer sealed all the four parcels with the seal having impression 'UB-1' and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. Insp. Udaiveer Singh recorded his statement and FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 other witnesses. Witness correctly identified cotton wool swab having brown stains as Ex.Art.1, cemented pieces having brown stains as Ex.Art.2, Earth control without blood as Ex.Art.3 and three metallic pieces as Ex.Art.4 (empty shell), Ex.Art. 5 and Ex.Art. 6 (bullet leads).

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not make any departure entry while leaving the police station alongwith Ct. Prem Pal.

After the arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha, PW13 SI Deepak Kumar was recalled for re-examination on 18.01.2017. However, PW13 SI Deepak Kumar deposed on the same lines.

(xiv) PW14 HC Subhash Chand deposed that on 02.12.2009,he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Constable. On that day at about 8:47 pm, he was given the copy of DD No. 19A with instruction to handover the same to ASI Jeet Singh in GTB Hospital. Accordingly, he reached GTB Hospital and handed over the same to ASI Jeet Singh. ASI Jeet Singh handed over a rukka to him and he alongwith the rukka went to the PS. After getting the case registered, he came at the spot i.e. Gail No. 9, Chauhan Bangar, Jafrabad and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/Insp. Udayvir Singh who conducted further investigation of this case.

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

(xv) PW15 Ex. Ct. Neeraj Kumar is the photographer of the mobile crime team. He has proved the photographs taken by him at the spot on the instruction of IO as Ex.PW15/A6 to A10 and the negatives thereof were proved by him as Ex.PW15/A1 to A5.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 in his cross-examination.

(xvi) PW16 ASI Azad Singh deposed that on 10.04.2010, he was posted as Head Constable at Special Staff, North- East District. On that day, he alongwith HC Anil, HC Vinay Kumar and Ct. Neeraj apprehended accused Shahid @ Guddu from near K-Block Khatta, Seelampur alongwith one Javed on the basis of secret information receiving from secret informer. Witness correctly identified accused Shahid @ Guddu. On inquiry, he had come to know that both the accused persons were involved in case FIR No. 60/09 u/s. 302/34/147/149/120-B IPC and 27 Arms Act and he had also come to know that NBWs were issued against them in that case. He had verified this fact from the concerned PS. At that time, one loaded countrymade pistol was recovered from accused Javed alongwith one live cartridge from his pocket regarding which a case FIR No. 76/10 u/s 25 Arms Act was got registered by him at PS Seelampur. After registration of the case, HC Jagbir Singh had come at the spot as further investigation was marked to him. On his arrival, he had produced both the aforesaid accused persons before HC Jagbir Singh who had carried out further proceedings. On 11.04.2010, IO of the present case namely Insp. Udaivir Singh had made inquiry from him and recorded his statement in this case. He deposed that he could also identify accused Javed if shown to him. (Accused Javed was not present in the court as he had already been declared PO).

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

(xvii) PW17 ASI Jeet Singh is the first IO of the present case. He deposed that on 02.12.2009, he was posted as SI at PS Jafrabad. On that day, on receipt of DD NO. 18A, he alongwith Ct. Riyazul had reached the spot i.e. in Gali No.9 near Chauhan Bangar Pullia, when he reached in front of H. No. A-135, blood was lying on the road. On inquiry, he came to know that one Naushad was shot and that he had FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 been taken to GTB hospital. No eyewitness was present there. In the meanwhile PSI Deepak and Ct. Prem Pal had also reached there. After leaving Ct. Riyazul and Ct. Prem Pal for the safely of spot, he alongwith PSI Deepak left from the spot and reached GTB hospital where he collected MLC of injured Naushad on which doctor had opined as unfit for statement and U/O blunt. In the hospital also no eyewitness was found. At about 09.05 pm, Ct. Subhash came to him in GTB hospital and gave him DD No. 19A about death of Mohd. Naushad. After that on the basis of MLC, he prepared rukka on the copy of DD No. 18A for registration of the case u/s 302 IPC. The rukka is Ex.PW17/A. He gave rukka to Ct. Subhash and sent him to PS for registration of the case. After that Duty Ct. Karamvir handed over to him sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased Naushad alongwith one more sealed pullanda containing one bullet recovered from the body of Naushad. Both the pullandas were found sealed with the seal of GTB hospital. One sample seal was also handed over to him alongwith the pullandas. He had taken the pullandas into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/B. After taking the pullanda, he had come to the PS and deposited the pullandas in the malkhana. IO recorded his statement in this regard.

