Delhi District Court
State vs Gulfam on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN : ASJ-02 :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
State Vs. Gulfam & Anr.
FIR No.: 759/2021
U/s : 436/34 IPC
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
SC No. : 260/2022
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 759/2021
Offence complained of : U/s 436/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 08.10.2021
Name of the complainant : SI Prakash Chand
Name of the accused : 1. Gulfam
S/o Late Sh. Nafees
R/o H.No.A-108, Sanjay Colony,
Okhla Phase - 2, New Delhi
2. Chandan
S/o Sh. Sudama
R/o H.No.I-48, Harkesh Nagar,
Okhla Phase - 2, New Delhi
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 20.04.2022
Date of Judgment reserved on : 09.09.2025
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 1 of 55
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2025
Final order : Both accused convicted
U/s 436/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Gulfam and Chandan faced trial in this case, for committing offences punishable under Section 436/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet was that on 08.10.2021, GD No.12A was received for investigation into GD No.24A wherein information was received that there has been a fire in the factory. Upon receiving the same complainant IO/SI Prakash Chand reached the spot at A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase II, alongwith Ct. Kapil and Ct. Anil. Around 25 fire tenders were found present at the spot which were continuously trying to douse the fire in the aforesaid factory and at that time there was fire in two vehicles i.e. one Eicher Truck bearing no.DL1GC8703 and one auto/TSR bearing no.HR38T-4148, which were parked outside the factory. Subsequently, rukka was prepared and sent for registration of FIR. During investigation site plan was prepared at the instance of owner of factory namely Sh. Satnam Nagpal. During investigation, it was also found that the factory was rented out by the owner to several persons. On 10.10.2021, the CCTV cameras of the place of incident were checked and suspected persons were found and their photographs were shown to local persons and secret information was received regarding presence of accused Gulfam at FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 2 of 55 the spot who was apprehended and interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. At the instance of accused Gulfam identity of accused Chandan and one suspect namely Suraj (not arrested in the present matter) were verified, and subsequently, investigation was carried out and co-accused Chandan was arrested.
3. The accused persons were chargesheeted under Section 436/34 IPC. After filing of the chargesheet, Court took cognizance of the offences against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons were charged with offences punishable under Section 436/34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution has examined 23 witnesses in support of its case: -
Serial Name of the Crux of deposition
Number Witness
PW-1 Sh. Jaivir The witness deposed that he was the security
(eye witness/ guard at the concerned factory and around
security guard in 03:30 am found that the factory had caught the concerned fire and thereafter call the owner of the factory) factory namely Sattu and thereafter helped the fire extinguisher in dousing the fire.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 3 of 55 PW-2 Sh. Bishwender The witness deposed that he was carrying out the business of cloth in the locality and heard around 4 am regarding fire in the factory and he called the police at 100 number and thereafter fire brigade and police reached the spot and during that time he was woken up by one boy who later he identified to be the accused Gulfam.
PW-3 Sh. Chetram The witness deposed that he was doing the (owner of the business of cotton waste at A-363, Sanjay truck which had Colony, Okhla and in the early morning caught fire) around 3:30 am he received a call from unknown number that his Eicher truck bearing no.DL1GC8703 had caught fire and that his truck was loaded with material which was of Rs.50,000/- approximately.
PW-4 Sh. Sunil The witness deposed that he was working in (employee in the the factory which had caught fire and had factory) not seen as to who had put fire in the factory. PW-5 Sh. Anil Kumar The witness deposed that he was doing the Srivastava business at the factory and was paying rent (tenant in the of Rs.7500/- per month to the owner Sh.
factory) Satnam Nagpal.
PW-6 Sh. Amit Nanda The witness deposed that he was doing the
(tenant in the business of yarn in the basement and on the
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 4 of 55
factory) first floor of the factory and used to pay a
rent of Rs.1,28,000/- p.m. as rent to the
owner Sh. Satnam Nagpal.
PW-7 Sh. Than Singh The witness deposed that he was doing
(tenant in the business of cloth in the factory and used to
factory) pay rent of Rs.24,000/- p.m. as rent to the
owner of the factory Sh. Satnam Nagpal and
upon being informed reached the place of
incident within 15 minutes and identified
accused Gulfam as accused Gulfam was
residing in the same locality and had even
worked for him prior to the incident.
PW-8 Sh. Atul Kapoor The witness deposed that he was doing
(tenant in the business of bags in the factory and used to
factory) pay rent of Rs.24,800/- p.m. as rent to the
owner of the factory Sh. Satnam Nagpal.
PW-9 Sh. Abhishek Sarna The witness deposed that he was doing (tenant in the business of garments in the factory and used factory) to pay rent of Rs.13,000/- p.m. as rent of one room to the owner of the factory.
PW-10 Sh. Satnam Nagpal To prove the material essentials of the (owner of the offences alleged.
factory) This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-11 Sh. Pankaj Katyal The witness deposed that he was doing
(tenant in the business of lighting in the factory and used
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 5 of 55
factory) to pay rent to the owner of the factory Sh.
Satnam Nagpal.
PW-12 Sh. Jitender Singh Witness deposed that he is the owner of auto (owner of burnt bearing no.HR38T4148 which was burnt in auto bearing no. the fire incident and proved photographs HR38T4148) bearing no.245, 247 and 249 affixed on page no.109 in judicial file Ex.PW12/A1 to A3.
This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-13 HC Anil Kumar Witness deposed regarding the different (accompanied the stages of investigation conducted and he IO to the spot at the tendered the following documents:-
time of incident) a) Site plan of place of occurrence -
Ex.PW13/A
b) Arrest memo of accused Gulfam
Ex.PW13/B
c) Personal search memo of accused Gulfam
Ex.PW13/C
d) Disclosure statement of accused Gulfam
Ex.PW13/D
e) Arrest memo of accused Chandan
Ex.PW13/E
f) Personal Search of accused Chandan
Ex.PW13/F
g) Disclosure statement of accused Chandan
Ex.PW13/G
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 6 of 55
h) Pointed out memo of place of occurrence
Ex.PW13/H
i) seizure memo of one piece of cloth, one
piece of bumper of truck and ashes of
burning cloth and thread Ex.PW13/I
j) Seizure memo of Truck DL1GC2703
Ex.PW13/J
k) Seizure memo of one burnt auto bearing
no.HR38T4148 Ex.PW13/K
l) Photographs of burnt factory which was
Ex.PW13/P1 and photographs of auto which
was Ex.PW12A1 to A3 and photographs of
truck which were Ex.PW13/P2 to P4.
m) The burnt ashes in a plastic box was
Ex.MO1, to Ex.MO4.
This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-14 HC Kapil The witness deposed on the lines of PW13.
(accompanied the
IO to the spot at the
time of incident)
PW-15 SI Hanu Ram Witness deposed that he reached the spot
(Crime Team with photographer ASI Babu Lal and the
Official/finger print photographs of the spot was taken from all proficient) angles and IO collected the exhibits from the spot and he had prepared the crime scene FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 7 of 55 report. The photographs were Ex.PW13/P1, Ex.PW12/A1to A3 and Ex.PW13/P2 to P4 and the crime scene report was Ex.PW15/A. This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-16 SI (Retd.) Suresh The witness deposed regarding registration of FIR Chand In the present matter.
(duty officer) PW-17 HC Jaspal Deposed regarding information received (duty officer) through DD No.12A and 24 A which were Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B PW-18 Sh. Ramhet The witness deposed that he was having (tenant in the business of katran/cutting of clothes and had factory) taken place on rent in the concerned factory and was paying rent of Rs.10,000/- pm to the owner of the factory namely Satnam Nagpal.
PW-19 Sh. T U Siddiqui Witness deposed that he had conducted (mechanical mechanical inspection of burnt vehicle and inspector) his inspection for the same was Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B PW-20 ASI Babu Lal Witness deposed that he had visited the (photographer with place of incident and IO Prakash Meena and crime team) staff and took the photographs of the spot and furnished the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which was Ex.PW20/A. PW-21 Sh. Anup Kumar The witness deposed that he had received Shukla, Asst. requirement of CCTV footage in respect to FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 8 of 55 Engineer PWD the place of incident and had furnished the same to the IO.
