Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Irshad Qureshi on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA Courts : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 35/2022
FIR No. 637/2021
Police Station Shastri Park
Under Section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC
Instituted on 22.02.2022
Argued on 24.07.2025
Decided on 08.08.2025
Final Order Acquitted
State Vs. 1. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi
S/o Abdul Aziz
R/o Jhuggi Th3, Gandhi Camp,
Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
2. Naushad
S/o Shamsad
R/o Th21, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
3. Aas Mohammad
S/o Islmuddin
R/o Jhuggi 21, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
4. Mohd. Sameer Qureshi
S/o Mohd. Irshad Qureshi
SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
page 1 of 22
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08
15:28:11
+0530
R/o Jhuggi No.Th03,
Sonia Gandhi Camp, Kailash Nagar,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
A. Brief facts of the case:-
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the charges levelled against the accused persons, namely Mohd. Irshad Qureshi, Nausad, Aas Mohammad, and Mohd. Sameer Qureshi.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are as follows: On 05.10.2021, a PCR call vide DD No. 103A regarding a quarrel was received by HC Gulshad No. 777/NE, stating that one person was seriously injured and admitted to Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park. SI Ashok and Constable Aman reached the scene of the crime near the Old Iron Bridge (Lohapul), near Pracheen Warha Mandir, Sabzi Mandi, Shastri Park, where a pool of blood was found on the kachcha rasta (unpaved road) leading towards the Yamuna. Two injured persons had already been taken to JPC Hospital for treatment. At the hospital, Sonu @ Sagar was found to have been declared brought dead. The police met the injured, Ram Milan, at the hospital, where it was observed that he had sustained injuries. Upon inquiry, Ram Milan informed the police that the deceased, Sonu @ Sagar, was his elder brother. The statement of Ram Milan was subsequently recorded. Another person, Bittoo, was also found at JPC Hospital and stated that he is the nephew (bhanja) of the deceased Sonu @ Sagar. SI Satish arrived at the spot along with the complainant Ram Milan. SI Satish got the photographs taken and an Digitally signed by SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 2 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:28:19 +0530 inspection of the crime scene conducted by the Crime Team, North- East District. Inspector R.K. Meena also reached the spot, prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ram Milan, and completed other formalities/documentation related to the case. Thereafter, Inspector R.K. Meena arrested all the accused persons and sent them to judicial custody. On 03.01.2022, the present case file was submitted before the concerned Court.
A. Charges
3. Vide order dated 27.04.2022, charges were framed against all the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. All the accused have pleaded not guilty to those charges.
B. Prosecution Evidence:-
4. Prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in this case.
5. PW-1 Ram Milan deposed that on the fifth day before Diwali in 2021, at about 10:00 PM, he received a telephone call from his brother, Sonu @ Sagar. His brother told him that a quarrel had occurred and asked him to come immediately to Sabzi Mandi at the Loha Bridge. PW-1 reached the location and inquired of Sonu @ Sagar what had occurred.
Sonu replied that he had a quarrel with a "battery waala." Sonu asked PW-1 to sit and remain calm. While conversing with Sameer, who also supplied batteries in the local market 4-5 persons arrived and struck PW-1 on the head with an object, which may have been either a battery or a light stand. PW-1 chased them but was unable to apprehend anyone. Upon returning, PW-1 found his brother lying dead. He learned that Sonu @ Sagar had already been taken to hospital. Meanwhile, Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 page 3 of 22 15:28:26 +0530 another person, Sonu of Bihari Building, came to the scene and made a call to the police by dialing 100 from his mobile. The police arrived at the scene, took PW-1 to Zero Pusta Hospital in Shastri Park, Delhi. From there, PW-1 was taken back to the site and later to the police station. The police recorded PW-1's statement, and PW-1 narrated the facts as outlined above. No accused were arrested in his presence or based on his identification at that time. PW-1 signed his statement (Ex. PW-1/A) as recorded by the police. PW-1 did not name Mohd. Irshad, Naushad, Aas Mohammad, or Mohd. Sameer Qureshi as the assailants. However, he did mention that a person named Sameer was present and conversing with him when the incident occurred.