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

(xviii) PW18 Insp. Satender Pal Singh deposed that on 25.12.2009, he was posted as SI at PS Jafrabad. On that day, accused Saleem @ Bobby S/o Mohd. Ali, R/o H. No. A-16/3, Gali No.12, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi was arrested by him in case FIR No. 78/09 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad. After arrest, accused Saleem @ Bobby had made disclosure statement to him about his involvement in the present case. Accordingly, he informed IO of the present case. Witness correctly identified accused Saleem @ Bobby.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out in FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 his cross-examination.

(xix) PW19 Ct. Riyazul is the police official who had accompanied ASI Jeet Sigh (PW17) at the spot. He has deposed on the same lines on which ASI Jeet Singh has deposed.

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

(xx) PW20 SI Vivek Sharma deposed that on 15.02.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Jafrabad, Delhi, On that day, he had joined investigation of this case with IO Insp. Udaivir Singh. On that day, he alongwith other police staff had accompanied IO to Karkardooma Courts, Delhi where accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin @ Bilal S/o Iqbal Gazi was produced before the court of Ms. Bhawani Sharma, Ld. MM. IO had moved an application for seeking permission to interrogate the aforesaid accused which was allowed by Id. MM. After that accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin was interrogated by the IO and he was formally arrested by the IO in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/A. His personal search was also conducted by the IO vide personal search memo Ex. PW20/B. IO had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin as Ex.PW20/C. Witness correctly identified accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin by individually pointing out towards the said accused. After that, IO had moved an application for seeking two days PC remand of accused Kamal Kamaluddin. During PC remand, accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin was taken to GTB hospital where he was got medically examined. Thereafter, said accused had taken them to his house i.e. H. No. 221, K- Block, Seelampur, Delhi, where he pointed out towards one big hall size room situated on ground floor thereof and claimed that he FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 alongwith co-accused persons namely Javed, Shahnawaz, Saleem @ Boby, Wasim, Jamal and Guddu had hatched the criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Naushad in the said big size room. IO had prepared pointing out memo in that regard. Same is Ex.PW20/D. Thereafter, accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin had taken them to the place i.e. near Khadde Wali Masjid, Chauhan Bangar, and pointed out the place where he alongwith co-accused persons had done reccee of Naushad while he used to visit said Masjid to offer prayer. IO had prepared pointing out memo in this regard. Same is Ex.PW20/E. After that, they all returned back to PS Jafrabad, where his statement was recorded by the IO and said accused was kept in lock up of PS Seelampur. He further deposed that on the next day, i.e. 16.02.2011, he had again joined investigation of this case with IO and other local staff of PS Jafrabad. On that day, accused Kamal Kamaluddin was taken out from lock up of PS Seelampur and said accused had taken them to Metro Station of Shastri Park, where efforts were made to apprehend co-accused Jamal and Wasim but they could not be found. Thereafter, said accused took them to place near MTNL office, Noor-e-Ilahi colony, Bhajanpura, Delhi to find out aforesaid co-accused Jamal and Wasim but they could not be found even at that place. After that accused had taken them to Meerut in UP to effect recovery of offending weapon but on the way to Meerut, when they had reached near Gang Nahar, Morad Nagar, accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin had told that he had falsely disclosed that he had concealed the offending weapon at his in-laws house in Meerut. He also told that in fact, he had thrown the said offending weapon in Gang Nahar, Morad Nagar. At that time, IO had recorded supplementary disclosure statement FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin. Said supplementary disclosure statement is Ex. PW20/F. Efforts were also made to recover the offending weapon from Gang Nahar with the help of divers namely Javed, Anand and Manoj at the instance of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin but same could not be recovered. IO had also prepared pointing out memo of said place in this regard. Said memo is Ex.PW20/G. Thereafter, said accused led them to the house of in-laws of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin situated at Khair Nagar, Meerut, where efforts were made to recover other offending weapons but same could not be recovered. IO had prepared relevant memo in this regard. Said memo is Ex.PW20/H. After that, they had returned back to PS Seelampur where said accused was kept in the lockup and thereafter, they returned back to PS Jafrabad, where his supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. On 02.12.2011, at about 3:30 pm, he alongwith HC Pawan, Ct. Chatar Singh and Ct. Arif were patrolling in the area of Brahmpuri of PS Jafrabad. At that time, one secret informer met him near Pooja Public School, Brahmpuri, and he informed that person namely Wasim who was wanted in this case and was already declared PO, was standing at Brahmpuri Pulia and he could be apprehended if raid is conducted. After receipt of said information, he requested 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party, after sharing the secret information with them but none agreed and all left without disclosing their names and addresses by citing their personal difficulties. Accordingly, he prepared a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Pawan, Ct. Chatar Singh and Ct. Arif. They all alongwith secret informer immediately rushed to Brahmpuri Pullia, where secret informer had pointed out towards one person FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 by claiming him to be accused Wasim and left away. He with the help of aforesaid police officials, apprehended the said person, whose name on enquiry was revealed as Wasim S/o Sh. Rafiq. He interrogated him, during which he confessed his involvement in commission of offence involved in the present case. Accordingly, he arrested Wasim in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/J. His personal search was also conducted by him vide meno Ex.PW20/K. He had also recorded disclosure statement of said accused as Ex.PW20/L. After that, accused Wasim led them to the place near Khadde Wali Masjid, Chauhan Bangar and pointed out the place where offence was committed by him alongwith co- accused persons. He had prepared pointing out memo in this regard as Ex. PW20/M. After that, accused Wasim was taken to GTB hospital where he was got medically examined and thereafter, he was kept in the lockup of PS Seelampur, and they police officials returned back to PS Jafrabad, where he had recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of HC Pawan and Ct. Chatar Singh. On the next day, accused Wasim was produced before the concerned court which sent the said accused to judicial custody. Witness correctly identified accused Wasim by individually pointing out towards the said accused.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that they had reached near Khadde Wali Masjid, Chauhan Bangar at about 4:30/4:45 pm or so. IO had requested 5-6 passersby to join the proceedings even at the said place but none agreed and they all left by citing their personal difficulties. They had stayed at Brahmpuri Pullia for about 30 minutes. Several public persons had collected on seeing the police at the said place. He had requested d5-6 pubic persons to join the proceedings but none agreed and they left by FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 citing their personal difficulties. He had made departure entry while leaving PS on 02.12.2011 but he did not remember DD entry number thereof.