PW-22 HC Ramraj He deposited the exhibits to the FSL for opinion.
PW-23 Inspt. Prakash He conducted the investigation in the present
Chand Meena matter upon receiving information on
(IO) 08.10.2021 and regarding the different
stages of investigation conducted by him and
material essentials of the offences alleged.
6. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.03.2025, the accused persons have admitted the genuineness of the following documents:
S. No. Documents Admitted
1. FSL report of chemical examination Ex.A No.SFSL/DLH/11823/CHEM/3978/21 dated 21.11.2022 prepared by Sh. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry)
7. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:
PW-1 Sh. Jaivir deposed that he was a security guard in factory at A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. He did not remember the date but one day, he was sleeping in the above mentioned factory address. Around 3.30am, he heard stones being pelted on the factory and due to said noise, he woke up. He came out of his room and saw fire in the factory. He FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 9 of 55 called owner of the said factory from his mobile phone and name of the said owner was Sattu and told him that his factory caught fire. Then red vehicle having water came to the spot. Then, he aided fire extinguishers, in extinguishing fire in the factory. Then, owner of the factory came and enquired from him as to how said fire had broken out. He told owner that he was sleeping and told him that he did not know how that fire had broken out. He did not know who had put fire in the said factory in the said day of incident. He could not identify the accused persons.
PW-2 Sh. Bishwender deposed that he was doing the business of cloth from his home. On 07.10.2021, he was sleeping in his home and at about 3.40- 4pm, he heard "aag lag gyi, aag lag gyi", from outside. Then he came to balcony of his house. He saw one boy and asked him, what had happened and that boy told him that he was waking people in his neighbour as fire had broken out in one company near his house. Then, he called police at 100 number after seeing fire in the said company. Fire brigade and police came to the spot and he met them. On the day of incident, he did not know who had caused fire in the factory. After 2-3 days, one video on WhatsApp had gone viral. After seeing said video, he came to know that the boy who had woken him up, had caused fire in the company. He told the said fact to police. When he saw the fire in the company, he had not seen any other boy there. Witness was asked to identify accused persons in the court to which he replies that he could not identify the accused persons as with the passage of time, health of said persons has changed. Witness then requested that accused persons may be asked to speak something. In response to the same, FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 10 of 55 court has asked accused persons to tell their names. After listening their voice, witness has identified accused Gulfam being the person who had come to the witness and had told him that fire had broken out. Witness submits that he has identified accused Gulfam on the basis of his voice.
Witness has failed to identify accused Chandan being one of the culprits.
During cross examination PW-2 deposed that he received video which had become viral through WhatsApp. The balcony of his house on the day of incident was at the first floor. It was located at a height of 10-12 ft. from ground. Accused Gulfam had told him about the fire from ground. Various persons were also shouting about fire in the company, in the night when he had woken up. At that time, lot of noise was coming from outside. His house was at a distance of 100 mtr. from factory. He had not seen accused Gulfam, prior to said incident. The road in front of his house was a main road on which heavy vehicles come. Street light was present at a distance of 12 ft. from my house. He had stopped accused Gulfam and then asked as to what had happened when he had come to his house. He could not confirm whether light was switched on, on ground floor of house when accused Gulfam had come to his house on the day of incident. He could not confirm whether owner of factory had put fire in his factory, for claiming insurance.
PW-3 Sh. Chetram deposed that he was doing the business of cotton waste, situated at A-363, Sanjay Colony Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. In the early hours of 08.10.2021 i.e. around 03.30-04.00am, he received call from FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 11 of 55 unknown number. The caller told him that his vehicle i.e. Eicher truck bearing no.DL1GC 8703 had caught fire. At that time, he used to do the business of cotton waste and said truck was being used by him for the said business. Then he came to the colony where he had parked said truck. He found his truck in fire. The said truck was loaded with material which was of Rs.50,000/- approximately. Then, fire brigade came for extinguishing the fire. Police had inquired from him and had recorded his statement. During cross-examination PW-1 court questions were asked as under.
"Court Q.1 What was the cause of fire?
Ans: I do not know. Court Q.2 Who had caused fire? Ans: I do not know."
Despite opportunity granted PW3 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
PW-4 Sh. Sunil deposed that in the year 2021 he was employed in a factory namely A.K. Personal Care whose owner was Rajwansh, who expired in the year 2018. The said factory had caught fire. On 30.10.2021, the said factory had caught fire. He did not know the cause of fire in said factory. He and Mahender used to take care of said company as daughter of Rajwansh was residing outside India. The said factory used to make head cover Industrial Mask. The said factory had no licence to do said business. He did not know about the persons who had caused fire in the said factory. Despite opportunity granted PW-4 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 12 of 55 PW-5 Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava deposed that he used to do the business under the name and style of Srivastava Engineering which he used to run on ground floor in A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. He used to pay rent of Rs.7500/- per month to owner Satnam Nagpal. The said property i.e. A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi had caught fire in the year 2021. He did not know how said property caught fire. He did not know who caused said fire.
Despite opportunity granted PW-4 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
PW-6 Sh. Amit Nanda deposed that he used to do business in basement and first floor in factory i.e. A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, in the year 2021. He used to the business of Yarn. In the factory, he had godown of surplus yarn, on rent. He used to pay Rs. 1,28,000/- as rent to owner of said premises namely Satnam Nagpal. On 08.10.2021, he was present at his home as mentioned above. Around 3.40 am, he came to know that fire had broken out in above mentioned factory. He reached there within one hour from his home. He found fire in the said factory and fire extinguishing vehicles deployed there, extinguishing the said fire. On 11.10.202 they came to know through CCTV footage recording installed in the premises, opposite factory in question that said fire was ignited by two boys. He came to know names of said boys as Gulfam and Chandan from local neighbours. After arrest of accused Gulfam and Chandan, he was called in police station by the police, where FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 13 of 55 he identified them being the culprits. He had given registration certificates of his company to the police during investigation. Police had recorded his statement during investigation.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-6 deposed that he had never met accused Gulfam prior to the incident in question. The CCTV was not installed in their factory premises. It was installed on the opposite side of the road by Delhi Government. It was correct that the factory premises is commercial and is net used for residential purposes. He was doing the business of yarn at the factory premises for last 18-19 years. He had no enmity with accused Gulfam.
PW-7 Sh. Than Singh deposed that he was doing the business of cloths. He was doing the business of cloths on 08.10.2021, in factory i.e. A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, on its back side. He used to give Rs. 24000/- as rent to the owner of said factory namely Satnam Nagpal. He was present at his home as mentioned above and around 3 am, he came to know that fire had broken out in the above mentioned factory. He reached at the said factory within 15 mintues and found the said factory on fire. On the next day, his brother namely Bal Kishan had messaged him through WhatsApp, photograph of a person who was igniting the fire in the said factory and he identified him as accused Gulfam, on the basis of the fact that he used to reside in the same locality near my house. Further, accused Gulfam had worked for him on one occasion prior to said incident.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 14 of 55 During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-7 deposed that he did the business of cloths at the factory premises for two years and left the same after the incident in question, due to lack of business by the countrywide Lockdown. He did not know Gulfam before the incident but he have seen traveling him on the road nearby to the factory. He did not have any enmity with accused Gulfam.
