Delhi District Court
State vs Samauddin on 10 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUKHVINDER KAUR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1 CNR No. DLNE010016232018
2. Sessions Case Number 131/2018
3 FIR Number & FIR No.40/2013
Name of the Police Station PS: Sonia Vihar
4 Name (s) of Accused, Parentage 1. Samauddin
and Address
Age: 46 years.
S/o Sh. Firojuddin
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Naimuddin @ Chhotu
Age: 33 years.
S/o Sh. Firojuddin
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Mainuddin @ Chandu
Age: 38 years.
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
4. Mehtab
Age: 35 years
Digitally
signed by State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 1 of total 37
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10
16:48:24
+0530
R/o H. No. 174, Village
Badarpur, Loni, District
Ghaziabad, UP.
5. Naeem @ Rasoli
Age: 34 years
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
6. Shahid
Age : 45 years.
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
7. Amiruddin @ Gandhi
Age: 48 years
R/o Village Badarpur, Loni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
5 Date of Committal: 05.04.2018
Commencement of trial On: 20.04.2018
Completion of Trial on 10.09.2025
6 Final Order Acquitted.
7 Service of copy of judgment or -
finding on accused
8 Explanation of delay No Delay
FIR No. : 40/2013
Police Station : Sonia Vihar
Under Sections : 186/353/332/333/34 IPC & 21.4 MM Act
Digitally
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 2 of total 37
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10
16:48:31
+0530
Date on which judgment was reserved : 01.09.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 10.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2013, Duty Officer handed over asal tehrir sent by HC Vishvamitra (1st IO) alongwith FIR of the case registered under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC and 21.4 of Mines & Mineral Act, and the statement of complainant/HC Rajeev regarding illegal extraction of sand from Badarpur Khadar area of PS Sonia Vihar by about 50 people on tractors and assault with dandas and lathis by the assailants on the police party, to SI Manu Dev (2nd IO) in the police station. During investigation, SI Manu Dev seized the tractor trolleys produced by HC Vishvamitra and collected MLCs of five injured police officials. With the help of police staff, IO/SI Manu Dev also prepared site plan and added the offence under Section 333 IPC. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses and made efforts to arrest accused persons. In the meanwhile, accused Chhotu, Chandu and Samauddin filed application before the court for surrender- cum-bail. With the permission of the court, the IO interrogated all the three accused persons, recorded their disclosure statement and arrested them. Thereafter, he produced all the three accused persons in the court in muffled face and filed an application for conducting their TIP, however all the three accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He also applied for one day police custody of all the three accused persons for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offence. During the period of police remand, he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of the accused persons and also made efforts for recovery State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 3 of total 37 Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:48:37 +0530 of weapon of offence and arrest the other accused persons, however he could not succeed. He recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter the accused persons were sent to judicial custody.
2. On 11.09.2013 accused Naeem @ Rasoli and Ammeruddin also filed an application in the court for surrender-cum-bail. During interrogation, the IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused persons and produced them in the court in muffled face for conducting their TIP, but both of them refused to participate in TIP proceedings. One day police custody was sought by the IO for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offence, however he could not succeed.
3. On 06.11.2014 after transfer of SI Manu Dev, investigation of the case was assigned to SI Arvind Kumar (3rd IO) who arrested accused Mehtab after he filed an application for surrender-cum-bail on 07.04.2015. Accused Mehtab also refused to participate in TIP proceedings. On 10.04.2015, IO/SI Arvind Kumar filed an application in the court for production warrant of accused Mehtab and for initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.PC against accused Shahid. On 13.04.2015 IO sought one day police custody remand of accused Mehtab for recovery of weapon of offence and arrest of other accused. He prepared pointing out memo at the instance of the accused Mehtab however the weapon of offence could not be recovered.
4. On 19.05.2015 accused Shahid also filed an application for surrender-cum-bail in the court who was arrested by the IO, however he also refused to participate in TIP proceedings. Weapon of offence could not be recovered even during the police custody of accused Shahid. After completing the investigation, IO/SI Arvind Kumar filed chargesheet against accused Samauddin, Mainuddin @ Chandu, Naimuddin @ Chhotu, Naeem @ Rasoli, Ameeruddin @ Gandhi, Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 4 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:48:43 +0530 Mehtab and Shahid, who were released on bail.
5. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC., the concerned Ld. ACMM, vide order dated 05.04.2018, committed the matter to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, North-East District, KKD Courts, Delhi.
6. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. predecessor of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2013 held that no charge for offence under Section 21 sub Section 4 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 is made out, and only framed charges for the offences punishable U/s 186/353/323/333/34 IPC against all the accused persons on 09.05.2023, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
7. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses, who are as under:-
PW No. Name of PW Relevancy Documents
exhibited
PW-1 ASI Rajeev Complainant/Injured Ex.PW-1/A,
Kumar Ex.PW-1/B and
Ex.PW-1/C
PW-2 ASI Amar Duty Officer Ex.PW-2/A,
Singh Ex.PW-2/B and
Ex.PW-2/C.
PW-3 ASI Shokender Duty Officer Ex.PW-3/A.
PW-4 ASI 1st Investigating Officer Ex.PW-4/A
Vishvamitra
PW-5 ASI Manoj Witness of investigation Ex.PW-5/A
Kumar
PW-6 ASI Jai Injured -
Prakash
PW-7 HC Bijender Witness of investigation -
Digitally
signed by State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 5 of total 37
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10
16:48:48
+0530
Kumar
PW-8 SI Hari Witness of investigation Ex.PW-8/A,
Shankar Ex.PW-8/B,
Ex.PW-8/C &
Ex.PW-8/D
PW-9 ASI Rajesh Witness of investigation Ex.PW-9/A to
Kumar Ex.PW-9/L
PW-10 SI Gopal Singh Witness of investigation -
PW-11 HC Manish Injured -
PW-12 ASI Ajeet Injured -
PW-13 HC Lovkesh Injured Ex.PW-13/DA
PW-14 ASI Anil Witness of investigation Ex.PW-14/D
Kumar
PW-15 Sh. Judicial Officer Ex.PW-15/A,
Dharmender Ex.PW-15/B,
(the then Ld. MM to
Rana Ex.PW-15/C,
whom TIP of accused
Ex.PW-15/D &
Chotu, Chandu @
Ex.PW-15/E.