(xxi) PW21 HC Chatar Singh was the police official who was performing patrolling duty on 02.12.2011 alongwith IO/SI Vivek Sharma (PW20), HC Pawan (PW8) and Ct. Arif (PW5). He deposed on the same lines in which PW20 has deposed with regard to the investigation conducted on 02.12.2011 qua accused Wasim.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO asked the guard of Pooja Public School to join the investigation but he expressed his inability to do so on the plea that he did not want himself to be involved in any police case. No written notice was given to him. He affirmed that there were some shops near the place where accused Mohd. Wasim was apprehended. (xxii) PW22 Insp. N.R. Lamba deposed on 11.09.2012, he was posted at PS Jafrabad, Delhi as SHO. On that day, an information was received from PS Seelampur, regarding arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha in case FIR No. 258/12 u/s 307/326/120-B/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and further informed that he had disclosed his involvement in the present case. After that he went to PS Seelampur and collected copies of documents prepared by Insp. M.P. Singh in case FIR No. 258/12. On the next day, an application for issuance of production warrant against accused Jamal @ Ranjha was moved before the concerned court and on 13.09.2012, as per order of the court, accused Jamal @ Ranjha appeared before the court. After taking permission from the court, he formally arrested accused Jamal @ Ranjha in the present case and prepared his arrest memo as Ex PW22/A. He also conducted personal search of accused Jamal @ Ranjha and prepared his personal search memo as Ex.PW22/B. Accused also made FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 disclosure statement which was recorded by him. The disclosure statement of accused Jamal @ Ranjha as Ex.PW22/C. Witness correctly identified accused Jamal @ Ranjha. He also recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Insp. M. P. Singh, SI Gaurav Chaudhary and SI Nilesh Kumar, in this case. After completing the investigation in this case, supplementary chargesheet was prepared by him and same was filed by him before the court of law.

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

(xxiii)PW23 SI Gaurav Chaudhary is the police official who had assisted Insp. N.R. Lamba (PW20) in the investigation of the present case at the time of formal arrest of accused Jamal @ Ranjha. He has deposed on the same lines on which PW22 has deposed.