PW-8 Sh. Atul Kapoor deposed that he was having factory at 2nd floor in property bearing no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, which he had taken on rent. He was paying Rs.24800/- to the owner of the said portion of the property as rent. He used to do the business of manufacturing of bag. He was running the said business under the name and style of M/s A.K. Enterprises. On 08.10.2021, he came to know that his factory had caught fire. He was at his home in Shahadra at that time. He came to the said rented accommodation and found that whole building had caught fire. His total material lying in the factory, was damaged due to fire. He had seen one CCTV footage in which he saw one boy namely Gulfam, who had put fire. He was not acquainted with Gulfam, till the time he was told by police, during investigation that his name was Gulfam. He had seen Gulfam putting fire in the building i.e. A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. Witness correctly identify accused Gulfam.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-8 deposed FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 15 of 55 that he had given his statement to police during investigation. He had not seen the contents of his statement. Police had also not told him about the contents of his statement. Further police had only made inquiry from him by putting questions regarding incident in question and he gave answers to those questions. After 3/4 days of incident in question, one Mr. Nagpal, who was owner of building bearing no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi had asked him to accompany him and other tenants of said building for going to police station. Accordingly, he had gone with them to police station and police made inquiry from him in police station. Till the time, when he had gone to police station for the purpose of said inquiry, he had not seen CCTV footage. He had seen CCTV footage of incident in question after about 8-10 days of incident in question. Mr. Nagpal had sent him whatsapp video of the said CCTV footage on his mobile and thereafter only then he had seen the said CCTV footage on his mobile. Mr. Nagpal had sent him the said whatsapp video in routine manner. Mr. Nagpal had told him that he was sending him the whatsapp video to tell him about the person who had put fire in the said building. He had never seen accused Gulfam prior to seeing that video of CCTV footage. He could not tell exact or approximate date after which police had told him about the identity of accused Gulfam. IO had called one Amit Nanda/PW-6 and had informed him that accused Gulfam was arrested and he along with rest of the tenants of building no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi were called in police station. After visiting police station, he saw accused Gulfam in police station and after seeing him, he returned to his home. One Amit Nanda had told him FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 16 of 55 the name of the person who was apprehended by police was Gulfam. He had reached at his factory at 06.00am on 08.10.2021. When he reached at the factory building, he found that said building was burning. In the CCTV footage, he had seen accused Gulfam climbing the wall of property bearing no. A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi and putting fire in the material, lying in said building " maine dekha tha ki Gulfam property no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi ki diwar par chadhkar waha rakhe rui aur kapde ke dher main aag laga raha tha". He had not seen accused Gulfam spraying petrol or any inflammable material putting on the said building. It was correct that Gulfam had not brought the cotton over there rather it was already lying over there. He had never met Gulfam. He had seen Gulfam for the first time at the police chowki after his arrest. He did not have any knowledge about the dispute of the property owned by Mr. Nagpal. During cross examination following court questions were asked:-
Court Q.1 Till date, whether you have inquired from anybody or you were told by anybody regarding the reason as to why accused Gulfam had ignited building no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi?
Ans: Till date, I am not told by anybody as to why accused Gulfam had ignited the said building. I also did not make any inquiry regarding the same as I was disturbed by the loss of my factory material.
Court Q.2 Whether police had told you that besides Gulfam, accused Chandan had also ignited building no.A-118, Sanjay FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 17 of 55 Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi?
Ans: No. He did not have said CCTV footage video with him as it was deleted when his phone got corrupted. His factory was not insured therefore, he did not receive any money from insurance company. He did not know whether other tenants in building no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi had received any insurance money from insurance company. He did not have any knowledge regarding the fact that accused Chandan was also involved in said incident and that is why he was arrested by police.
PW-9 Sh. Abhishek Sarna deposed that he was running a factory Alfa Global for garments at Okhla Industrial Area. Now, he did not remember the address. He had taken one room on rent on the ground floor @ Rs.13000/- per month for office activity. One day, he was told that building, where he had taken one room on rent, had caught fire. He sent his manager to the building and found out that while the building had caught fire, their room did not face any particular damage. He did not personally visit the premises.
Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and the previous statement of the witness was Mark PW9/A dated 02.11.2021 and witness denied having made such statement to the police. It was correct that he was running a factory at premises no.A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla-II, New Delhi. It was correct that he took one room at ground floor on the above said address. He did not remember that the Katran (garment FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 18 of 55 wastage) were available in the room or not. He did not remember the name of the factory owner as Satnam Nagpal but he used to pay Rs.13,000/- to him. It was correct that he did not insure the said rented premises. He did not remember if on 08.10.2021 he came to know that factory caught fire. Despite opportunity granted PW-9 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
PW-10 Sh. Satnam Nagpal (owner of the factory) deposed that on 08.10.2021, he was running a factory in which the electrical work was doing in my factory situated A-118, Okhla Industrial Area Phase II (near Sanjay Colony), Delhi. Factory build-up was basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. He was looking after the factory, after death of his father. He had given the premises on rent to eight different tenants.
They were doing work of cloth and yarn/thread, clothes, LED lights, cotton surplus, freelancer, yarn threading etc. He had prepared the business collaboration agreement between tenants. He had joined the investigation of this case. He had handed over the photocopy of entire business collaboration deed agreements, factory licence deeds, and factory licence certificate to the IO. On 08.10.2021, at about 04:00 am he had received a phone call from his security guard Jaiveer that fire took place in his factory. He reached at factory at about 5 am. He saw that his factory was burning due to fire. Fire brigade vehicle and police officials were already present their and they were trying to put off the fire. He had seen the accused persons who set the fire on his factory in the police chowki, Phase III after 3-4 days when he went to chowki to collect the FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 19 of 55 copy of FIR before that time he have never seen the accused persons. His statement was recorded by the IO. The photocopy of the agreements and documents were handed over to the police which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and he had given the reply of the notice U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. to the IO and provided the copies of rent agreements and copies of business collaboration agreement with the reply of the notice alongwith annexure A, reply was Ex. PW10/B and anneuxre A was Ex. PW10/C and photocopy of the entire agreements and documents was Ex.PW10/P1 (Colly). Witness correctly identify the accused persons and stated that he had seen both the accused persons in the CCTV footage at the time of fire incident at his factory.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-10 deposed that it was correct that the factory licence of the factory at A-118 Okhla Industrial Area Phase II has expired on 31.03.2020. He deposed that he had filed the application for renewal the said licence. It was correct that he did not have fire NOC for the above premises. He voluntarily deposed that he had seen 20-22 fire extinguishers in the factory. His security guard Jaiveer knew how to use the fire cylinder. He had used the fire extinguishers at the time of incident and he had used only 1-2 of the fire extinguishers. It was correct that he had not seen anybody putting fire on factory at spot. He deposed that he had seen the accused persons through CCTV of firing incident. He had seen the CCTV footage on 10.10.2021. He did not know the accused persons who had set fire the factory.
Subsequently, the pen drive containing the CCTV footage of the incident FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 20 of 55 annexed with judicial record was taken out and played. Upon being played, witness deposed that accused namely Chandan was visible in the CCTV footage at 03:46 am and upon being further played the CCTV footage the witness deposed that another accused namely Gulfam was visible in the CCTV footage at 03:47 am and soon thereafter, the accused Gulfam has set fire in the factory area in the factory where the truck was parked and thereafter the fire/flames have erupted, thereafter accused Gulfam was seen walking away from the site and waking towards the board mentioning Gujjar Chowk, on the other side and came towards accused Chandan and after setting fire in the factory by accused Gulfam, accused Chandan is seen walking on the other side. Both accused were present at the time of set the fire in the factory. The pen drive was Ex. P-1.
Court observed that the witness correctly identified the accused persons in the CCTV footage. He had not seen the accused persons prior to the incident. He had seen the CCTV footage which was being circulated on the whatsapp group of the area and thereafter he had identify the accused persons from the aforesaid knowledge. He was the actual owner of the factory alongwith his sister in law. It was correct that the original allottee of the factory was his father. It was correct that after the demise of his father, the factory came in equal share of him and his mother.
PW-11 Sh. Pankaj Katyal deposed that he had running a factory on the first floor of premises A-118, near Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase II, Delhi. He took the above said premises on tenancy from factory owner Satnam Nagpal and he was running a firm in the name of Wintech Lighting and he FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 21 of 55 was owner of the said company. He had stock in the above said factory and there is no need for any insurance and licence of the stock. On 08.10.2021, he came to know that fire took place in the factory when he went at the factory he saw that factory was burning and some police officials and fire brigade was found there. There was one truck and one auto was also burning which was parked near the boundary wall of the factory. Police never brought any person in his presence who had set the fire on the factory.