6. In cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW1 affirmed that their old jhuggi, in which his mother, sisters, and Bhanja Bittoo were residing, was situated near the spot. He stated that the police had not prepared any rough site plan in his presence. On 06.10.2021, when PW1 was present at the police station, four persons, including Sameer, were shown to him by the police. At that time, the police officials informed him that the aforesaid persons were involved in the murder of his brother Sonu @ Sagar and the incident of causing injuries to PW1.
PW1 denied the suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP for the State.
7. PW2, Ms. Haseena, deposed that on the 5th of a particular month, at about 10:00 PM, she was present at the fruit/vegetable market situated near the Iron Bridge. She was there to purchase vegetables. Upon reaching the market, she found vegetables and fruits scattered on the ground. Suddenly, she slipped and sustained an injury near her nose due Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others WADHWA Date: page 4 of 22 2025.08.08 15:28:35 +0530 to a battery lying there. She went to JPC Hospital, where she was medically examined. She handed over her medical papers to the police, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. No incident had taken place in her presence. The police made inquiries from PW2 regarding the incident, and she narrated the aforesaid facts. Her statement was recorded by the police. In cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestions put by the Ld. APP for the State.
8. PW3, Sh. Bittoo, deposed that he was selling shikanji on a cart near Seelampur, Delhi. Sonu @ Sagar (deceased) was his maternal uncle. PW3, along with his mother, was residing in the aforesaid jhuggi, while the mother of his maternal uncle Sonu @ Sagar (deceased) was residing separately near their jhuggi. On 05.10.2021, at about 10:00 PM, PW3 was returning with his shikanji cart, and when he reached the fruit/vegetable market near Loha Bridge, he found his maternal uncle Sonu @ Sagar lying on the road, smeared with blood. PW3 took him to JPC Hospital in an auto-rickshaw. At that time, many public persons were present at the spot. In JPC Hospital, his maternal uncle Sonu @ Sagar was declared dead. Ram Milan, another maternal uncle of PW3, met him at JPC Hospital. At that time, PW3 was not aware that Ram Milan had also sustained injuries; however, after one or two days, he came to know that Ram Milan had indeed received injuries. From JPC Hospital, PW3, along with police officials, went to the spot. However, his maternal uncle Ram Milan did not accompany them. The police had not recorded Ram Milan's statement in the presence of PW3. PW3 further deposed that his mama, the deceased Sonu @ Sagar, used to drive a Champion goods carrier, and his nani used to reside near their Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 TWINKLE page 5 of 22 WADHWA State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:28:55 +0530 house. His other mama, named Ram Milan, used to reside in Gandhi Nagar and also used to drive a Champion vehicle. PW3 identified the dead body of his mama, Sonu @ Sagar, in the mortuary of GTB Hospital vide identification memo already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. The dead body of his deceased mama, Sonu @ Sagar, was handed over to PW3 vide receipt Ex. PW1/C. The police seized the clothes PW3 was wearing at the time he carried his injured mama to JPC Hospital, as those clothes were bloodstained. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/P-1. In cross-examination, PW3 denied the suggestions put by the Ld. APP for the State.
9. PW4, Sonu, deposed that he is a vegetable vendor. He used to run his thia on the footpath near Lohe Ka Pul, Shastri Park, Delhi-53. On 05.10.2021, PW4 was present there but was not feeling well. He asked an acquaintance to sit at his thia and went to a medical shop in Kailash Nagar to purchase medicines. After buying the medicines, PW4 returned, closed his thia, and went back to his house at Bihari Building at about 10:00/10:30 PM. After some time, PW4 heard some commotion (shor-sharaba), came outside his house, and went to the market. There, he met Nanhe, who was injured on his head and bleeding. Nanhe disclosed to PW4 that his brother, Sonu, had a quarrel with Munna (battery wala). PW4 advised him to go to the hospital. Blood was also lying at the spot. PW4 dialed 100 and gave the phone to Nanhe to talk to the police. After some time, the PCR van arrived and took Nanhe to the hospital. Later, PW4 also went to the hospital on his motorcycle. At the hospital, PW4 came to know from the doctors that Sonu, brother of Nanhe, had expired. At the spot, Nanhe had told PW4, Digitally signed by SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 6 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:29:19 +0530 "Agar carat (plastic box to keep vegetables) nahi lagata to main bhi khatam ho jata." The police recorded PW4's statement.