Mainuddin and
Samauddin was marked).
PW-16 Sh. Sunil Gupta Judicial Officer Ex.PW-16/A
(the then Ld. MM to &
whom TIP of accused
Ex.PW-16/B
Gandhi @ Ameerudin
and Rasoli @ Naeem
was marked).
PW-17 HC Ashok Witness of investigation Ex.PW-17/A,
Ex.PW-17/B
&
Ex.PW-17/C
PW-18 Dr. Debashish Chief Medical Officer Ex.PW-18/A,
Mukherjee Ex.PW-18/B,
Ex.PW-18/C,
Digitally
signed by
SUKHVINDER State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 6 of total 37
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10
16:48:55
+0530
Ex.PW-18/D
&
Ex.PW-18/E
PW-19 HC Sunil Witness of Investigation -
Kumar
PW-20 HC Mukesh Witness of Investigation -
PW-21 Retd. ACP Police officer qua Ex.PW-21/A
Sudhir Kumar complaint U/s 195 Cr.
PC
PW-22 Inspector 3rd Investigating Officer -
Arvind Kumar
PW-23 Ms. Harleen Judicial Officer Ex.PW-23/A,
Singh Ex.PW-23/B,
(the then Ld. MM to
Ex.PW-23/C,
whom TIP of accused
Ex.PW-23/D
Mehtab was marked).
&
Ex.PW-23/E
PW-24 Inspector Manu 2nd Investigating Officer Ex.PW-24/A, Dev Ex.PW-24/B, Ex.PW-24/C Ex.PW-24/D Ex.PW-24/E, & Ex.PW-24/F
8. The detail of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is as under:-
MATERIAL WITNESSES
9. PW-1 ASI Rajeev Kumar (Complainant/injured) testified that on Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 7 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:49:00 +0530 19.02.2013 he was performing duty of Reader to SHO, PS Sonia Vihar. At about 1:00 pm, a PCR call was received at the police station that 40 to 50 tractors were illegally digging out the sand from the area of Badarpur Khadar. The said call was transmitted to HC Vishvamitra, however since he was engaged somewhere else, the call was assigned to HC Gopal, who alongwith another police official who was already on patrolling duty in the area, proceeded to Badarpur Khadar. On reaching there, HC Gopal informed the SHO that more police officials were required as people were in large number. On the directions of the SHO, he alongwith Constable Manish and Constable Luvkesh proceeded to the spot and on the instructions of SHO another team of police officials comprising of HC Ajit, HC Jai Prakash, ASI Narender, Constable Manoj and 1-2 more police officials arrived at the spot. They met the said team of police officials and proceeded towards Yamuna Khadar where they saw more than 50 persons present with tractors and trolleys carrying illegal extraction of sand from the spot. Some tractor trolleys were full of sand and some were empty. On seeing them, those persons started fleeing away from the spot. They stopped one tractor containing trolley which was full of sand and a person namely Chhotu was also apprehended by them who was driving the tractor at that time. They left HC Ajeet at the tractor which was driven by Chhotu and proceeded to apprehend more persons. On seeing them, the drivers of tractor trolleys which were empty fled from the spot rushing to different directions. The drivers of three tractor trolleys took their tractors and left the trolleys full of sand there.
10. Thereafter, all police officials arrived at the place where HC Ajeet had apprehended Chhotu alongwith his tractor trolley. In the meantime, many public persons from different directions started Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 8 of total 37 16:49:07 +0530 gathering at the spot, amongst them some were carrying lathis and dandas with them. He asked driver Chhotu to come at the police station alongwith his tractor trolley, as soon as driver Chhotu started moving the tractor on which HC Ajeet was sitting, suddenly the driver took out iron gulla due to which trolley became separate from the tractor. Driver Chhotu tried to flee from the spot with the moving tractor on which HC Ajeet was sitting. On this all police officials tried to stop the tractor, and in the meantime public persons who had already gathered there, assaulted them just to get driver Chhotu released. Someone from the public had hit him with danda on his head due to which he sustained injuries. Someone had given fist blows to HC Ajeet on his nose due to which blood started oozing out from his nose. The public persons had beaten all the police officials but HC Jaiprakash, Constable Manish and Constable Luvkesh had sustained injuries for which their MLCs were prepared. He gave information to the SHO requesting to send some more police officials at the spot. In the meantime, public persons took driver Chotu alongwith his tractor from their custody. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and he gave written complaint in the police station.
11. When the attention of the witness was drawn on his complaint Ex.PW-1/A during his cross-examination, he clarified that Ex.PW-1/A was written by IO/HC Vishvamitra on his dictation. He stated that he was injured at the time of recording of his statement and perhaps forgot to sign the present complaint. It is pertinent to mention that as per FIR Ex.PW-2/B, statement of HC Rajeev was signed by hand in English language. He further testified that four trolleys filled with sand were taken into possession on 19.02.2013 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. He was taken to Jag Parvesh Hospital in injured condition where he was Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 9 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:49:21 +0530 medically treated and after treatment he was discharged from the hospital on the same day. He proved the photographs of the trolleys as Ex.PW1/C (Colly.). He further identified the accused persons and stated that all of them were at the spot.
12. PW-6 ASI Jai Prakash (injured) testified that on 19.02.2013, he received information on the wireless set that there was a quarrel with police staff by the persons who were extracting sand in Badarpur Khadar and filling the same in tractor trolleys. On receipt of the information, he reached the spot where HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet had caught one person namely Chhotu, and there were four trolleys filled with sand at the spot. Many persons from Badarpur Village came there and attacked the police force and got the person, namely Chhotu, released. He sustained injuries on his right eye. Four other police officials also sustained injuries. He further testified that the public persons were armed with dandas, with which they attacked the police officials. The trolleys were removed to the police station by hiring four tractors. He was medically examined at Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, and his MLC was prepared. IO/SI Manu Dev prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/A at his instance, which was signed by him. The first IO/HC Vishvamitra also prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B of the trolleys, which was signed by him. He further testified that he was not in a position to identify Chotu due to the lapse of time, as there was a large crowd at that time. He identified the trolleys shown in photographs Ex.PW1/C1 (colly).