He could not identify the accused persons and he had never seen the accused persons. He had seen the accused persons only in CCTV footage. He voluntarily deposed that accused persons never produced before him personally by the police after incident.
Despite opportunity granted PW11 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
PW-12 Sh. Jitender Singh deposed that he had purchased auto bearing no.HR38T4148 through dealer. He used to run the above said auto in the local area of Okhla Harikesh Nagar Metro Station. He had parked my above said auto near factory no.A-118, Sanjay Colony Okhla Phase I, Delhi because engine of auto was not working property. Some part of engine of his auto had been stolen and he parked the above said auto near the above said factory. He did not remember the date but he reached at there and where he saw that his auto was burnt due to fire and the above factory was also completely burnt by fire situated at A-118. His auto had been burnt from the back side due to fire. The photograph has been taken by the police FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 22 of 55 of his burnt auto. He had seen the photographs of his auto bearing no.HR38T4148 from judicial file. The photographs bearing no.245, 247 and 249 affixed on page no.109 in judicial file was Ex.PW12/A1 to A3. One truck parked near to his auto was also burnt. Documents pertaining to his auto has also been burnt at the time of fire set on his auto. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW12 deposed that he had parked his auto in front of the above said truck. Front side of his auto was not burnt however, back side of his auto was burnt in the incident of fire. Cylinder of CNG installed in his auto was not burnt because it was installed under the auto.
PW-13 HC Anil Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 07- 08.10.2021 he was posted as Constable at PS OIA. On that day he alongwith IO reached at the factory situated Plot No.A-118, Sanjay Colony, OIA, Delhi. Where they saw that factory was burning due to fire and fire tender were trying to set off the fire. A truck was also burning which was parked out side near, the factory and one auto was also burning which was parked outside the factory. On the basis of incident, IO prepared the rukka and sent to Ct. Kapil for registration of case. After registration of case Ct. Kapil came back at the spot and copy of FIR/ rukka was handed over to IO. Site plan of place of occurrence was prepared by the IO was Ex.PW13/A. He alongwith IO had checked the CCTV footage of the area where in CCTV footage two suspected person had seen who set the fire in the factory. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached at Y Block Sanjay Colony where they apprehended one suspected person who was seen in the CCTV FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 23 of 55 footage. During interrogation he disclosed his name as Gulfam and admitted that he had set the fire on the factory with accused Suraj and Chandan. He arrested the accused Gulfam vide memo Ex.PW13/B. Personal search of Gulfam was conducted by IO vide memo Ex.PW13/C. Disclosure statement of accused Gulfam was recorded by IO vide Ex.PW1/D. On the next day, i.e. 11.10.2021, Accused Chandan was got arrested at the instance of accused Gulfam. IO made enquiry from Chandan and arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/E. Personal search of accused Chandan conducted by IO vide memo Ex.PW13/F. Disclosure statement of accused Chandan was recorded same was Ex.PW13/G. Both accused persons had pointed out the place of occurrence and both accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo of place of occurrence was prepared by IO was Ex.PW13/H. IO collected one piece of cloth and one peace of bumper of truck and the ashes of burning cloth and thread was also seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/I. IO had seized the truck no.DL1GC2703 was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/J. One burnt auto bearing no.HR38T4148 was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/K. Photographs of the burning factory, above said auto and truck was taken by crime team. They had tried to search the accused Suraj but could not be traced. His statement was recorded by the IO. The photograph of burnt factory from the judicial file at page no.105 to 108 was Ex. PW13/P1 (Colly). The photograph of auto bearing no.HR38T4148 seen from judicial file and correctly identify the auto which was seized by the IO. Three photograph of above said auto at page no.109 of judicial file and the same was Ex. PW12/A1 to A3. The FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 24 of 55 photograph of one truck at page no.113 from judicial file seen by witness and correctly identified the truck which was seized by the IO. The three photographs of above burnt truck was Ex.PW13/P2 to P4. Witness correctly identify accused Gulfam and Chandan.
Witness correctly identify the ashes which was seized by the IO from the spot. The burnt ashes and plastic box was Ex. MO1. Witness further correctly identify the burnt plastic piece of bumper of the truck which was seized by the IO from the spot. The burnt ashes and plastic box was Ex.MO2. Witness further correctly identify burnt cloth pieces/kattaran which was seized by the IO from the spot. The burnt ashes and plastic box was Ex. MO3. Witness further correctly identify the vehicle in the photograph of the auto no.HR38T4148 which was parked in the police station and the same was seized by the IO. The above said auto was Ex.MO4.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-13 deposed that he reached at the spot at about 03:40 am. He was informed about the chowki incharge about the incident upon which he reached at the spot. Due to massive fire, there were several fire tenders which were trying to extinguish the fire and they were coming and going. The factory in which the fire was happening was dealing with clothe cutting (katran ka kaam). They met the chowkidar of the factory whose name is Ramavtar. When he reached, he had not seen that Ramavtar tried to extinguish fire. The factory was walled from all sides and the walls were not constructed till very high and were short. On that day, they remained at the spot almost for entire day since he was posted in the chowki only which was very near by to the place FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 25 of 55 of incident. The fire took almost 3-4 days to settle. No person was injured in the aforesaid fire. He did not remember the exact time when the factory owner had reached at the spot on that day. They had gone to check the CCTV footage on the next day at around 8:00-9:00 am. The CCTV footage was checked of several factories where ever they were installed and were also checked from Govt. cameras which were installed in the areas by connecting from mobile phone. The disclosure statement of accused Gulfam was recorded at police station. The site plan Ex.PW13/H was prepared by the IO at the instance of accused Gulfam on the spot. The disclosure statement of accused Chandan was recorded by the IO at police station was Ex.PW13/G. PW14 HC Kapil deposed that in the intervening night of 07-08.10.2021, he was posted as Constable at PS OIA at Police Post. On that day, he alongwith IO and Ct. Anil reached at the factory situated Plot No.A-118, Sanjay Colony, OIA, Delhi. Where we saw that factory was burning due to fire and fire tender were trying to set of the fire. A truck was also burning which was parked outside near the factory and one auto was also burning which was park outside the factory. They came to know that the factory in which there was fire was having one of cloth factory/ katran, thereafter, they started controlling the crowd. There was no casualty in the fire. On the basis of incident, IO prepared the rukka and sent through him for registration of case. After registration of case he came back at the spot and copy of FIR/rukka was handed over to IO. Site plan of place of occurrence was prepared by the IO was Ex.PW13/A. On 10.10.2021, he alongwith IO FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 26 of 55 had checked the CCTV footage of the area where in CCTV footage two suspected person had seen who set the fire in the factory. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached at Y Block Sanjay Colony where they apprehended one suspected person who was seen in the CCTV footage. During interrogation he disclosed his name as Gulfam and the interrogation was made by IO who disclosed that he had set the fire on the factory with accused Suraj and Chandan. He arrested the accused Gulfam vide memo Ex.PW13/B. Personal search of Gulfam was conducted by IO vide memo Ex.PW13/C. Disclosure statement of accused Gulfam was recorded by IO vide Ex.PW1/D. Pointing out memo/site plan of place of occurrence was prepared by IO was Ex.PW13/H. Thereafter, medical examination of accused was conducted and accused was produced before the court concerned and his PC remand was obtained. On the same day, search for co-accused persons namely Chandan and Suraj was made but no whereabouts of their could be ascertained on that day. Thereafter, medical examination of the accused was conducted and he was kept in lock-up of the police station. On the next day, i.e. 11.10.2021, Accused Chandan was got arrested at the instance of accused Gulfam. IO made enquiry from Chandan and arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/E. Personal search of accused Chandan conducted by IO vide memo Ex.PW13/F. Disclosure statement of accused Chandan was recorded was Ex.PW13/G. Thereafter, medical examination of accused chandan got conducted and produced before the Court and his PC remand was sought from the Court and thereafter, accused persons were taken to Sanjay colony to look for accused Suraj but accused Suraj was not found. Thereafter, both accused FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 27 of 55 were medically examined as per rules and sent to police lock-up. On 12.10.2021, they again went to the place of incident/spot and met the security guard of the company namely Jaiveer who upon seeing both the accused namely Gulfam and Chandan had identified