10. In cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW4 affirmed that Nanhe's actual name is Ram Milan. PW4 also affirmed that Nanhe and his brother Sonu were regular visitors to the vegetable market. PW4 denied the other suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP for the State.
11. PW5, Insp. R.K. Meena, deposed that on 06.10.2021, HC Gulshad handed over the copy of the FIR and the original rukka to PW5. PW5 then proceeded to the spot, i.e., Iron Bridge, Sabji Mandi, Purana Mandir, where he met SI Satish and other police staff. The SHO of PS Shastri Park and the Inspector Investigation were also present there. SI Satish handed over seizure memos of exhibits lifted by him along with the sealed exhibits to PW5. The complainant, Ram Milan, along with his nephew Bittu, was present at the spot. PW5 prepared the site plan (Ex. PW5/A) at the instance of the complainant. After that, he asked the complainant about the rehdi of accused Naushad and Aas Mohd and made efforts to trace the same, but it could not be recovered. They also searched for the LED light stand and weight, but these too could not be recovered. The complainant stated that the accused persons lived somewhere in the area of Sonia Gandhi Camp, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
Thereafter, in search of the accused persons, PW5, along with other staff, the complainant, and his nephew Bittu, went to Sonia Gandhi Camp, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, where they made inquiries regarding the accused persons. They reached jhuggi no. TH-3. The door of the jhuggi was knocked, and one person appeared after opening the Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others 2025.08.08 15:29:32 +0530 page 7 of 22 door. The complainant identified the said person as accused Irshad. PW5 interrogated accused Irshad. Meanwhile, another person also came out of the jhuggi, and the complainant identified him as accused Sameer. Both accused persons were detained and interrogated.
12. PW5, Inspector R. K. Meena, further deposed that both accused persons confessed their involvement in the commission of the offence.
The disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Irshad (vide memo Ex. PW5/B) was recorded, and he was arrested after sufficient evidence surfaced against him (vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/C). His personal search was also conducted (vide memo Ex. PW5/D). The mother of accused Sameer came forward and informed the police that accused Sameer was under 18 years of age. She produced a copy of his marksheet/performance profile for the academic session 2018-2019, issued by Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Kailash Nagar, Delhi. According to the document, the age of accused Sameer was 17.07.2004. He was apprehended and questioned in the presence of his mother. The apprehension memo and other related documents were prepared by PW5 accordingly. The apprehension memo of the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) is Ex. PW5/E, the version of the juvenile in conflict with law is Ex. PW5/F, and the social report of the juvenile in conflict with law is Ex. PW5/G. Accused Mohd. Irshad disclosed the address of co-accused Aas Mohd. and Naushad. At the instance of accused Mohd. Irshad, both accused Aas Mohd. and Naushad were apprehended from jhuggi no. 21 in the same area after they came out upon knocking at the door. The complainant identified both accused persons as involved in the incident. PW5 interrogated both accused persons, who were Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA page 8 of 22 Date: WADHWA 2025.08.08 15:29:41 +0530 arrested in the present case after sufficient evidence surfaced against them. The arrest memos of accused Naushad and Aas Mohd. are Ex. PW5/H and Ex. PW5/I, respectively. Their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex. PW5/J and Ex. PW5/K, and their disclosure statements were recorded vide memos Ex. PW5/L and Ex. PW5/M. Thereafter, PW5, along with police staff, the complainant, Bittu, the arrested accused persons, and the CCL proceeded to the spot.