13. PW-11 HC Manish (injured) also deposed on the lines of the testimony of PW-1. He testified that on reaching the spot, they met with HC Gopal and Constable Vijender who were already present there. They saw 30-40 tractor trolleys and 50-60 persons who were doing the Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 10 of total 37 16:49:29 +0530 illegal mining of sand. He further deposed that after seeing the gathering of persons, HC Rajeev informed through mobile phone as well as from the wireless set of HC Gopal at the police station to send more staff at the spot. On the information, HC Ajeet, Constable Vijay, Constable Manoj etc. reached at the spot (it appears that the words "reached at the spot" are missed out while typing as the sentence does not make any sense). He also deposed that when they moved towards the said persons, some persons fled away. One amongst them was apprehended by HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet. When they were making inquiry from that person namely Chotu, his other associates came towards them and started beating them with danda which they were carrying. In the incident, HC Ajeet received injuries on his face and HC Rajeev received internal injuries. He had also received internal injuries in the said incident. Constable Luvkesh and some other police officials had also received injuries but he does not remember their names. The said persons rescued Chotu from them and four trolleys were left by the said persons at the spot after the incident. HC Vishvamitra reached at the spot and recorded the statement of HC Rajeev. Four trolleys were seized and he along with other injured had gone to hospital where their MLCs were prepared. After medical examination, he returned to the police station and after registration of FIR, on the next day his statement was recorded by SI Manu Dev.
14. PW-12 ASI Ajeet (injured) testified that his duty was on picket at Chauhan Patti. At about 2:30 p.m., he received information from the DO of PS Sonia Vihar on the wireless set that maximum staff be sent to Yamuna Khadar, Badarpur. He reached the said spot where he found HC Rajeev, Constable Manish, HC Luvkesh, and police officials of PCR B-83, namely HC Gopal and Constable Vijender, and other police Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 11 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:49:36 +0530 officials and staff of Mobile 36 motorcycle officials. They saw 50 to 60 persons along with tractor trolleys present and doing illegal mining of sand. They asked them not to do the illegal mining of sand and thereafter the said persons started beating them with dandas. One person amongst them, namely Chhotu, was apprehended by HC Rajeev. When HC Rajeev was making inquiries from him, one person amongst them rescued Chhotu from the clutches of HC Rajeev. HC Rajeev had received internal injuries with danda in the said incident. In the meantime, one person had given a fist blow on his face due to which he received injuries on his face and started bleeding from the nose. He further testified that said Chhotu had also caused injuries with danda to Constable Manish. The other persons had fled away from the spot with their tractors and trolleys, however, four trolleys were left by them at the spot filled with sand. HC Vishwamitra came to the spot and sent him and other injured police officials to JPC Hospital for medical examination. He and other injured police officials had gone to JPC Hospital in a government vehicle for medical examination and thereafter he returned to the police station. On the next day, his statement was recorded by SI Manu Dev. He identified the accused persons in the court as the persons who were the associates of the persons who were involved in the incident and caused injuries to him.
15. PW-13 HC Lovkesh (injured) also deposed on the lines of the testimony of other injured. He testified that on 19.02.2013, information regarding illegal mining of sand at Badarpur Khadar was received in the police station. On the directions of the SHO, he along with HC Rajeev reached Badarpur, Yamuna Khadar where they met police officials of B-83 motorcycle patrolling officials, namely HC Gopal and Constable Vijender. They saw 30-40 persons along with tractor trolleys Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 12 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:49:44 +0530 filling sand illegally in their trolleys. As there was a large gathering of persons, HC Rajeev informed the police station through wireless set message to call more staff at the spot. On the said information, HC Ajeet, Constable Vijay, HC Anil, Constable Vijender, Constable Manoj, and Mobile 36 motorcycle rider ASI Narender along with Constable Gyanender came to the spot. They tried to stop the said persons from lifting and filling illegal mining and filling sand in their trolleys. The said persons were having lathi and dandas in their hands and started beating them and obstructed them in performing their official duty. He along with HC Rajeev, Constable Manish, HC Jaiprakash, and HC Ajeet received injuries upon their bodies. He had sustained injury on his left shoulder. All the said persons tried to flee away from the spot after leaving their four trolleys at the spot, while HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet had apprehended one person whose name was revealed as Chhotu, but while they were making inquiry, he was rescued by the persons who were trying to flee away from the spot. HC Vishwamitra came to the spot and recorded the statement of HC Rajeev. He along with other injured police officials were sent to JPC Hospital for medical examination. He further testified that on 13.04.2015, he had joined the investigation with SI Arvind Kumar and was present in the police station. On that day, one of the accused was in police remand custody of SI Arvind Kumar. He identified him as one of the assailants who had caused injury on 19.02.2013 to them at the time of the incident. The name of the said person came to be known as Mehtab. He testified that the accused had assaulted him with one danda blow due to which he sustained injury on his left shoulder. He also identified accused Mehtab in the court.
FORMAL WITNESSES.
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 13 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:49:51 +0530
16. PW-2 ASI Amar Singh proved the copy of FIR No. 40/2013 under Sections 186/353/332/34 IPC, which was registered by him on the basis of tehrir, as Ex. PW-2/B. He also proved the endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex.PW-2/A and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act prepared by him as Ex. PW-2/C.
17. PW-3 ASI Shokender proved DD No.11A dated 19.02.2013 recorded by him on the basis of information received from the Control Room regarding illegal sand mining from Yamuna Khar, as Ex.PW-3/A and testified that the said DD was marked to HC Vishvamitra for further necessary action.
18. PW-15 Sh. Dharmender Rana (Ld. MM) proved the TIP of accused Chotu, Chandu @ Mainuddin, and Samauddin. He proved the application for conducting the TIP of the accused persons as Ex. PW-15/A, the TIP proceedings of accused Samauddin as Ex. PW-15/B, the TIP proceedings of accused Chandu @ Mainuddin as Ex. PW-15/C, the TIP proceedings of accused Chotu @ Naimuddin as Ex. PW-15/D, and the application moved by the IO for supplying a copy of the TIP proceedings as Ex. PW-15/E.