and who had informed them that both aforesaid accused persons were found present on the date of incident in the night and roaming near the factory premises around 1-2 am. At that time, they also met one passerby who informed them that while he was sleeping, he had heard noises of two persons/boys who were saying "aag lag gayee" and when he came out of his house, he saw that there was fire at the factory of the complainant. Bishwender/caller who was the same person had made call at 100 number informing regarding the fire. He saw the CCTV footage and thereafter identified both the accused persons as the same persons who were shouting outside of his house in the night by saying "aag lag gayee". Thereafter, IO called the crime team and crime team took the photographs of the spot and also seized the exhibits. IO collected one piece of cloth and one peace of bumper of truck and the ashes of burning cloth and thread was also seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/I. IO had seized the truck no.DL1GC2703 vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/J. One burnt auto bearing no.HR38T4148 was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/K. Photographs of the burning factory, above said auto and truck was taken by crime team. At that time, IO with the help of crane had taken the truck and auto. Both accused were got medically examined and were sent to police lock-up. On 13.10.2021, we had taken both the accused persons and looked for accused Suraj. We had tried to search the accused Suraj but could not be traced. Thereafter, medical examination of FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 28 of 55 both accused persons got conducted and produced before the court and they were sent to JC. His statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the case property.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-14 deposed that they had reached at spot around 4:15 am. They had joined the investigation with the IO and the contents of the information was shared with them by the IO. There were around 25 fire tenders which were trying to extinguish the fire. They remained present at the spot for almost for the whole day as they were posted in the chowki. He received the rukka from IO for registration of FIR at around 05:40 pm. The factory owner had visited the place of incident subsequently. He did not know if factory owner had visited the spot on 08.10.2021. They had started perusing the CCTV footage installed in the area around 9:00 am on 10.10.2021. The government CCTV cameras installed in the area were examined by the IO after connecting with password from his mobile phone. He had not met accused Gulfam and accused Chandan prior to 10.10.2021. Both accused Gulfam and Chandan could be seen in the CCTV footage putting fire in front of the factory. During investigation, the CCTV footage was circulated to trace the identify of the accused persons upon which information was received and accused persons were apprehended. He did not know the name of the person who had identified the accused persons after seeing the CCTV footage. It was correct that both accused were working as laborer in the factory area for loading and unloading of the clothes/ katran from the trucks. The disclosure statement of accused Gulfam was recorded at police FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 29 of 55 station. The site plan Ex. PW13/H was prepared by the IO at the instance of accused Gulfam on the spot. The disclosure statement of accused Chandan was recorded by the IO at police station which was already Ex.PW13/G. PW-15 SI Hanu Ram deposed that On 12.10.2021, he was posted as ASI in Crime Team South East District, Delhi and working as finger print proficient. On that day, he received a call from control room to reach at place of occurrence. He alongwith ASI Babu Lal that is photographer reached at place of occurrence that is A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. He inspected the place of occurrence and as per his direction ASI Babu Lal had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles and IO collected the exhibits from the spot in presence and he had prepared scene of crime report and handed over to IO. He had seen the photographs taken by ASI Babu Lal and same are already Ex.PW13/P1 (Colly) and photographs already Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A3 and the photographs already Ex.PW13/P2 to Ex.PW13/P4. The scene of crime report was Ex.PW15/A. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-15 deposed that he received a call from control room to visit the place of occurrence. He had received the above said call on 12.10.2021 at 12 noon. When they reached at the spot, IO was already present there. It was correct that above said photographs were taken by the photographer on 12.10.2021. Some public persons were present there but he could not say they were owner or employee of the factory. On that day, no finger print was traced from the FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 30 of 55 place of incident.
PW-16 SI (Retd.) Suresh Chand deposed that on 08.10.2021, he was posted as ASI and working as Duty Officer from 04:00 pm to 12 night. On that day, he had received a rukka through Ct. Kapil sent by IO SI Prakash Chand Meena. On the basis of rukka, he recorded the FIR on the computer. The FIR No.759/2021 was Ex.PW16/A. After registration of the case FIR and rukka was handed over to Ct Kapil to deliver the same to the IO.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW16 deposed that he had received the rukka around 5:40 pm. He did not remember if any other FIR was registered on that day while he was on duty having aforesaid duty hours. He had not received any written complaint apart from the rukka in the present matter.
PW-17 HC Jaspal deposed that on 08.10.2021, he was working as duty officer at PS OIA from 12:00 noon to 08:00 am. On that day, he received an information through PCR regarding fire incident in a factory and parked vehicles near the factory. He had recorded the above said information by DD No.12A and information was marked to SI Prakash Chand Meena and also sent him through whatsapp. The DD No.12A was Ex.PW17/A. He had also recorded an information vide DD No.24A dated 08.10.2021 at 05:49 am was Ex. PW17/B. Same information was also sent to SI Prakash Chand Meena through whatsapp.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 31 of 55 During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW17 deposed that he had received only above said two information during my duty time on that day. He received the directions from the SHO to forwarded the information of DD No.12A to SI Prakash Chand Meena for further proceeding. At that time, SHO was present at the police station.
PW-18 Sh. Ramhet deposed that he was having a godown/factory of katran of clothes/cutting of clothes at A-118, Sanjay Colony, Phase II, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi which was taken by him on rent against the payment of Rs.10,000/- per month from the owner namely Satnam Nagpal. In the intervening night of 07/08.10.2021 the factory caught fired in the night. He came to know about fire in the factory of the godown in early morning of 08.10.2021. He did not know as to how the factory was caught fired. He did not know who had burnt his factory. Later on he came to know from the camera that it was someone has burnt my factory. The documents related to his factory were burnt in the said fire.
Despite opportunity granted PW17 was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
PW-19 Sh. T.U. Siddiqui deposed that on 05.12.2021, he inspected one TSR No.HR38T4148 on the request of SI Prakash Chand and on 05.12.2021. My inspection report was Ex.PW19/A. He had inspected one Eicher Pro CNG bearing DL1GC8703 on the request of SI Prakash Chand and he had submitted my detailed report and both the vehicle were in off road condition and damaged. He had mentioned the complete detail in his FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 32 of 55 detailed report was Ex.PW19/B. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW19 deposed that he inspected the above said both vehicle at Malkhana PS Okhla Insutrial Area. He could not tell how much time taken by me for the inspection of aforesaid vehicle. He did not take the photograph of above said vehicle at the time of his inspection. He had mentioned all the damages mentioned in the report under paragraph no.22 in list of damage vehicle. @@@@@@ PW-20 ASI Babu Lal deposed that on 12.10.2021, he was posted as ASI Photographer of crime team South East District, Delhi. On that day, he alongwith ASI Hanuram finger print proficient reached at spot after receiving an information from the control room and we visited at place of occurrence. IO SI Prakash Meena met them at spot with other police staff. They had inspected the place of occurrence and at the instance of IO, he had taken 22 photographs of place of occurrence from different angle. He had handed over the above said photographs in a pen drive to the IO. He had seen the photographs from the judicial file which was taken by me and same are from page no.107 to 114. Same are already Ex.PW13/P1 (Colly) and Ex.PW12/A2 and Ex.PW12/A3 from page no.107 to 114 respectively. He had taken the above said photographs after incident. He had also brought the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding said photographs handed over to IO in a pen drive. The certificate was Ex.PW20/A. Five photographs available on judicial file which were of the day of incident at page no.105 to 106 are not taken by him and these photographs were on the day of occurrence and on that day he had not FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 33 of 55 visited at the place of occurrence i.e. 08.10.2021.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW20 deposed that they reached at the site at around 12:30 pm. He stayed there around 12:55 pm. He did not see any used fire extinguisher cylinder at the place of occurrence. He did not met any guard or factory owner at the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence was opened but the same has been demarcated by the local police.