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

(xxiv)PW24 ACP Udaivir Singh is the 2nd IO of the present case. He deposed that on 02.12.2009, he was posted as SHO PS Jafrabad, Delhi. On that day at about 8:00/8:10 pm, while he was on patrolling duty in the area. He received an information on wireless set that one person had been shot in Gali No.9. Chauhan Bangar, Delhi. He reached at the spot where PSI Deepak, Ct. Riyazul and Ct. Prem Pal of PS Jafrabad were already present. I/C Crime Team St Bala Subramaniyam and Ct. Neeraj, Photographer were also present there. He noticed that blood was lying in the gali. PSI Deepak and Ct. Prem Pal (Beat Constable) told him that one Naushad had been shot and the PCR police had already taken him to GTB hospital. Crowd had gathered there. He made enquiries from some public persons but none of them FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 had witnessed the incident. However, one Yunus who was present at the spot told him that he had seen one unknown person, firing at Naushad and he could identify the said assailant if shown to him. Ct. Neeraj had taken photographs of scene of crime from different angles. At the pointing out and instance of Yunus, he inspected the site and prepared rough site plan as Ex.PW24/A. At about 9:15 pm, ASI Jeet Singh telephonically informed him that injured Naushad had already been declared dead in GTB hospital. At about 11:00 pm, Ct. Subhash came at the spot and handed him over the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka and informed him that investigation of the present case was marked to him, after registration of the FIR. The blood stains lying in the middle of the road were lifted by him with the help of cotton swab, put into plastic container, converted into cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of UB1. The blood stained earth was taken out with the help of cutter and hammer, put into plastic container, converted into cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of UB1. Earth control was taken with the help of cutter and hammer, put plastic container, converted into cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of UB1. One empty cartridge 8 mm kf on the bottom of which was written and two bullets lying at the spot, were also lifted, put into plastic container, converted into cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of UB1. All the four sealed pulandas were seized by him in this case, vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Prem Pal. After that he examined Yunus and prepared another site plan of scene of crime showing points A, B and C, as Ex.PW24/B. He recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Yunus. One Ms. Afroz w/o Almu (mother of deceased Naushad) was also present at the spot and FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 stated that she had seen three persons namely Javed, Saleem @ Bobu and Guddu @ Bhura running away from the spot. He recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Ms. Afroz. He also recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PSI Deepak, Ct. Riyazul, SI Bala Subramaniyam and Ct. Neeraj at the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith staff tried to search for the assailants in the area of Seelampur Jhuggies, K-Block, Seelampur and Jhuggies near Nala Jafrabad and Shastri Park, however, they could not be traced. After that he alongwith staff returned back to PS, where the case property was deposited by him in the makhana. On the next day, i.e. 03.12.2009, he alongwith Ct. Riyazul reached to the mortuary of GTB hospital, where relatives of deceased Naushad were already present. He had examined body of deceased in the mortuary and prepared the inquest papers. Request letter for postmortem dated 03.12.2009 filled by him already lying on record as Ex.PW24/C. Form 25.35(1)(b) was also filled by him as Ex.PW24/D. Dead body of Naushad was got identified by Mohd. Shadab (brother of deceased) and Anees (relative). He recorded statement of Mohd. Shadab regarding identification of the dead body as Ex.PW24/E. Statement of Anees in this regard is Ex.PX1. Postmortem was got conducted and after that dead body was handed over to Mohd. Shadab and Anees, vide memo Ex. PX2. After that he returned back to PS. On the same day, Ct. Riyazul returned back to PS and produced before him four sealed pullandas, one sealed envelope and sample seal of MK conting exhibits of deceased and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. He recorded statement of Ct. Riyazul, Ct. Prem Pal, Ct. Subhash and ASI Jeet Singh in the PS. On 25.12.2009, accused Saleem Boby was arrested by SI Satender Pal in case FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 FIR No. 78/09 PS Jafrabad u/s 25 Arms Act. SI Satender Pal told him that accused Saleem had made disclosure about his involvement in this case alongwith his associates namely Kamaluddin Kamal, Zamal@ Ranjha, Shahnawaj, Guddu @ Bhura, Wasim and Javed. He interrogated accused Saleem @ Boby and arrested him in this case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/F. Personal search of accused Saleem @ Boby was conducted vide memo Ex.PW24/G. On interrogation, accused made disclosure which was recorded by him vide disclosure statement as Ex. PW24/H. Pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Saleem led the police team to Gali No.9, Chauhan Bangar and pointed out the place of incident in the presence of mother of deceased, where he alongwith his associates had fired upon Naushad (since deceased), regarding which he had prepared pointing out memo as Ex.PW4/A. He recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Ct. Prem Pal and Afroz. After that accused Saleem was produced before the concerned court and two days PC remand of accused Saleem was taken as per order of the court. During PC remand, accused Saleem led the police team to the places at K-Block jhuggies, Shastri Park, Jafrabad pullia, etc. in search of other co- accused persons. However, they could not be traced out. After expiry of his police remand, accused was again produced before the court and he was sent to JC. On 14.01.2010, an information was received by him that accused Shahnawaj had been arrested by the police officials of PS Crime Branch and is in Tihar Jail in connection with that case. After that he moved an application before court for production of accused Shahnawaj for his interrogation and arrested in this case. On 16.01.2010, accused Shahnawaj was produced before the concerned court in FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 muffled face. After taking permission from the court, accused Shahnawaj was interrogated and arrested in this case, vide his arrest memo as Ex. PW24/I. On interrogation, accused made disclosure which was recorded by him vide his disclosure statement as Ex.PW24/3. Accused Shahnawaj was sent to