13. PW5, Inspector R.K. Meena, further deposed that he asked several public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed; they left without disclosing their names or addresses or showing any genuine concern. Due to paucity of time, no written notices were given to the public persons who did not join the investigation. Thereafter, accused Naushad and Aas Mohd., on their own will, led the police party to a dump of garbage and vegetable leaves near the SOC. Accused Naushad searched the area and produced one iron measuring weight (lohe ki baat) of 2 kg, stating that he had hit the victim on the head with it. Similarly, accused Aas Mohd. searched and produced another iron measuring weight (lohe ki baat) from the same dump, measuring 1 kg, stating that he had hit the deceased Sonu @ Sagar on the head with this weight. Both the weight measures were separately wrapped in white cloth, tied into bundles (pullandas), and sealed with the seal of R.K. Both were seized vide recovery-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW5/N). Thereafter, accused Mohd. Irshad Qureshi, on his own will, led the police team to a broken hut/bush near the Iron Bridge fruit/vegetable market. From the corner of the same, one angle iron stand used by fruit and vegetable vendors to fix LED lights was recovered. He disclosed Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
page 9 of 22 2025.08.08 15:29:50 +0530 that he had hit deceased Sonu @ Sagar on the head with the base of the said stand. Upon inspection, the stand was found to be 3 feet in height, with a base measuring 6 inches and one foldable edge of 1 foot attached to the body of the stand with a nut. One LED light panel was fixed at its corner. The recovered LED light stand was wrapped in white cloth, tied into a bundle (pullanda), and sealed with the seal of R.K. The same was seized vide a separate recovery-cum-seizure memo (Ex. PW5/O).
14. PW5, Inspector R.K. Meena, further deposed that a separate site plan showing the places from which the weapons of offence were recovered was prepared (Ex. PW5/P). Thereafter, accused Aas Mohd. and Naushad were asked about their rehdis where they sold fruits. Both searched but could not find their rehdis and informed that they had left them unattended and were unaware of their whereabouts. All the accused persons and the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) disclosed that they were wearing the same clothes as at the time of the incident. Clothes of Bittu (nephew of the deceased), i.e., T-shirt and cloth scarf (gamchha) of complainant Ram Milan, both stained with blood, were produced by them. PW5 converted these into two separate bundles (pullandas) and sealed them with the seal of R.K. These pullandas were taken into police possession and are already marked as Ex. PW3/P-1 and Ex. PW1/D. PW5 recorded supplementary statements of the witnesses and thereafter both were relieved from the investigation. Subsequently, all arrested accused persons and the CCL, along with other police staff, proceeded to JPC Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi. Medical examinations of the accused persons and the CCL were conducted. After the medical examinations, the doctors sealed the upper Digitally signed by SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 10 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:30:04 +0530 body clothes, blood samples in tubes, and blood on gauze of all accused persons. The sealed exhibits/pullandas were handed over to PW5, who seized the aforesaid exhibits vide seizure memo (Ex. PW5/Q). PW5 directed ASI Upkar, who accompanied him, to produce the CCL before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB-V), Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. The CCL was lodged in observation.
15. PW5, Inspector R.K. Meena, further deposed that all the accused persons, namely Mohd. Irshad, Naushad, and Aas Mohd., were produced before the Learned Duty Magistrate, KKD Courts, and sent to judicial custody (JC). On the same day, SI Surender Das met PW5 and informed him that the postmortem of the deceased had been conducted. SI Surender Das also produced one white sealed pullanda said to contain blood- and dirt-stained clothes of deceased Sonu, one sealed white envelope containing blood-stained gauze of the deceased, and one sample seal. PW5 took these exhibits into police possession vide seizure memo (Ex. PW5/R). Subsequently, accused Aas Mohd. raised the plea of juvenility, and the Hon'ble Court directed verification of his age. During the investigation, an inquiry regarding the age of accused Aas Mohd. was conducted, including an ossification test. One witness, namely Haseena, wife of Sonu Mohan, joined the investigation, and PW5 recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She produced an emergency registration card (Ex. PW2/B), which PW5 seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW2/A). On 09.10.2021, PW5 examined one person named Sonu and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon his transfer, PW5 handed over the case file to MHC (R). PW5 identified the scene of crime appearing in the Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
page 11 of 22 2025.08.08 15:30:10 +0530 photographs. A copy of the application for medical examination of the accused persons is marked Ex. PW5/S. PW5 also recorded the supplementary statement of Ram Milan (complainant) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 06.10.2021, as per his version, which is marked Ex.