PW-21 Sh. Anup Kumar Shukla, Assistant Engineer PWD CCTV deposed that on 11.11.2021, he was posted as Assistant Engineer at PWD, CCTV 13th Floor, MSO Building, ITO, Delhi. After receiving the requirement of CCTV footage in respect of ODE No.522809 Constituency Name Tuglakabad, the same was forwarded to Bharat Electronic Limited who was the maintaining authority of CCTV Camera of entire Delhi. After receiving footage from Bharat Electronic Limited vide letter no. 54(22)/EEE-1/CCTV, WIFI, ST/LIGHTS/2021-22/629(H) dated 11.11.2021, it was handed over to concerned police official of PS OIA was Ex.PW21/A and the same was received in a pen drive alongwith necessary certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act received was Ex.PW21/B . The aforesaid letter/reply was received in view of their letter initially sent vide letter no.54(22)/EEE-1/CCTV, WIFI, ST/LIGHTS/2021-22/323(H) dated 11.10.2021 to Project Manager Sh. Ashish Yadav regarding CCTV footage was Ex.PW21/C. Witness correctly identify the pen drive Ex.P-1. The FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 34 of 55 aforesaid pen drive was handed over by him to the police official.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW21 deposed that all the CCTV cameras installed in Delhi were installed and maintained by Bharat Electronic Limited under the agreement with PWD. The PWD department have the legal authority to provide the recording/CCTV footage to any of the authorities upon requisition only if the requisite criteria are fulfilled. I did not have any information regarding the present incident prior to the present requisition receipt.
PW-22 HC Ram Raj deposed that on 22.11.2021, he was posted as Ct. at Okhla Industrial Area. On that day, as per direction of IO, he collected the sealed exhibits from the MHC(M)(CP) vide RC No.230/21/21 dated 22.11.2021 and same were deposited in FSL Rohini, New Delhi in sealed condition and received the acknowledgment receipt from the FSL Rohini, Delhi was Ex.PW22/A and same was handed over to the IO. As long as the above sealed parcel remained in my custody, no body had tempered with the exhibits. His statement was recorded by the IO.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-22 deposed that he did not remember the initials of the seal on the exhibits which he had submitted in the FSL Rohini, Delhi. He started from the police station at around 10:30 am and he reached at FSO Rohini, Delhi at around 11:30 am - 12 noon. He was not remembering the person to whom he had handed FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 35 of 55 over the above said exhibits but he had handed over the above exhibits in the Science Laboratory FSL Rohini, Delhi.
PW-23 Inspt. Prakash Chand Meena (IO) deposed that on 08.10.2021, he was posted as IC PP Okhla PS OIA. A PCR call regarding fire at A-118, Factory, Sanjay Colony was received. The same was marked to him vide DD No.24A. He was already present at the spot. 25 Fire Tenders were already present at the spot. One truck bearing no.DL1GC8703 and one auto bearing no.HR38T4148 were also burning during the aforesaid fire which were parked near the factory. No eye witness was found at the spot. Factory owner was also not present at the spot at that time. He endorsed the DD No.12A vide Ex.PW23/A for registration of FIR. Ct. Kapil was sent to PS OIA for registration of FIR was Ex.PW16/A. After registration of FIR, Ct. Kapil came at spot and copy of FIR, original tehrir were handed over to him. During investigation, he prepared the site plan was Ex.PW13/A. He had recorded the statement of Ct. Kapil and Ct. Anil. Factory owner Mr. Nagpal met him there. He examined him and he stated that the factory were given to different tenants for work of katran and thread etc. On 10.10.2021, he alongwith Ct. Kapil, Ct. Anil seen the CCTV footage installed nearby factory and found that two suspect persons were seen in the footage and one of them setting fire in the factory. CCTV footage was shown to local public persons. From the local public and secret information it has been found that one person seen in the footage found to be a person namely Gulfam. It has been learn that one person shown in footage is seen at Sanjay Colony. They reach at Y Block Sanjay Colony and accused Gulfam FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 36 of 55 was apprehended. He was interrogated, and he confessed his crime and his disclosure statement was recorded vide disclosure statement was Ex.PW13/D. He was arrested in the present matter on 10.10.2021 vide arrest memo was Ex.PW13/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo was Ex.PW13/C. During investigation, accused Gulfam was taken to spot and fard nishan dehi of place of incident was prepared vide memo already Ex.PW13/H. After medical examination of accused Gulfam, he was produced before the concerned court and one day PC remand was sought. Thereafter, on 11.10.2021, at the instance of accused Gulfam co-accused Chandan was apprehended from Okhla Mandi. Accused Chandan was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW13/G. Accused Chandan was arrested on 11.10.2021 vide arrest memo was Ex.PW13/E and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW11/F. Subsequently, search was made for another accused namely Suraj but he could not be found. After medical examination both accused were produced before concerned Court and two days PC remand of both accused was sought to search for co-accused Suraj. However, no whereabout of co- accused Suraj could be found. On 12.10.2021, he alongwith Ct. Kapil and Ct. Anil, both accused persons were taken to spot for further investigation and one factory security guard namely Jaiveer met them there. He identify both accused persons and told that both accused persons were seen near by factory in the intervening night of the incident. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witness Jaiveer in this regard. At the same time, one public person namely Bishvender also met him and he stated that he had made PCR call regarding this incident and thereafter, he examined him and FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 37 of 55 recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he had also called the crime team at the spot and crime team inspected the spot. Photographs of the spot were taken by the crime team which are already Ex.PW13/P1 (Colly). Exhibits were collected and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW13/I. During further investigation, one burnt truck and one burnt auto was seized. The Eicher Truck No.DL1GC8703 was seized vide memo already Ex.PW13/J and auto bearing no.HR38T4148 was seized vide Ex.PW13/K. He had also seized the documents pertaining to the aforesaid vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/B. The exhibits were sent to FSL. CCTV footage of the incident was collected from concerned department of PWD. The letter pertaining to the same was already Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/A. During investigation factory owner and other tenants were examined and their statement was also recorded. The documents were sought from the factory owner after sending him notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. the reply of the same by Satnam Nagpal was Ex.PW10/B. Further on 04.12.2021, the owner of factory Sh. Satnam Nagpal had come to the police station to file reply and furnished documents, and thereafter the documents pertaining to factory was seized vide memo already Ex.PW10/A. Fire incident/detailed report was collected through on-line was Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of all the witnesses in the present matter and he had prepared the chargesheet and filed before the concerned Court. During investigation, the CCTV footage was analyzed and timing chart of the same was prepared was Ex.PW23/C. Mechanical inspection of both burnt vehicle was also got conducted. Witness correctly identify both accused persons. The case FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 38 of 55 property was already exhibited in the testimony of PW-13 HC Anil Kumar. During testimony CCTV footage was played in the court. He had collected the CCTV footage from two government cameras which were covering the area and the place of incident. Both the CCTV footage were procured from PWD CCTVs installed in the area.
Court observed that the CCTV footage annexed with judicial file in a pen drive Ex.P-1 was played covering the place of incident in which the recordings of the incident was collected from the PWD CCTV Cameras from 1 am to 4 am from site ID no.522809 which was installed at the address Rajesh R/o H.No.F-491, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase II, Delhi from 1 am to 4 am dated 08.10.2021.