JC as per order of the court. After that, on 20.01.2010, he moved an application before the concerned court for TIP of CCL 'S'. The said application is lying on record as Ex.PW24/K. On 29.01.2010, TIP proceedings of CCL 'S' was conducted by the Ld. MM Sh. Amitabh Rawat during which the eyewitness Yunus had correctly identified CCL 'S'. He obtained copies of TIP proceedings of CCL 'S', after moving an application in this regard as PW-24/L. He further deposed that on 30.01.2010, one day PC remand of CCL 'S' was obtained from the concerned court. During PC remand, CCL 'S' led them to the place of incident and pointing out the spot where he alongwith his associates had committed murder of Naushad. He prepared pointing out memo in this regard as Ex.PW24/M. Accused also led them to different places in the area of Jafrabad, in search of accused Kamaluddin @ Kamal to whom he had returned the weapon of offence i.e. katta after using the same in this case. However, accused Kamaluddin could not be traced out. He further depsoed that TIP proceedings of accused Shahnawaz was conducted on 29.01.2010 as Ex.PW24/X1. On 19.02.2010, Smt. Afroz, mother of the deceased Naushad came to PS Jafrabad and got recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she alleged that on 19.02.2010, she was threatened by Jamal @ Ranjha and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura near Chauhan, Bangar Puliya who were forcing her to withdraw their case and give affidavit in the court FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 in their favour. She also told that they also conveyed message to one of her relative Sulleman @ Sattar and told him to convince him to withdraw their case in their favour. On 20.02.2010, he sent a request letter to DCP office to seek permission to purchase five live cartridges of .315 mm from private dealer for the purpose of sending to FSL for comparison with the already recovered weapon from the possession Salim Bobby in this case. On 05.03.2010, he received the letter of permission dated 04.03.2010 as Ex. PW24/X9, from DCP office to purchase the live cartridges from the private dealer. On 06.03.2010, he sent Ct. Arif to purchase five live cartridges of .315 mm from private dealer who in the evening came back and handed him over the five live cartridges and told that he had purchased the same from the dealer of Arms Sh. K.K. Sharma in Shakarpur vide Bill No.6481 as Ex.PW5/A. He got deposited the same in the malkhana. On 07.03.2010, he got prepared the scaled site plan of the scene of crime by Sh. Mukesh Jain, the Government Draftsman. On 10.03.2010, the MHC(M) case property handed over the 11 exhibits alongwith the recovered countrymade pistol (recovered from Salim) and five live cartridges (purchased to Ct. Vinod vide RC No. 13/21 of 2010 to deposit the same in the FSL). In the evening, Ct. Vinod came back from FSL and told that he had deposited the exhibits in the FSL and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 12.03.2010, he got issued the NBWs from the court against the accused persons Kamal @ Kamalluddin, Jamal @ Ranjha, Javed, Wasim and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura. On 22.03.2010, the Crime Team Report photographs, PCR form and scaled site plan were collected and put up in the file. On 23.03.2010, he prepared the charge-sheet FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 against the accused Salim @ Bobby and Shahnawaz and deposited in the court. Later on, the charge-sheet against Shahnawaz was sent to JJB by the orders of court. On 30.03.2010, Sumaira D/o Almuddin R/o Gali No. 9 Chauhan Bangar (sister of deceased Naushad) came to PS alongwith her mother and got recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she told and alleged that on the day and time of incident i.e. 02.12.2009, she was threatened by Jamal @ Ranjha and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura to go inside the house. When she had come in the balcony of her house after hearing gun shots. Jamal @ Ranjha had fired gun shots towards her while threatening her. On 11.04.2010, HC Jagbir of PS Seelam Pur informed at PS Jafrabad about the arrest of accused Javed vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/X2 and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/X3, who were arrested by HC Jagbir under Arms Act and they further disclosed about their involvement in the present case. He interrogated both the accused in PS Seelam Pur and arrested in the present case. He recorded their disclosure statement separately Ex.PW24/X4 and Ex.PW24/X5 and the accused persons led him to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of occurrence in the present case. He prepared the pointing out memo in the presence of Afroz, mother of the deceased and Sumeira Ex.PW24/X6 and Ex.PW24/X7. He recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. They further led him to the place i.e. K 221 Seelam Pur, where they told that the planning/conspiracy of the murder was prepared in this house. He searched for the accused Kamal @ Kamalluddin and Jamal @ Ranjha as they are the resident of the same house. Thereafter, the charge-sheet against Javed and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura was prepared and FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 sent to court. On 04.02.2011, he got declared the accused persons Kamal @ Kamalluddin, Jamal @ Ranjha and Wasim as Proclaimed Offenders from the court. On 13.02.2011, he received an information from Kotwali Meerut that the accused Kamal @ Kamalluddin had been arrested over there. He got issued the production warrant from the court for the production of the accused in the KKD Courts. On 15.02.2011, accused Kamal @ Kamalluddin was produced in KKD Courts where he sought permission from the court to interrogate and arrest him. The arrest memo of accused Kamal @ Kamalluddin vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/A and personal search memo as Ex.PW20/B. He interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/F and requested for police custody remand of the accused. The court granted two days PC remand of the accused. He made efforts to recover the weapons of offence used by the accused persons and handed over to Kamal @ Kamalluddin after the incident but the same could not be recovered as accused Kamal told that he had thrown the weapons of offence in Gang Naher after the incident. He searched the house in Meerut from where the accused Kamal was arrested but nothing could be recovered. He prepared the memo Khana Talashi vide memo Ex.PW20/H. He also prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW20/G. He prepared the pointing out memo of H no. K 221 New Seelam Pur on the pointing out of accused Kamal vide Ex.PW20/L, the place about which the accused told where the conspiracy/ planning of the present murder of Naushad was executed. On 19.04.2011, he prepared the chargesheet against the accused Kamal and Jamal @ Ranjha and Wasim (both already declared POs) and submitted in the court. Witness correctly FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 identified all accused persons i.e. Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura, Javed, Wasim, Kamal @ Kamalluddin and Jamal @ Ranjah. He also filed DD No. 2A dated 16.02.2011, DD No. 19A dated 15.02.2011, DD No. 11A dated 16.02.2011, DD No. 21A dated 16.02.2011, DD No. 18A dated 02.12.2009, DD No. 19A dated 02.12.2009 and certified copy of PCR Call Form dated 02.12.2009 as Ex.PW24/X8 (colly) (production of above-said DD is dispensed with as not disputed by ld. Defence counsel. Witness correctly identified one empty cartridge as Ex. Art.4 and two bullets lead as Ex.Art.5 and Ex.Art.6.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were about 20-25 persons present near the spot. One Yunus was found present at the spot but he met him about 11 pm. Mother of deceased also met him at the spot. Public persons did not tell anything about the incident when inquired and left the spot. He did not obtain signatures of any public witness in the exhibits got lifted by him. Prior to the incident, he had not received any complaint regarding threat received by the family members of the victim. At the spot, he recorded statement of four witnesses. (xxv) PW25 Dr. V.P. Anand deposed that on 19-04-2011, parcel no. 4, 5, 6, 7x, 7y, 8, 10 and 11 were received in the Ballistic Division from the Biology division of FSL Rohini. The same were marked to him for examination. The parcel no. 4, 5, 6, 7x, 7y, 8 were sealed with the seal of AC FSL DELHI. The parcel no. 10 was sealed with the seal of NPW FSL DELHI and parcel no. 11 was sealed with the seal of PK. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal. On opening parcel no. 4, one 8mm / .315 inch cartridge case and two bullets were taken out and marked as EC-1 and EB-1 & EB-2 respectively. On opening FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 parcel no. 5, one kurta, t-shirt, baniyan and one bullet found lodged in baniyan were taken out and marked as C-1, C-2, C-3 and EB-3 respectively. The kurta marked Ex. C-1 having hole marked as H-1 on upper right portion of front side of kurta, one hole marked as H-2 on the middle portion of front side, one hole marked as H-3 on the lower middle portion on the front side, one hole marked as H-4 on the upper portion of right sleeve of kurta, one hole marked as H-5 on the upper portion of left sleeve of kurta marked Ex. C-1. One large hole marked as H-6 on the upper middle portion of backside of kurta, one hole marked as H- 7 in the middle portion of backside of kurta, three holes marked as H-8 to H-10 on the right middle portion of backside of kurta. The T-shirt marked C-2 having one hole marked as H-11 on the upper portion of front side of T-shirt, one hole marked as H-12 on the lower middle portion, one hole marked as H-13 on the right sleeve and one hole marked as H-14 on the left sleeve of T-shirt, one hole marked as H-15 on the middle portion of backside of T- shirt, three holes collectively marked as H-16 on the right middle portion of backside of T-shirt, one hole marked as H-17 on the right side portion of backside of T-shirt. One Baniyan marked Ex. C-3 having one hold marked as H-18 on the right portion of front side of baniyan, one hole marked as H-19 on the right middle portion of front side of baniyan, one hole marked as H-20 on the upper middle portion of backside of baniyan, one hole marked as H-21 on the right middle portion of backside of baniyan, and two holes collectively marked as H-22 on the right side portion of backside of baniyan. On opening parcel no. 6, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex. EB-4. On opening parcel no. 7x, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex. EB-5. On opening parcel FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 no. 7y, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex. EB-6. On opening parcel no. 8, one payjama and one underwear were taken out and marked as C-4 and C-5 respectively. The payjama marked Ex. C-4 having a hole marked as H-23 on the upper middle portion of right leg, one large hole marked as H-24 on the middle portion of right leg, two holes collectively marked as H- 25 on the middle portion of right leg of payjama. On opening parcel no. 10, one country made pistol .315 inch bore and three test fired cartridge cases were taken out which were already marked as F-1 and A-1 to A-3 in case FIR no. 78/09, PS Jafrabad. On opening parcel no. 11, five 8 mm/ .315 inch cartridges were taken out for test firing. He examined the said exhibits the 8 mm / .315 inch cartridge case marked Ex. EC-1 is a fired empty cartridge. The bullet marked Ex. EB-1 to EB-4 and EB-6 corresponded to the bullet of 8 mm/ .315 inch cartridge. The bullet marked Ex. EB-5 corresponded to the bullet of .32 inch cartridge. Four 8 mm cartridges received for test firing were test fired through the country made pistol .315 inch bore marked Ex. F-1. The test fired cartridge cases were marked as TC-1 to TC-4 and recovered bullets were marked as TB-1 to TB-4. The individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC-1 and on TC-1 to TC-4 were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical. Hence, EC-1 had been fired through the country made pistol marked Ex. F-1 in case FIR no. 78/09, PS Jafrabad. The individual characteristics of striation marks present on the bullets marked as EB-1 to EB-4 and EB-6 were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether the bullets EB-1 to EB-4 and EB-6 had been discharged through the country made pistol marked Ex. F-1 in FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 case FIR no. 78/09, PS Jafrabad. On the basis of physical examination, microscopic examination, and gun shot residue particle analysis on atomic absorption spectrophotometer, the holes marked as H-6 to H10 on kurta marked Ex. C-1, hole marked as H-11 on T-shirt, the hole H-18, H-20 to H-22 on the baniyan and hole marked as H-24 on the payjama had been caused by bullet discharged through the firearm. On the basis of physical examination, microscopic examination, and gun shot residue particle analysis on atomic absorption spectrophotometer, the holes marked as H-3 and H-4 on kurta marked Ex. C-1, the hole marked as H-17 on T-shirt could have been caused by bullet discharged through the firearm. No opinion can be given on the holes marked as H-1, H-2 and H5 on kurta, holes H-12 to H-16 on T-shirt, the hole marked as H-19 on the baniyan and hole marked as H-23 and H-25 on the payjama due to insufficient data. All the exhibits were sealed with the seal of VRA FSL DELHI after examination. His detailed report dated 30-06-2011 is Ex. PW25/A. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