PW5/T.
16. PW5, Inspector R.K. Meena, further deposed that he recorded the statement of Bittoo under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 06.10.2021, as per his version, which is marked Ex. PW5/U. PW5 recorded the statement of Smt. Haseena under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 09.10.2021; her statement is marked Ex. PW2/A. On the same date, PW5 recorded the statement of Sonu under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is marked Ex. PW5/V. PW5 can identify the case property seized by him during the investigation of the present case. The identity of the clothes of PW3 Bittoo was not disputed, as recorded in his testimony dated 27.10.2023. During his testimony, PW5 identified the gamcha (cloth scarf) of the complainant along with the cut-off cloth parcel produced by Ram Milan and seized vide Memo Ex. PW1/D. PW5 has also identified his signature on the cut-off sealed parcel at point 'A'. The cloth piece, i.e., gamcha, is marked Ex. P-2. PW5 also identified one iron rod with LED light and wire, recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Irshad Qureshi from a jhuggi situated near Loha Pul, Fruit Sabzi Market, seized vide memo Ex. PW5/O. The iron rod with LED light and wire is marked Ex. P-3. During his testimony, PW5 identified an iron weight of 2 kg, recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Naushad, and an iron weight of 1 kg, recovered at the instance of accused Aas Mohd., both seized vide memo Ex. PW5/N. The iron weight of 2 kg is marked Ex. P-4, and the iron Digitally signed by SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA page 12 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:30:19 +0530 weight of 1 kg is marked Ex. P-5. During his testimony, PW5 identified accused Mohd. Irshad Qureshi, Naushad, Aas Mohd., and Mohd. Sameer Qureshi.
17. In his cross-examination, PW5, Inspector R.K. Meena, deposed that on 06.10.2021, when he reached the spot, the injured had already been shifted to the hospital. He confirmed that, by the time he arrived, all the injured persons had already been taken to the hospital. The rehri, LED light, and weights (batta) belonging to the accused Naushad and Aas Mohd. were not recovered from the spot. The date of the incident was 05.10.2021. PW5 stated that he reached Sonia Gandhi Camp, Gandhi Nagar, on 06.10.2021 at around 6:00 AM, and apprehended accused Naushad and Aas Mohd. at around 7:00 AM from their jhuggi, at the instance of accused Mohd. Irshad. He further confirmed that neither accused Naushad nor Aas Mohd. attempted to escape when the police team reached their jhuggi to apprehend them. A site plan of the place of recovery, from where the 2 kg and 1 kg iron weights ( batta) were recovered at the instance of accused Naushad and Aas Mohd., was prepared. However, after their arrest, no rehri was seized at their instance. PW5 admitted that he did not note down any label or identifying mark, if any, on the clothes worn by the accused at the time of seizure. He also stated that no photographs were taken when the clothes of accused Aas Mohd. were seized in this case.
18. PW6, Constable Sombir, deposed that on 01.11.2021, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer (IO), he collected sealed exhibits from the malkhana and deposited them at the Forensic Science Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:30:28 +0530 SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others page 13 of 22 Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, along with the forwarding letter. After depositing the exhibits, he returned and handed over the acknowledgment of case acceptance to the IO. He affirmed that, while the exhibits remained in his custody, the seal remained intact and no tampering of any kind was done.