19. PW-16 Sh. Sunil Gupta (Ld. MM) proved the copy of application filed by IO for supplying copy of TIP proceedings as Ex.PW-16/A and the original TIP proceedings of accused Gandhi @ Ameerudin and Rasoli @ Naeem as Ex.PW-16/B.
20. PW-23 Ms. Harleen Singh (Ld. MM) proved the application for conducting TIP of accused Mehtab as Ex.PW-23/A, TIP proceedings of accused Mehtab as Ex.PW-23/B, copy of application for conducting TIP of accused Shahid as Ex.PW-23/C, TIP proceedings of accused Shahid as Ex.PW-23/D and application of the IO for supplying copy of Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 14 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:49:56 +0530 TIP proceedings of accused Shahid as Ex.PW-23/E.
21. PW-21 Retd. ACP Sudhir Kumar testified that on 14.12.2016, he was posted as ACP at PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi, and was also in charge of PS Sonia Vihar, Khajuri Khas, and Karawal Nagar. He stated that the case file of FIR No.40/2013, PS Sonia Vihar, under Sections 186/353/332/333/334 IPC and 214 M.M. Act, was placed before him by the IO of the case. After going through the facts and records available on the file, he prepared a complaint under Section 195 CrPC for taking cognizance against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections and filed the same along with the list of witnesses in the court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. He proved the complaint under Section 195 Cr. PC, as Ex.PW-21/A. MEDICAL WITNESSES
22. PW-18 Dr. Debashish Mukherjee testified that on 19.02.2013, he was working as CMO in Jag Pravesh Chand Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi. On that day at about 9:25 pm, he medically examined HC Ajeet of PS Sonia Vihar. On local examination, he found active gum bleeding from the lower incisors and also observed that the lower incisors were mildly dislocated from socket lower incisors. He testified that he had opined the nature of injury as grievous and prepared the MLC. He proved the MLC of HC Ajeet as Ex. PW-18/A and testified that he had opined the nature of injuries as grievous. He also proved the MLC of HC Rajeev as Ex.PW-18/B. He testified that he had opined the nature of injury as simple. He further testified that on the same day at about 9:40 pm, he medically examined HC Jai Prakash and proved his MLC as Ex.PW-18/C. He further deposed that he opined the nature of injury as simple. He further deposed that on the same day at about 9:11 pm, he examined Constable Luvkesh. On local examination, he found Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 15 of total 37 Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:01 +0530 tenderness and swelling over the left shoulder and swelling over the LS spine. He also proved the MLC of Constable Luvkesh as Ex.PW-18/D and opined the nature of injury sustained by him as simple. He further testified that on the same day at about 9:15 pm, he medically examined Constable Manish and proved the MLC of Constable Manish as Ex.PW-18/E and nature of injury as simple.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
23. PW-4 ASI Vishvamitra (1st IO) testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as Head Constable and was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm. On that day, DD No.11A, Ex.PW3/A, was marked to him for necessary action. He alongwith Constable Gyanender, reached Yamuna Khadar, Badarpur Village, where police staff of PS Sonia Vihar was already present and 4-5 officials were in injured condition. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Rajeev in his own handwriting in Hindi. He saw four trolleys filled with sand, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. The injured officials were sent to Jag Pravesh Chand Hospital for treatment. He prepared rukka Ex.PW4/A and got registered the case. Further investigation of the case was marked to ASI Manu Dev. The witness identified the four trolleys, which were seized by him, from the photographs Ex.PW1/C (Colly.).
24. PW-5 ASI Manoj Kumar testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as Constable and on that day was on beat duty in Beat No.1. In the evening, Duty Officer informed the police staff present in the police station that there had been a quarrel with police staff at Yamuna Khadar, Badarpur Khadar, and directed them to go there. He went to the spot on his private motorcycle, where he saw 30- 40 people alongwith some tractor trolleys and also found 3-4 police Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 16 of total 37 Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:06 +0530 officials including HC Rajiv, Constable Luvkesh and Constable Manish already present there. Soon thereafter, 8-10 more police officials, including ASI Narender, Constable Virender, HC Ajeet and HC Jai Prakash also reached at the spot. He further deposed that 3-4 trolleys filled with sand were there at the spot and he came to know that some police officials who were already present there had sustained minor injuries. The persons who were filling sand had left the trolleys at the spot and fled away. HC Vishvamitra took the injured police officials namely HC Rajiv, HC Ajeet and other police officials to the hospital for medical examination and also took the tractor trolleys into possession. He further testified that IO/SI Manu Dev prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/A, on which he signed as a witness at point A. Thereafter, he was relieved and on the next day his statement was recorded by the IO at the police station.
25. PW-7 HC Bijender testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and was on duty at Becker-83 PCR motorcycle with HC Gopal. At about 1:00 pm, they received a call regarding 50 tractor trolleys illegally doing sand mining at Badarpur Khadar. On reaching the spot, they found many persons doing illegal sand mining and about 30-40 tractor trolleys present. On seeing this, HC Gopal informed the police station on his mobile phone. He further deposed that thereafter, HC Rajeev, Constable Luvkesh and Constable Manish reached the spot, and considering the number of trolleys and persons, HC Rajeev called for additional staff. Subsequently, HC Ajeet, HC Anil, Constable Vijay, Constable Manoj, ASI Narender and other police officials reached there. The police staff began surrounding the persons involved in sand mining, but on seeing this, those persons attacked the police officials with lathis and dandas. He testified that one person was apprehended Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 17 of total 37 Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:11 +0530 by HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet, but others assaulted them and took that person with them. Many tractor trolleys were taken away by the public, though four trolleys were left at the spot, which were later taken to the police station. He further deposed that in the incident, HC Rajeev, Constable Luvkesh, Constable Manish, HC Jaiprakash and 1-2 other police officials sustained injuries. He expressed his inability to identify those persons and the person who was caught by HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet due to lapse of time.