(xxvi)CW1 Ms. Anita Chhair deposed that on 10.03.2010, she was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi. On that day, 12 sealed parcels in above-mentioned case were received in FSL Rohini. Same were marked to her for biological examination. After biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits B1, B2, B5a, B5b, B5c, B8a, B8b and B9. Blood too small for serological analysis was detected on exhibits B6, B7x, B7y. After serological examination, blood on exhibit B1, B5a, B5b, B5c, B8a, B8b, B9 was human blood of A group.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

After examination, she prepared the biological report and serological report as Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B. Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.

During trial of the case, accused Saleem @ Bobby died and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 18- 09-20213.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

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

FINAL ARGUMENTS

15. After hearing final arguments, this court has noticed that one supplementary charge-sheet dated 10.02.2012 was filed for the purpose of bringing on record FSL Ballistic and FSL biological results. Therefore, this court vide order dated 20.11.2023 had summoned Dr. V.R. Anand and Ms. Anita Chhari.

16. It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that there is no evidence led by the prosecution which connects the accused persons with the commission of alleged murder of one Naushad on 02.12.2009 in front of H.No. A-135, Street No. 09, Chauhan Banger, Jafrabad. All the eyewitnesses got examined by the prosecution have turned hostile. Neither any forensic or scientific evidence nor CDR, indicating the presence of accused persons at the spot. Co-accused Raja and Javed, who were formally arrested in the present case, have already been acquitted in the main case in which some weapons have been planted upon them.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

17. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. FINDING OF THE COURT

18. Before analyzing the prosecution and defence evidence adduced in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to provisions of law and some citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable on the facts of the present case.