19. PW7, Sh. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, deposed that on 01.11.2021, 24 sealed parcels were received at the office of FSL, Rohini, in the present case. The same were marked to him for biological examination. He stated that the seals were found intact and matched the sample seals. PW7 examined all the exhibits after opening the sealed parcels and prepared a detailed report in this regard. The result of his examination is mentioned at point 'X' of his report. His detailed report, containing allelic data, is exhibited as Ex. PW7/A. The remnants of the exhibits were re-sealed with the seal of 'DB FSL Delhi' and handed over to the Investigating Agency along with the report in a sealed cover.
20. In his cross-examination by counsel for the accused persons, PW7 denied the suggestion that he had prepared his report on the directions of the IO in order to suit the prosecution's case.
21. PW8, SI Upkar Sharma, deposed that on 06.10.2021, he went to Jag Pravesh Hospital where he met Inspector R.K. Meena. He was handed over the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) 'S' along with relevant documents pertaining to the CCL. PW8 produced the CCL before the Juvenile Justice Board-V (JJB-V) at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. The CCL was sent to an Observation Home for 14 days, and PW8 subsequently deposited the CCL at Sewa Kutir, Mukherjee Nagar.
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA page 14 of 22
WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08
15:30:38
+0530
22. PW9, Sh. Pawan Singh, deposed that he had brought the certified copy of the e-Customer Application Form pertaining to mobile number 9953652071, along with its Call Detail Records (CDR) for the period from 15.09.2021 to 06.10.2021, a location chart, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. These documents are exhibited as Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/B, Ex. PW9/C, and Ex. PW9/D respectively.
23. In his cross-examination, PW9 deposed that the location provided in the CDR is not the exact pinpoint location of the mobile phone.
24. PW10, Sh. Surender Kumar, deposed that he had brought the certified copy of the e-Customer Application Form pertaining to mobile number 9871851947, along with its Call Detail Records (CDR) for the period from 15.09.2021 to 06.10.2021, a location chart, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. These documents are exhibited as Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW10/B, Ex. PW10/C, and Ex. PW10/D respectively.
25. In his cross-examination, PW10 deposed that the location provided in the CDR is not the exact pinpoint location of the mobile phone.
26. PW11, Inspector Harish Chandra, deposed that on 06.10.2021, he joined the investigation along with HC Rajeev and Constable Karan. Thereafter, they reached the place of occurrence, i.e., the Sabzi Market near Loha Pul, Shastri Park, where Inspector R.K. Meena, SI Satish, HC Gulshad, the complainant Ram Milan, and one person named Bittoo were already present. The Investigating Officer (IO) inquired from complainant Ram Milan regarding the identity of the accused persons. Based on the complainant's version, the IO prepared a site Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others WADHWA Date: page 15 of 22 2025.08.08 15:30:49 +0530 plan, which is exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, the IO made efforts to trace the fruit carts ( rehdis) of accused Naushad and Aas Mohd., but no clue was found. The team then proceeded to Sonia Gandhi Camp, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, and reached Jhuggi No. TH-3. Upon knocking on the door, one person came out of the jhuggi, and the complainant identified him as Mohd. Irshad. Meanwhile, another person, his son, also came out from the jhuggi, and the complainant identified him as Sameer. The IO interrogated both Mohd. Irshad and Sameer. During interrogation, both accused admitted their involvement in the present case. The disclosure statement of Mohd. Irshad was recorded and is exhibited as Ex. PW3/B. As Sameer stated that he was a juvenile, an age inquiry was conducted, and his version was recorded in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, accused Mohd. Irshad was arrested, and Sameer was apprehended. The arrest memo of Mohd. Irshad is Ex. PW5/C. His personal search memo was also prepared.
27. In cross-examination by counsel for the accused persons, PW11 deposed that he reached at the spot at about 4:00 am on 06.10.2021 and finally left the spot on 06.10.2021 at about 12:30 pm. No videography or photography of the recovery was got done. IO recorded statement of Ram Milan (complainant) and Bittoo at the spot. PW11 was IO from 20.10.2021 till filing of chargesheet. Whatever investigation is done by PW11 is mentioned in case diary also.