26. PW-8 SI Hari Shankar testified that on 07.04.2015, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and had joined the investigation with SI Arvind Kumar. On information regarding the surrender of accused Mehtab in Karkardooma Court, he along with SI Arvind reached the court where accused Mehtab had surrendered. SI Arvind moved an application before the concerned court for interrogation and formal arrest of the accused, which was allowed. SI Arvind interrogated the accused Mehtan and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-8/B and the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded as Ex.PW-8/C. He further deposed that after the arrest proceedings, accused was produced before the court in muffled face. SI Arvind Kumar moved an application for TIP of accused Mehtab, but the accused refused to join for TIP. Thereafter, accused was produced before the concerned court from where he was remanded to judicial custody. His statement was recorded by the IO. He further deposed that on 14.04.2015, he again joined the investigation with SI Arvind and Constable Mukesh. On that day, the accused who was on police remand, was taken out from the lock-up and he led them to the spot of incident i.e., Yamuna Pusta Road, Badarpur, Delhi, Alipur Bandh Road Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 18 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:50:16 +0530 towards Badarpur Village. The pointing out memo of the spot Ex.PW-8/D was prepared. Thereafter, his supplementary statement was recorded by the IO. The witness correctly identified accused Mehtab in court.
27. PW-9 ASI Rajesh Kumar testified that on 16.05.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and joined the investigation alongwith SI Manu Dev, Constable Inderpal and Constable Vikas. On that day, accused persons Samauddin, Moinuddin and Naimuddin, all sons of Firojuddin, surrendered before Court No.55, Karkardooma Court. SI Manu Dev moved an application for interrogation and their formal arrest, which was allowed. He deposed that SI Manu Dev interrogated the accused persons and formally arrested accused Samauddin vide memo Ex.PW-9/A, Moinuddin @ Chandu vide memo Ex.PW-9/B, and Naimuddin @ Chhotu vide memo Ex.PW-9/C. He further deposed that all accused persons were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-9/D, Ex.PW-9/E and Ex.PW-9/F respectively, and their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.PW-9/G, Ex.PW-9/H and Ex.PW-9/I respectively. He further deposed that an application for TIP was moved by the IO, but the accused refused to join and thereafter police remand of one day was taken by the IO from the court. After their medical examination, accused persons led the police to the spot of incident, where pointing out memos Ex.PW-9/J, Ex.PW-9/K and Ex.PW-9/L were prepared. They also led the police for recovery of the weapon of offence at Yamuna Khadar and Badarpur Village, but no recovery was effected. Attempts to trace other accused persons involved in the case were made but no one could be traced. Thereafter, they returned to the police station, where HC Rajeev identified the accused persons as the persons who had committed the offence with him on 19.02.2013. His Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 19 of total 37 16:50:22 +0530 statement was recorded by the IO. The witness identified the accused persons in the court by their faces amongst the other accused persons.
28. PW-10 SI Gopal Singh testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and alongwith Constable Bijender was on patrolling duty on PCR motorcycle B-83. They received information from B-1 regarding illegal sand mining at Badarpur Khadar, and were directed to proceed to the spot. On reaching at the spot, they saw 30-40 persons with tractor trolleys filled with illegal sand. He informed the police station through telephone about the situation. He further deposed that HC Rajeev, Constable Manish and Constable Luvkesh reached the spot from the PS, and on HC Rajeev's request for sending more police officials, additional police officials also came there. He further deposed that when the police officials asked the persons to stop illegal mining of sand, the said persons started beating them with lathi and danda. One person, namely Chhotu, was apprehended by HC Rajeev but he was rescued by 3-4 other persons. Four trolleys and tractors were left behind by those 30-40 persons. HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet sustained injuries in the said incident. He testified that HC Rajeev had received injuries with danda and HC Ajeet had received injuries on his nose due to fist blow in the incident. He deposed that concerned SI to whom the call was assigned also reached the spot. Thereafter, he and HC Vijender left for patrolling. His statement was recorded by the IO.
29. PW-14 ASI Anil Kumar testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and alongwith Constable Virender was on picket duty at Nanaksar police picket. At around 2:30 pm, he received a message from the duty officer on wireless to proceed to Badarpur Khadar. He and Constable Virender reached the spot on official motorcycle. Some police officials, namely HC Ajeet, Constable Vijay, Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 20 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:27 +0530 Constable Manoj, Constable Manish, Constable Luvkesh and other police officials whose names he could not recall, were already present there. He further deposed that about 30-40 persons were illegally doing sand mining. When they tried to stop them, the persons attacked with dandas and iron rods. Some police officials sustained injuries. He testified that HC Ajeet and HC Rajiv had sustained serious injuries and one constable Lovkesh or Constable Manish, was also injured. He deposed that some tractor trolleys and equipments like shovel etc to fill the trolleys with sand were lying at the spot. HC Vishwamitar and one constable later reached the spot, followed by other police staff and then he and Constable Virender left for their picket duty. The witness identified all accused persons present in the court as some of the persons involved in the incident, though he could not tell their names.
30. PW-17 HC Ashok testified that on 19.05.2015, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and alongwith SI Arvind had gone to Karkardooma Court Room No.66 where accused Shahid had surrendered. With the permission of the then Ld. MM, the accused was interrogated and arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW-17/A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-17/B, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-17/C. The accused was produced before the Ld. MM in muffled face and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he left the accused in the police lock-up. His statement was recorded by the IO. The witness identified accused Shahid in the court on the pointing out of Ld. Chief PP.
31. PW-19 HC Sunil Kumar testified that on 22.05.2015 he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and on that day he joined investigation in this case with IO/SI Arvind Kumar. IO had handed over accused Shahid in Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 21 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:50:32 +0530 his custody and interrogated him. At that time, Constable Manish came in the police station and identified accused Shahid as the person who had beaten him. IO recorded the statement of Constable Manish.
Thereafter, he alongwith SI Arvind and accused Shahid went to Badarpur Village and the accused identified the place of occurrence. Thereafter they came back from there to the police station where IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified accused Shahid in the court.
32. PW-20 HC Mukesh testified that on 14.04.2015, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and joined investigation in this case with SI Arvind Kumar and Constable Hari Shankar. On that day, he alongwith accused Mehtab, SI Arvind Kumar and Constable Hari Shanker went to Village Badapur where the accused identified the place of occurrence and identification memo Ex.PW-8/D was prepared. Thereafter, they came back to PS where IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified accused Mehtab in the court.