In the aforesaid footage, all the three accused i.e. accused Chandan, Gulfam and one alleged Suraj (since not apprehended) could be seen sitting on the corner of the lane towards the factory and at 01:37 am both accused Chandan and Gulfam have got up from the place and accused Gulfam can be seen walking towards the factory/the place of incident. During examination another footage was played whereby it could be seen that accused Gulfam has walked towards the factory and at 3:47 am after burning the factory walked towards the place where cameras installed and can be clearly seen.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-23 deposed that at 4:00 am - 4:15 am he got the information about the fire when he was at police post Okhla, PS OIA. He reached the site immediately. Few fire tenders had reached the spot, when he reached at the spot. He did not see any person using fire extinguisher cylinder but there were fire tenders.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 39 of 55 It took almost entire day to extinguish the fire and that was till late evening. He prepared the rukka around 5:30 pm on 08.10.2021. By the time, he had prepared the rukka, he had not met the owner of the factory. He had not met any worker of the factory on that day till the FIR was registered. But subsequently, he met the owner of the factory. He had received CCTV footage from PWD after completing all formality on 11.11.2021. Accused Gulfam was arrested on 10.10.2021 and accused Chandan was arrested on 11.10.2021. The footage/video of government camera installed at the spot was accessible to Delhi Police and he saw the same on his mobile phone. He had mentioned the accessibility of footage to Delhi Police in case diary. He had never met accused Gulfam and Chandan prior to the present incident. Secret informer identified accused Gulfam in CCTV footage when he showed the same to him. It was correct that the CCTV footage show accused Suraj (since not apprehended) was present at the spot. It was correct that when the accused Gulfam had put fire on the factory, accused Chandan is not seen around him in the CCTV footage. He voluntarily deposed that he had verified and during investigation he came to know that all the three alleged persons were in connivance with each other and accused Gulfam was directed to stand near Gujjar Chowk to keep an eye on the persons crossing the area. It was correct that as per chargesheet there is a car which approached the accused persons before the incident but we were unable to find his number from the CCTV footage. He did not remember, model, make or color of the car. The car was seen near the spot. It was correct that he had seen the property papers of the factory gutted in the fire. As per the verification, the owner of the factory was Satnam FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 40 of 55 Nagpal and he had further given the same on rent. He did not remember if the factory was in the name of father of Sh. Satnam Nagpal. He did not know if Sh. Satnam Nagpal also has a brother. He did not know that the family of brother of Satnam Nagpal are co-owners in the factory as brother of Satnam Nagpal has already expired. There was no property dispute regarding the ownership of the factory. The tenants were examined who had also mentioned the owner initially Sh. Satnam Nagpal. He had given notice to Sh. Satnam nagpal upon which he furnished documents regarding the property as well as MCD licence and he did not know if the tenants also had any licence with them to run their trade in the premises. It was correct that the factory was not having Fire Safety Licence or Fire Alarm. The katran was lying inside the factory as well as from of it was lying outside the factory and was also in the truck parked next to the place of incident. He did not find any fire extinguisher in the factory. There was only one security guard who was working in the factory and was living inside the factory. The tenants was not having any insurance paper pertaining to their articles in the factory. The fire was put by the accused by using petrol and match stick. He voluntarily deposed that the match stick and petrol bottle were burnt during fire. It was correct that accused Gulfam had informed the passerby regarding the fire and even was trying to extinguish the fire. He deposed that accused Gulfam was identified by witness Bishwender/PW2 at the spot who had made call at 100 number.
8. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 41 of 55
9. The statement of accused persons Under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons which they denied. They claimed that they had not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused Chandan stated that he was not present at the spot. He was doing the work of loader in the factory of katran which was situated near the factory A-118, but he did not remember the exact place of the name of his owner. He used to work as a loader with different people in the area of Sanjay Colony. He had been working in the area and after finishing his work, he left Sanjay Colony at 5 pm on that day and did not commit any offence. On the next day, he came to know that there has been fire in the factory. He had been falsely implicated in the matter. He had know accused Gulfam as he had worked with him in the area prior to the incident. He did not know accused Suraj (since absconding). He was innocent and he had not committed any offence. Accused Gulfam stated that on the day of incident, he alongwith Suraj were sitting outside the factory and he had gone towards the factory to see the bulb which was fitted and he suddenly found that there was fire in the factory and since he got scared, he ran from there, and thereafter, he went on the other direction and Suraj went to other direction. Later on, it was he who gathered people and informed about the fire. Thereafter, he was told by Suraj that the fire was at the instance of the factory owner on his own. He was innocent and he had not committed any offence.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 42 of 55 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
10.It has been argued by Sh. Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi, Ld. LAC for both accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter and that they had not committed the offence. It has been argued that in the present matter the accused persons were working in the same area as labourers and were regularly visiting the locality and therefore, have been falsely implicated in the present matter at the instance of IO. It has been argued that even the identity of the accused persons had not been established in the present matter as none of the witnesses had seen them putting fire at the factory bearing no.A-118 Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi. It has been argued that even as per the CCTV footage which is relied upon by the prosecution, accused persons cannot be seen and they have been wrongly identified by the IO. It has been argued that no inflammable substance was recovered from the place of incident and further, nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons. It has also been argued that the reason for the fire is unknown to the accused persons and in fact the same may have been done at the behest of the owner of the factory as he had property disputes with his family and therefore, the accused persons have been falsely implicated. It has been argued that both accused persons are innocent and are liable to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
11.It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that in the present matter, the FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 43 of 55 accused persons in connivance with each other had committed the offence and had committed mischief by putting fire on the factory and due to the same they caused destruction in the factory premises which was used for the purpose of custody of property and therefore, are liable to be convicted for the offenses alleged. It has also been argued that in the present matter all the witnesses have deposed against the accused persons and there are no contradiction in the testimony of any of the witnesses. It has also been argued that both the accused persons were found present at the place of incident at the time of offence and the same is not denied by the accused persons even in their statement recorded before the court and therefore, the defence of the accused persons is futile, and therefore, not acceptable. It has also been argued that both accused persons had committed the offence and caused damage to the property of the owner of the factory with the intention to destroy the same and therefore, both accused persons are liable to be convicted.
12.Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 44 of 55 keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
13.Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
14.In order to appreciate and decide, as to whether prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I have to appreciate the evidence FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 45 of 55 brought on record by the prosecution. Since, prosecution had examined 23 witnesses, inclusive of public witnesses, eye witnesses, expert witness and police officials, I will be appreciating the veracity of testimonies of those witnesses, separately, in my subsequent paragraphs.
THE OFFENCE
15. Section 425 IPC defines Mischief as "Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief". Explanation -1 - It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation - 2 - Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act or to that person and others jointly.
16. Further, offence U/s 436 IPC states that Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intend to destroy house etc. - "Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 46 of 55 for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
THE LAW
17.The aforesaid provision reveals that either intention or knowledge, is required for the offense of mischief. Thus, for the offense of mischief it is sufficient that the offender knows that by his act he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. Section 425 defines mischief, this definition controls many charging sections namely section 426 to 438 and section 440 IPC. Mischief, like most crimes, comprises a mental and physical element. The mental element is the intention express or implied (from knowledge of likelihood of injury) to cause wrongful loss or damage. The physical element is an act of destruction or injurious change to property. Whilst the mental element is the same in all kind of mischief, the physical element, the act of destruction or change may be of any kind of that species of acts and if the act is of the kind specified U/s 427 to 440 IPC, the mischief is aggravated and therefore, more severely punished than U/s 426 IPC. Mischief involves intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage, it does not unnecessarily contemplate damage of a destructive character. It involves a mental act with a destructive animus. Destruction with object of creating wrongful loss or damage is obligatory to be established. Negligence, coupled with intention to cause wrongful loss or damage, may amount to "mischief" in certain circumstances.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 47 of 55
18.To constitute an offence U/s 426 IPC it is required that the accused committed mischief, that he did so by fire or any explosive substance, that the accused did so with the intention to cause (or knew that it was likely to cause) the destruction of any building, and that such building was ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property. To bring home an offence u/s 436 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove all the elements to be proved U/s 426 IPC.
19.Mischief, by putting fire has been contemplated in both the sections 435 and 436 of IPC. Section 436 IPC is attracted when the mischief caused results in destruction of a building. The word "building" does not suggest that it should either be brick-built or mud-built or a building of some such durable material. Therefore, "building" connotes something which is exclusively used for human habitation of a person or group of persons including family and also anything that is built as a house and is utilized for human dwelling or for custody of property. Therefore, the dominant intention of the legislature in framing section 436 IPC was to give protection to those buildings which are used as places of worship or as human dwellings or as places where the property is stored for safe custody and therefore, a factory as in the present case falls in the category of a building as described above. Committing mischief by explosive substance, causing destruction of any building, inter alia, answers an offense U/s 436 IPC.