28. Statement of the counsel for the accused persons was recorded under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. wherein he, on the instructions of the accused Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA page 16 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:31:01 +0530 persons admitted the following documents i.e. (i) statement of ASI Mahavir along with SOC report No.762/2021 dated 06.10.2021 is Ex.A1, (ii) statement of SI Surender Dass and documents prepared by him i.e. request form for postmortem form No.25:351(B), one dead body identification memo and postmortem report which are Ex. A2, A3 and A4 respectively, (iii) The report of the postmortem conducted by Dr. Jyoti Rani, GTB Hospital on the dead body of the deceased which is Ex. A5, (iv) Statement of ASI Upkar recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. A6 and (v) Registration of present FIR along with certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act without contents which are Ex. A7 (colly).
29. On 17.07.2025, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied their involvement and opted not to lead evidence.
C. Findings:-
30. I have heard ld. Counsel for all the accused as well as the Ld. APP for the State and gone through the record.
31. The prime witness in this case is PW1 Ram Milan @ Nanhe, who has not supported the case of prosecution. He is the real brother of deceased Sonu @ Sagar. Perusal of the file would show that PW1 made call at 100 number and General Diary entries are on record wherein it is mentioned that his brother is beaten, his brother is serious and has gone to the hospital. Blood is oozing out from his head but caller knows those persons who had given beatings. It is so mentioned in GD No.107A PS Shastri Park dated 05.10.2021 but PW1 Ram Milan @ Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.08.08 SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others 15:31:11 +0530 page 17 of 22 Nanhe has not supported the case of prosecution. He deposed before the Court that on the date of the incident, he received a phone call from his brother Sonu @ Sagar, he reached at the spot at Sabzi Mandi, Loha Bridge. When he asked his brother Sonu @ Sagar, he replied that a quarrel took place with battery waala. In the meanwhile PW1 started talking with one Sameer who also used to supply battery in the market. In the meanwhile, four-five persons came there and hit on his head with some object, either battery or light stand. He tried to chase them but they ran away. When he returned back, his brother was lying dead. He further stated that he does not know who those 4-5 persons were as he is not the regular visitor of the area. He denied that he named the accused persons as the assailants who attacked upon him. He stated that as he was talking with accused Sameer so he told them that he was only talking with Sameer. He further states that in the police station on 06.10.2021, these four accused persons were shown to him and he was told that these are the persons who are involved in commission of crime. He admits to have signed on the documents namely arrest memo, personal search memo etc. but he says these accused persons were not involved. Hence PW1 is completely hostile to the case of the prosecution.
32. PW2 Haseena states that she had gone to the market near Iron Bridge to purchase vegetables. She fell down suddenly in the market and received injuries on her nose by batteries. She denies that any incident took place in her presence. She denies that any of the accused were involved in the incident.
33. PW3 Bittoo is a shikanji seller on a cart near Seelampur, Delhi. He Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
page 18 of 22 2025.08.08 15:31:19 +0530 states that deceased Sonu @ Sagar was his maternal uncle. On 05.10.2021, at around 10:00 pm, he found his maternal uncle lying on the road and he took him to JPC Hospital in an auto rickshaw. He denied that he had witnessed the incident.
34. PW4 Sonu is a vegetable vendor near the spot. He deposed that on 05.10.2021, as he was not feeling well, he asked unknown person to sit on his shop and went to take medicines. He came back at around 10:00- 10:30 pm. Further, he stated that he met PW1 Nanhe at the spot who told him that his brother Sonu had quarreled with Munna, battery waala.
35. A bare perusal of the statements of all the four public witnesses would show that ,even though some are relatives of the deceased, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. None of them have seen the incident. Hence from the testimonies of these four witnesses it cannot be stated who had committed the murder of deceased Sonu @ Sagar. Further PW1 Ram Milan denied that any of the accused persons had given injuries to him.