33. PW-22 Inspector Arvind Kumar (3rd IO) deposed that on 06.11.2014, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar and the case file was handed over to him by MHC(R) for further investigation. On 10.03.2015, he moved an application before the Ld. MM for issuance of warrant of arrest against accused Mehtab and Shahid. On 07.04.2015, accused Mehtab surrendered before the Ld. MM and with the permission of the court, he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/A. He also conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW-8/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/C. Accused Mehtab was kept in muffled face and he moved an application before the Ld. MM for conducting TIP of the accused. On 13.04.2015, accused Mehtab was taken on one day PC Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 22 of total 37 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:37 +0530 remand and was taken to the police station where injured Constable Luvkesh identified him as one of the assailants in this case. He further deposed that on 14.04.2015, accused Mehtab led them to the place of occurrence i.e. Yamuna Khadar, Village Badarpur, and he prepared identification memo Ex.PW-8/E. He further deposed that accused Shahid surrendered on 19.05.2015 before Ld. MM. With the permission of the court, the accused was interrogated and thereafter arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-17/A, personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW-17/B, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-17/C. Accused Shahid was kept in muffled face and application for conducting his TIP was moved. On 21.05.2015, the accused was taken on one day PC remand and was taken to police station where he was identified by injured Constable Manish as one of the assailants, and he led the police to the place of occurrence at Yamuna Khadar, Village Badarpur. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses during this period, placed the entire case file before the then ACP for granting sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC, and thereafter filed the chargesheet alongwith the complaint for trial. The witness identified accused Mehtab and Shahid in the court.
34. PW-24 Inspector Manu Dev (2nd IO) testified that on 19.02.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SI. On that day HC Amar Singh, duty officer, handed over the FIR and original rukka of the case to him as per the directions of the SHO. HC Vishwamitar handed over him five MLCs of injured police officials--HC Rajeev, HC Jaiprakash, HC Ajeet, Constable Manish and Constable Luvkesh, and the seizure memo of four trolleys found at the spot. He further deposed that thereafter he along with HC Jaiprakash and Constable Manoj went to Badarpur, Village Khadar, where he prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/A at the Digitally instance of HC Jaiprakash. He recorded statements of the injured police signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 23 of total 37 16:50:42 +0530 officials and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. He inspected the MLCs and found that on the MLC of injured HC Ajeet the nature of injury was opined to be grievous, therefore he added section 333 IPC in the case file. He further deposed that on 16.05.2013, accused Samauddin, Naimuddin @ Chotu, and Mainuddin @ Chandu surrendered before the court. With the permission of the court, he interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memos Ex.PW-9/A, Ex.PW-9/B, and Ex.PW-9/C respectively, personally searched them vide memos Ex.PW-9/D, Ex.PW-9/E and Ex.PW-9/F, and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW-9/G, Ex.PW-9/H and Ex.PW-9/I respectively. The accused persons were produced in muffled face and an application for TIP (Ex.PW-24/A) was moved before the court, but the accused persons refused to join TIP proceedings. During one-day police custody, the accused persons were got medically examined and they led the police to the place of incident, where he prepared pointing out memos Ex.PW-9/J, Ex.PW-9/K and Ex.PW9/L. He further deposed that he tried to search the wooden sticks used in the offence but could not succeed. Thereafter, they returned to the police station where complainant/injured HC Rajeev identified all the three accused persons as some of the assailants who had given beatings to the police staff. He further deposed that on 11.09.2013, accused Naeem @ Rasoli and Amiruddin @ Gandhi surrendered before the court. With the permission of the court, he interrogated them and arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW-24/B and Ex.PW-24/C, recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW-24/D and Ex.PW-24/E, produced them in muffled face before the court, and moved an application for conducting TIP, but they refused to participate in TIP. Thereafter, he took one day P/C remand of the accused and took them to the place of incident. He searched for the wooden sticks used in the offence but could not Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 24 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:50:47 +0530 succeed. He took both the accused persons to the police station where complainant HC Rajeev identified them to be the persons involved in the incident. He further deposed that due to his transfer, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). He identified accused Samauddin, Mainuddin, Naimuddin, Amiruddin, and Naeem @ Rasoli in the court.
35. After closing the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein the accused persons either denied the evidence collected against them or they expressed ignorance about the same. All the accused persons stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely and they were falsely implicated and have not committed any offence. Nothing incriminating material was recovered from their possession or at their instance. All the accused persons did not lead DE and as such the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
36. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case as all the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. All the accused persons have refused to participate in TIP proceedings and hence the adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Hence, even if some of the witnesses could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time, refusal on the part of the accused persons to participate in TIP proceedings establishes that they were involved in the incident. He further argued that the MLCs of injured HC Ajeet, HC Rajeev, HC Jai Parkash, Constable Luvkesh and Constable Manish corroborate the testimony of witnesses that they were assaulted with dandas by the assailants.
37. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons as Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 25 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:50:53 +0530 apart from one witness who identified the accused persons in court, co- witnesses could not identify the accused persons. He contended that the reason for refusal to participate in TIP has been recorded in the TIP proceedings Ex.PW-15/B, Ex.PW-15/C, Ex.PW-15/D, Ex.PW-16/B, Ex.PW-23/B and Ex.PW-23/D. He urged that accused were not in muffled face when they were arrested after surrender. He further pointed out various lapses in investigation and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and argued that even the trolleys which allegedly were recovered from the spot could be connected with the accused persons in any manner whatsoever.
38. Rival contentions of Ld. Addl. PP for State and defence counsel have been duly considered, the record has been meticulously perused and relevant provisions of law and precedents have also been gone through. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also filed the written arguments which have also been gone through.
39. Before delving into merits, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of law:-
"Section 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with Digitally both.
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 26 of total 37
16:50:58
+0530
Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 333: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.--Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS.
40. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus placed upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. The failure to do so would necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. From the record, it is revealed that the entire episode started on receipt of information from Constable Sanjeev, No.8626/PCR, Badarpur Khadara Area, PS Sonia Vihar, vide DD No.11-A, dated 19.02.2013, PS Sonia Vihar, whereby he informed PCR that about 50 trolleys were illegally extracting soil from the Badarpur Khadar area of PS Sonia Vihar. However, Constable Sanjeev has not Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 27 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:03 +0530 been cited as a witness, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Pertinently, PW-22 Inspector Arvind Kumar (3rd IO), who filed the charge sheet, testified in his cross-examination that he does not remember whether he had ever made any inquiry from Constable Sanjeev No.8626/PCR, or not.