20.Neither malice nor an intention to cause injury is essential for the FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 48 of 55 constitution of the offence which may be committed by injury caused with only the knowledge of likelihood, which must however, be strictly proved. The first part of the section sets out the mens rea, of the guilty mind, which is the intention or the knowledge of the likelihood of causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person or to any building of property. Further, the actus res, that is to say, the criminal act, which constitutes in causing destruction of any property or any such change in the property which destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously. Destruction of any property within the meaning of section 436 IPC carries with it the implication that something should be done to the property contrary to its natural use. The gravamen of the offence of mischief is that there must be intention to cause or knowledge that a wrongful loss or damage shall be caused on account of the act committed.
Appreciation Of Testimonies Of Public Witnesses
21.In the present matter, PW1 Jaiveer is the security guard who was employed at the concerned factory situated at A-118, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi and upon being aware of the fire at the factory informed regarding the same to the owner. PW2 Bishwender was the person who had made call at 100 number and had identified the accused persons to have committed the offence at the relevant time. PW3 Chetram, was the owner of the truck which was burnt due to the aforesaid fire and PW4 Sunil was the employee of the factory who also came to know that the factory had caught fire. PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW18 were the tenants in the aforesaid factory and had also stated that they were paying FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 49 of 55 rent to the owner of the factory namely Sh. Satnam Nagpal. The owner of the factory PW-10 Satnam Nagpal also deposed that on 08.10.2021 in the early morning hours he came to know that the factory had caught fire and thereafter reached the spot and joined the investigation and handed over all the relevant documents regarding the ownership and other documents to the IO. The aforesaid witnesses during their testimony has stated that upon coming to know regarding the fire they all reached the spot and found that the factory was engulfed in fire and fire tenders were extinguishing the same. Further, at that time, the CCTV footage pertaining to the incident was also circulated and received by them in which they saw that the accused persons were involved in the incident and thereafter most of the aforesaid witnesses identified the accused persons in the court and the aforesaid fact has not been contradicted by the accused persons and all the suggestions put to the aforesaid witnesses have been refuted by them. The aforesaid public witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution and there have been no contradiction in the testimony of aforesaid witnesses. PW2 Bishwender even identified the accused Gulfam in the court and categorically stated that it was accused Gulfam who was present at the time of incident and had informed PW2 regarding the fire incident. The testimony of the aforesaid witness remained unchallenged. PW12 Jitender Singh was the owner of the TSR which was burnt due to the aforesaid incident of fire. The aforesaid public witnesses deposed in corroboration with each other and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid witnesses was believable and reliable.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 50 of 55 TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES
22.In the present matter PW15 SI Hanu Ram and PW20 ASI Babu Lal were the part of the crime team which reached the spot upon being informed regarding the incident by the IO and upon reaching the spot had taken the photographs of the incident and prepared the crime scene report. The aforesaid crime scene report Ex.PW15/A has not been disputed by the accused persons. The same also shows that the place of incident was destroyed due to fire. Further, PW19 T.U. Siddiqui being the mechanical inspector had conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles and had prepared his report which was Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B and even his report is not disputed by accused persons during cross examination of aforesaid witness and therefore the testimony of aforesaid witnesses remained unchallenged and their testimony was reliable in nature.
TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESSES
23.In the present matter apart from the aforesaid witnesses PW13 Anil Kumar, PW14 HC Kapil were the police officials who accompanied IO Inspt. Prakash Chand Meena to the spot upon receiving the information and thereafter, participated in the investigation of present matter with IO. The site plan of place of incident was prepared in the presence of aforesaid witnesses after being FIR was registered and thereafter, the CCTV footage of the area was also inspected in the presence of aforesaid witnesses and thereafter both accused persons were arrested and their personal search memo were prepared and the disclosure statement was also recorded in the presence of aforesaid witnesses by the IO. The aforesaid two witnesses also FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 51 of 55 deposed regarding the seizure memo of the truck and the auto which was seized from the spot in burnt condition, and thereafter, accompanied the IO for the investigation in the present matter. The aforesaid aspect of investigation by the aforesaid two police officials had not been challenged or doubted during the cross examination conducted by the accused persons and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid two witness being impeccable, remained undisputed and corroborative in nature and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses was reliable.
24.Apart from the aforesaid two police officials, PW16 SI Suresh Chand, PW17 HC Jaspal and PW22 HC Ramraj were the police witnesses who have recorded the FIR and DD No.12A and 24A and had deposited the exhibits to FSL in the present matter and even their testimony remained undisputed and were reliable in nature.
25.PW21 Sh. Anup Kumar Shukla was the Assistant Engineer PWD who had provided the CCTV footage from the government camera installed in the area and therefore, the authenticity of the CCTV footage from a reliable source was proved by the prosecution and even the same remained unchallenged and was reliable in nature.
26.PW23 Inspt. Prakash Chand Meena being the IO in the present matter had conducted the investigation in a diligent manner and soon after receiving the call reached the spot and secured the area. Upon reaching the spot he found the fire tenders present at the spot who were trying to extinguish the FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 52 of 55 fire and thereafter, being vigilant started examining the CCTV footage and thereafter, ascertained the identity of accused persons by showing it to the local residence who identified both the accused persons as the accused persons namely Gulfam and Chandan were the workers of the same area, and therefore, narrowed down on the aforesaid accused persons. Further, upon apprehension both accused persons recorded their disclosure statement and upon their instance prepared the pointing out memo which was Ex.PW13/H. IO also prepared the seizure memo of the exhibits and the burnt vehicles. He called the crime team on the spot, and thereafter, also had obtained the CCTV footage of the area by following the procedure prescribed. The aforesaid nature of investigation remained unchallenged as the manner of investigation could not be doubted even by extensive cross examination on behalf of accused persons. The IO also diligently examined the owner of the factory and collected all the relevant documents and documents pertaining to the same had not been disputed by the accused persons by leading any cogent evidence or that the documents were not genuine. The photographs of the place of incident have been correctly identified by PW13, PW14 and PW23. IO had also in all his wisdom prepared the CCTV footage timing memo which was Ex.PW23/C and depicted the manner in which the accused persons had committed the offence and annexed the photographs obtained from the CCTV footage wherein the presence of accused persons is visible and the same has been corroborated in the testimony of PW13, PW14 and PW23, and therefore, the investigation conducted in the present matter remained unchallenged and the testimony of PW23 was reliable in nature.
FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 53 of 55 FSL REPORT
27.The FSL report which was Ex.A also remained unchallenged and the same opined that upon examination petrol/kerosene/diesel and its residue could not be detected in the exhibits collected.
28.Therefore, in the present matter, as far as the testimony of prosecution witnesses are concerned the same remained unchallenged and therefore in my considered view the prosecution prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, if the statement of accused Gulfam recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is perused, it shows that the accused has not disputed his presence at the spot. Further, the accused had categorically stated that he had gone at the relevant time near the place of incident/ factory and checked the same and later came back and found that the factory was burning. The aforesaid fact only corroborates the version of the prosecution and the evidence against the accused which is relied upon by the prosecution, pertaining to CCTV footage which shows that it was the accused persons who in connivance with each other had put fire in the premises/factory.
29.Accused persons did not place on record any document in defence, during their statement recorded u/sec. 313 CrPC or by way of cross examining the prosecution witnesses by which it could be ascertained that they were not present at the relevant time at the place of incident. Further, the accused persons did not examine any of the witness who could have deposed FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 54 of 55 regarding the aforesaid fact. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the accused persons was not proved by leading any cogent evidence and has not helped the cause of the accused persons by stating that they were falsely implicated.
30.In the wake of aforesaid appreciation and conclusions, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that evidence, collected by police during investigation was trustworthy and reliable. That evidence only indicated the hypothesis of accused persons being the culprits. There is absence of any other theory regarding the commission of the offence and the accused persons failed to probablise their defence. They failed to make inroads in prosecution version by cross examining prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and therefore, in my considered view both accused persons namely Gulfam and Chandan are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable U/s 436/34 Digitally signed IPC. by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.09.27 Announced in Open Court 16:31:40 +0530 On 27.09.2025 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] Additional Session Judge-02 South-East, Saket Court FIR No.759/2021 State Vs. Gulfam & Anr. PS OIA Page No. 55 of 55