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

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

302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

25. [(1AAA)] of Arms Act--Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [three years, but which may extend to seven years] shall also be liable to fine.

27. Punishment for using arms, etc. of Arms Act--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

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

"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."

20. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence as:

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

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

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

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

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

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.

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

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

24. It is observed that the present case is based on the testimony of eyewitnesses namely Yunus, Afroz, Sumaira. Amongst the eyewitnesses, eyewitness Yunus could not be FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 examined by the prosecution as he died due to prolong illness on 26-09-2011 and therefore, he was dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 19-08-2011. Witnesses Sumaira (PW3) and Afroz (PW4) have also failed to support the case of the prosecution. PW4 Afroz in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. had claimed that she had seen accused Saleem @ Bobby, Javed and Wasim running from the spot. However, in her deposition before the court on 07-06-2012, she had categorically deposed that she had not seen accused Saleem @ Bobby, Wasim, Javed, Bhura @ Guddu @ Shahid, Jamal @ Ranjha and CCL 'S' in the gali while running after firing upon her son Naushad. Similarly, PW3 Sumaira in his deposition dated 07-06-2012, had claimed that on the date of incident, after hearing gun shot in the gali, she came in the balcony of her house and saw that her brother was lying in front of main gate of her house in gali. She further claimed that no one was in the gali except injured at that time. Both PW3 and PW4 have failed to identify any of the accused persons despite having been pointed out by Ld. Addl. PP for State. They have denied all the suggestions put by the State on the basis of their respective statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. indicating commission of alleged murder by the accused persons.

25. As per the prosecution case, the investigating Team had formally arrested the accused Saleem @ Bobby, who was already arrested in case FIR no. 78/09 and from his possession, one loaded country made pistol with two live cartridges was recovered. The exhibits lifted from the spot i.e. fired cartridge case and bullet lead, and the above-stated country made pistol have been sent to FSL for the purpose of comparison. As per FSL report Ex. PW25/A, it has been opined that recovered FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 cartridge case (from the place of incident) has been fired through country made pistol .315 bore (which was recovered from accused Saleem @ Bobby in case FIR no. 78/09, PS Jafrabad). However, the said opinion is an incriminating piece of evidence only qua accused Saleem @ Bobby, who had already died and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 18/09/2013.

26. Perusal of record reveals that independent public witnesses were available at the spot but no sincere efforts have been made by the investigating police officials to join them in the investigation of the present case. The first IO SI Jeet Singh (PW17) had claimed that when he reached at the spot, on inquiry, he came to know that one Naushad was shot and he had been taken to GTB hospital. Similarly, second IO i.e. PW24 Sh. Udaibir Singh had claimed that when he reached the spot, crowd had gathered there.

27. Thus, it is apparent that no cogent explanation is furnished as to why no independent public person was joined in the investigation despite their availability. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:

''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that 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 evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers 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 rigours 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''.

FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48

28. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-

"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 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 he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police 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 prosecution case highly doubtful''.

29. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 49 that, "It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before, public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged. We, therefore, order his acquittal"

30. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced 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 FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 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 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, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. The relevant entries regarding departure of police official for the purpose of arrest of accused Saleem on 25-12-2009; departure of police official for arrest of accused Javed and Shahid @ Guddu @ Bhura on 11-04- 2010; and departure of police official for the purpose of arrest of accused Kamal @ Kamaluddin on 15-02-2011 have not been proved on record. Even the DD Writer was not examined and no explanation is given as to why the said DD Writer is not made the witness in the present case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."

32. In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution.

33. Further, no cogent explanation is offered as to why no effort has been made to lift the chance prints from the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol, which was recovered from the possession of accused Saleem @ Bobby. There is no substantive FIR No. 60/2009 State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc. Page 48 of 48 evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged murder.

DECISION OF THE COURT

34. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, all accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 302/120B/34 of IPC and u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act. Accused Jamal @ Ranjha and Kamal @ Kamaluddin be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. Bail bonds u/s 437 A of Cr.P.C. furnished on behalf of accused persons have already been verified and accepted. File be consigned to record room.

Digitally signed

Announced in the Open Court                         by PANKAJ
                                       PANKAJ       ARORA
                                                    Date:
on 07-12-2023                          ARORA        2023.12.08
                                                    16:19:07
                                                    +0530


                               (PANKAJ ARORA)
                  ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                             KARKARDOOMA/ 07-12-2023




FIR No. 60/2009     State Vs. Shahid @ Guddu Etc.                      Page 48 of 48

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Shahid @ Guddu@Bhura on 7 December, 2023