36. There is other documentary evidence on record i.e. DNA test, recovery of weapon of offence and CDRs. IO has also obtained CDRs of Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and one Sonu, son of Balkishan. Even if it was found that any of the accused persons were present within the same tower location where incident took place, it only confirms their presence near the spot and it conveys nothing more. The evidence of CDRs is secondary in nature and it cannot replace the primary evidence.
37. It is the case of prosecution that one iron weight was recovered from accused Naushad. Another iron weight was also recovered at the Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA page 19 of 22 WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 15:31:27 +0530 instance of Aas Mohd. A seizure memo Ex.PW5/N was prepared which is signed by IO/Inspector R. K. Meena and two more police witnesses. It is the case of prosecution that when accused Naushad and Aas Mohd. were apprehended, they disclosed to the police regarding commission of crime and weapon of offence was recovered at their instance. Further as per FSL report, the blood on recovered weapon of offence is that of deceased.
38. Needless to say confession of crime to the police is not admissible in law. As far as recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of Naushad and Aas Mohd. is concerned, it is recovered from a place which is freely accessible to all. It is mentioned in recovery memo that it was recovered from the garbage of vegetable market , since it is vegetable market a lot of people would be accessing it with their garbage on everyday basis. It is not a place which was exclusively in the knowledge of accused persons. It is freely accessible to all the persons, further IO had not made any public person a witness to this recovery. Hence, the place of recovery was not in exclusive knowledge or control of the accused. Further, this recovery is to be seen in the light of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, this recovery implies knowledge of accused of the place where the weapon of offence were hidden and nothing more. However, this recovery itself is not sufficient to bring conviction to the accused. According to prosecution case, the incident took place in public view and hence the weapon of offence must be in knowledge of other's also who would have witnessed the incident. Further the recovery is from a public place which was in public view and hence is not sufficient to infer the involvement of accused in the crime.
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others TWINKLE WADHWA page 20 of 22
WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08
15:31:33
+0530
39. Further, recovery of light stand has been shown at the instance of accused Mohd. Irshad Qureshi. The recovery at his instance is shown from bushes near Loha Pull, Sabzi Mandi, this place is also accessible to all and everyone. There is no public witness to this recovery.
40. The recovery made from three accused was sent to FSL and the blood found on these items matched with the blood of deceased. The FSL report is on record. However, only the blood on the recovered items matched with the blood of deceased, it only conveys that deceased was probably beaten with these weapon. But it does not show the involvement of any of the accused in the commission of crime.
41. The convictions must be based on evidence which is credible, trustworthy and directly links accused to the crime. When public witnesses become hostile, the primary evidence is weakened or nullified. Corroborating evidence alone, without strong direct evidence, may not meet the legal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
42. Corroborating evidence refers to secondary or supportive evidence that confirms and strengthens the primary evidence. It cannot replace the need of credible and direct evidence, especially when the primary testimony of a public witness becomes unreliable due to his turning hostile to the prosecution. If the corroborating evidence does not conclusively points towards the guilt of accused or only provides circumstantial support, it cannot form basis of conviction. Conviction must be based on reliable and convincing evidence which cannot be entirely inferred from corroborating evidence if the main evidence is unreliable.
43. Hence CDR which show presence of two accused near the spot coupled Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.08.08 SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others page 21 of 22 15:32:42 +0530 with recovery of weapon of offence at instance of accused persons , which is from open public place to which many people have access and there is no independent witness to recovery nor IO stated to have tried to make any person a witness to recovery, this secondary evidence is not sufficient for conviction of any accused. D. Conclusion:-
44. In view of above discussion, all accused Mohd. Irshad Qureshi, Naushad, Aas Mohammad and Mohd. Sameer Qureshi are acquitted for the charged offence punishable under sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by TWINKLEAnnounced in Open Court TWINKLE WADHWA
Date:
WADHWA 2025.08.08
as on 08.08.2025
15:31:54
+0530
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
Additional Sessions Judge-02
North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No. 35/2022 State Vs. Mohd. Irshad Qureshi and others page 22 of 22