41. Further, in the site plan Ex.PW-5/A, point 'A' has been shown as the place where the persons who were illegally extracting soil, had assaulted the police party and injured them. However, the site plan does not show the area where tractor trolleys were parked and the illegal extraction of sand was being done. Moreover, there is no corroborative evidence on record to establish that the five injured police officials and other police witnesses were on duty on that day nor any DD entry to show that they were directed to report at the spot is the part of evidence. Though, PW-24 Inspector Manu Dev (2nd IO), admitted that a duty roster is maintained in the PS, he also admitted that as long as the investigation remained with him, he did not collect the duty roster of the police officials. Thus, the prosecution has not even been able to establish beyond doubt that the PWs, who are police officials were actually on duty on that day. None of the accused persons was arrested at the spot and as per the prosecution case, all the accused persons had surrendered afterwards. PW-8 SI Hari Shankar who is witness of arrest of accused Mehtab, in his cross-examination admitted that on 14.04.2015 the accused was not muffled during the course of investigation. Though PW-22 testified that after refusal to participate in TIP, during police custody remand Constable Manish had identified accused in the police station as one of assailants, however there is not even a whisper in the testimony of Constable Manish regarding identification of Shahid in the police station by him. Similarly, Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 28 of total 37 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:07 +0530 testimony of PW-24 regarding identification of accused Samauddin, Mainuddin, Naimuddin, Amiruddin and Naeem by HC Rajeev as assailants in the police station during their police custody is not corroborated by HC Rajeev, the complainant, hence the testimony of 2nd and 3rd IO to that effect does not inspire confidence. Mere refusal on the part of accused persons to participate in TIP proceedings as they allegedly were shown to witnesses does not establish that they were actually the assailants who had assaulted the police officials or obstructed them from performing their official duties. The adverse inference could have been drawn if the injured had identified them in the court during their evidence, however none of the injured could identify the assailants as the persons who had assaulted them in performing their official duty and obstructed them, with certainty except PW-13 who identified Mehtab. Though, PW-1 in his evidence deposed that all the accused persons present in the court were at the spot, PW-11 HC Manish and PW 12 ASI Ajeet, who are also injured, deposed that the accused persons in the court are the associates of the persons who were involved in the incident. PW-6 categorically deposed that he could not identify Chhotu due to lapse of time and the large crowd at the time. He did not utter a word regarding the identity of the other accused persons. It is only when Ld. Addl. PP had pointed out the accused Naimmudin @ Chhotu, he identified him as the same person who was got released by public persons after attacking the police team.
42. PW-12 though deposed that Chhotu had caused injuries with danda to Constable Manish, which is contrary to testimony of other PWs who did not attribute any role to Chhotu in assaulting the police party, he identified the accused persons including Chhotu as associates of persons involved in incident.
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 29 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:11 +0530
43. PW-13 HC Luvkesh, who is also injured, deposed that on 13.04.2015 he had attended the investigation of the case with ASI Arvind Kumar and on that day one accused was in police remand custody of ASI Arvind to whom he identified as one of the assailants who had caused injuries to them at the time of the incident, whose name came to be known as Mehtab on inquiry made from him. He further deposed that the accused had assaulted him with a danda blow, due to which he sustained injury on his left shoulder. Though, accused Mehtab has been identified as the accused who had assaulted HC Luvekesh with a danda, however in view of the testimony of PW-11 HC Manish and PW-12 ASI Ajeet, who testified that the accused persons were associates of the persons who were involved in the incident, his testimony does not inspire confidence. Thus, from the testimony of the injured persons and other PWs, the only inference that can be drawn is that prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the accused persons were the assailants who had obstructed the police team in performing their official duties as public servant or gave beatings to the police team. Even if the prosecution story that accused Naimudin @ Chhotu, who is one of the accused in this case, is the same person who was got released from the police team, is believed to be correct, no role has been assigned to accused him which could cover him under the charges under Section 186/353/332/333/34 IPC.
44. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Venkata Reddy 1976 AIR 2207 , wherein it was held that the test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it is a corroborative piece of evidence, provided the procedure is fair and there is no suggestion or undue influence on the witness during the identification process.
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 30 of total 37 2025.09.10 16:51:16 +0530
45. In the case titled C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by witnesses in court. There is no provision in the CrPC entitling the accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or before the inquiry or the trial. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in court."
46. Apart from that, there are material contradictions in the testimony of PWs and lapses in the prosecution's case, which cast doubt about the case of the prosecution. As per the prosecution's case, there were about 30-50 tractor trolleys digging out sand from Badarpur Khadar area, who started fleeing away on seeing the police party. However, interestingly, the registration number of not even a single tractor trolley has been brought on record. PW-1 in his cross- examination deposed that he did not note down the registration number of any of the tractors which were on the spot. This is the first thing which is expected to have been done by police officials. As per prosecution case Chhotu remained in their clutches for a considerable time and HC Ajeet even boarded his tractor however, no explanation has been given for not noting down the registration number of tractor. No instrument of digging the soil/sand or for filling in the trolleys has been seized during investigation. PW-1 testified that the IO did not seize any instrument of filling of sand i.e. spade or tasla from the spot. PW-4 (1st IO), testified that he did not notice any instrument of digging or filling the sand on the spot and that is why he did not seize the same Digitally whereas PW-14 deposed that equipments like shovel etc to fill trolley signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 31 of total 37 16:51:21 +0530 with sand were lying at the spot. It is just not believable that digging of soil and filling the same in trolleys was being done without any equipment. PW-4 (1st IO) further testified that 4 trolleys were left at the spot which were removed from the spot to the police station with the help of some private tractors. However, admittedly he did not record the statement of the owners of the tractors who had carried the trolleys to the police station.
47. From the endorsement on rukka, which is Ex.PW-4/A, it is revealed that the time of incident is 19.02.2013 at 1:00 pm, whereas the time of registration of FIR is 19.02.2013 at 11:15 pm i.e. after more than 10 hours. Even if it is considered that substantial time would have been taken at the spot as various teams of police officials reached at the spot from time to time, however from the testimony of 1 st IO i.e. PW-4, it is revealed that in his cross-examination he categorically stated that statement of HC Rajeev was recorded at about 4:30 pm at the spot. He further made it clear that he remained at the spot for 30 minutes and then left to attend the accident call. There is no plausible explanation in the testimony of any witnesses to explain the delay of six hours in registration of FIR after recording statement of complainant, which casts doubt about the authenticity of the story of the prosecution. Furthermore, statement Ex.PW-1/A i.e. the statement of complainant HC Rajeev, does not bear his signatures. 1 st IO i.e. PW-4 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not obtain the signatures of HC Rajeev or his statement as all the officials including HC Rajeev were having injuries and they had to be shifted to the hospital. On the contrary, FIR Ex.PW-2/B reveals that statement of HC Rajeev was duly signed in English and attested by HC Vishvamitra. Thus, either the FIR Ex.PW-2/B is incorrect or Ex.PW-2/A is incorrect and manipulated.
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 32 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:26 +0530
48. In the case titled Jose V Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and others, (2016) 10 SCC 519, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"53. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of "must be true".
In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non- existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.".
49. Furthermore, there are material contradictions in the testimony of PWs/injured persons. PW-1 ASI Rajeev testified that they stopped one tractor containing trolley which was full of sand, and a person namely Chhotu was apprehended by them. As per his version, the police team was assaulted when the public persons who had gathered there got the driver Chhotu released from their custody. PW-6 also testified that when he reached at the spot, HC Rajeev and HC Ajeet had caught one person namely Chhotu and many persons from the Badarpur Village came there and they attacked the police force and got released accused Chhotu. PW-11 has also deposed on the lines of PW-1 and PW-6, testifying that other associates of Chhotu came there and started beating them with dandas which they were carrying. Whereas, PW-12 and PW-13 testified that they saw 50-60 persons alongwith tractor trolleys lifting and mining sand, and when they asked them not to do illegal mining of sand, the said persons started hitting them with dandas. On Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 33 of total 37 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:31 +0530 the contrary PW-7 testified that the police team was assaulted with lathis and dandas on seeing the police surrounding them. Further, as per prosecution case many public persons had assaulted police team to rescue Chhotu from them whereas PW-12 testified that one person amongst them rescued Chhotu from the clutches of HC Rajeev. Per contra PW-10 testified that Chhotu was rescued by 3-4 other persons. PW-12 also gave a different version in respect of the role of Chhotu by deposing that the said Chhotu had also caused injuries to Constable Manish but at the same time he identified the accused present in the court including Chhotu as the associates of those who were involved in the incident and caused injuries to police team. There is also no evidence in respect of specific role assigned to the accused persons.
50. There is also a contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses on the point of whether the police officials were in uniform or not. Though, PW-6 testified that all the police officials were in uniform, PW-4 testified that some of the police officials were in civil dress and some were in uniform. There is also a contradiction in respect of the trolleys seized at the spot. As per the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B, four trolleys were half filled with sand whereas as per the testimony of PW-4 who is 1st IO, he had seized all four trolleys filled with sand. Whereas PW-10 testified that four trolley and tractors were left behind by 30-40 other persons. PW-5 also testified that 3-4 trolleys were filled with sand. Pertinently, the photographs of the trolleys which have been filed with the chargesheet are of empty trolleys.
51. Furthermore, as per the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B the word "MCD" was written with yellow color on one of the blue colored trolleys, however the witnesses have failed to point out the word "MCD" on any of the photographs of the trolleys filed with the charge Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 34 of total 37 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:37 +0530 sheet. PW-1 testified that the IO did not put any mark of identification on the trolleys seized by him, whereas PW-4 testified that he had mentioned the FIR number and details of the case on the trolleys which were seized. He voluntarily stated that details were erased from the trolleys with the passage of time. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to connect the trolleys with any of the accused persons.
52. As per the prosecution case, investigation was marked to SI Manu Dev after registration of FIR on the basis of statement of HC Rajeev recorded by the 1st IO/HC Vishvamitra and PW-24 SI Manu Dev also categorically deposed that HC Amar Singh, DO handed over FIR and rukkka to him and thereafter he alongwith other police officials went to spot, whereas PW-5 in his cross-examination deposed that he reached at the spot after the briefing time between 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm and remained there for about one hour. HC Vishvamitra, Constable Luvkesh, HC Rajeev, Constable Manish, ASI Narender, SI Manu Dev and other police staff was present at the spot during that time. If the prosecution story is genuine, SI Manu Dev could not have been there at the spot at that time because as per the prosecution case the FIR was registered at 11:15 pm, thus, he would have naturally reached at the spot after 11:15 pm during night.
53. Since as per the version of PW-4, statement of HC Rajeev was recorded at about 4:30 pm, the incident would have been concluded by that time i.e. before 4:30 pm. MLCs of the injured persons revealed that they were removed to Jag Parvesh Chander Hospital between 9:11 pm to 9:40 pm. There is no explanation as to why the injured were not removed to the hospital immediately after the incident. Pertinently, PW-12 ASI Ajeet testified that he reached at hospital at about 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm, and other witnesses gave evasive reply regarding the time Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 35 of total 37 KAUR Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:42 +0530 they reached at the hospital. Their evasive reply and contradictions about the time in the testimony of PW-12 also casts a doubt about the prosecution story.
54. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra 2010 (13) SCC 657, wherein it has observed as under:-
"14. Material Contradictions:
While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152).
15. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence".
55. Some of the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and the lapses in the investigation as discussed above, go to the root of the prosecution story and hence cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Needless to say at the cost of repetition, the onus was on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple precedents.
Digitally
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 36 of total 37
KAUR Date:
2025.09.10
16:51:46
+0530
56. In the case titled Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1997) 3 RCR (Crl.) 421, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as under:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to 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."
57. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Digitally
58. File be consigned to Record Room. signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Date:
2025.09.10 16:51:56 ON 10th September, 2025 +0530 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) Principal District & Sessions Judge North East, KKD Delhi/10.09.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 37 pages and each page Digitally signed is signed by me. by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.09.10 16:51:59 +0530 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) Principal District & Sessions Judge North East, KKD Delhi/10.09.2025 State V/s Samauddin & Ors. SC No. 131/2018 Page 37 of total 37