Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. PW5 HC Hemant stated that on 04.11.2015 at around 01.50 PM one informer met SI Nirbhay and gave information that two persons are in possession of narcotics. This information was shared by SI Nirbhay with him and other officials and he further told them that two persons would come at Mathura Road near Rajdoot Hotel. SI Nirbhay conveyed the same to Addl. DCP Manishi Chandra over telephone who asked him to take necessary action. Then, he recorded the information vide DD No.13. The raiding team reached the spot at around 02.25 PM and on the way, SI Nirbhay singh asked 4­5 persons to join the team but none agreed to join. They reached the bus stop at around 02.50 PM opposite Rajdoot hotel. IO deployed the raiding party members at the spot. He took position near the vehicle. Accused Shaju came around 03.20 PM, who started conversation and after 10 minutes, accused Firozuddin came on scooter and after opening the dickey took out one cloth bag and handed over the same to Shaju. Then the raiding team overpowered both the accused. IO prepared notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. Sealing and seizure proceedings were conducted. Seal after Case No. SC/9343/2016 State Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Dated: 28.07.2022 Page No. 5 of 26 use was handed over to him. IO wrote the rukka and handed over rukka, pullandas in sealed memo, copy of seizure memo and FSL form with instructions to hand over to duty officer and sample and other documents to SHO. He informed SI Shishupal through telephone the FIR number and he was to conduct the further investigation of case. In cross­examination stated that he was having mobile phone on the day of raid but he do not remember its number and he cannot say whether any other member was having any mobile on said date. He remained at the spot for about 05 hours. IO SI Nirbhay Singh Rana was dismissed from service because of extortion charges. After around 1 hour of their arrival at the spot, accused Shaju came at the spot. The personal search of accused was conducted by SI Nirbhay Singh Rana (personal search memo shows it was done by SI Shishupal even not bearing signature of SI Nirbhay Singh). No public persons was joined from house/office/hotel/shop/guest house. He studied the file before deposing for about 05 minutes in the court. He left the spot at 07.15 PM. He cannot tell how the accused came at the spot i.e. by walking or by travelling in bus or by driving a vehicle. He cannot tell as to what time informer left the spot after arrival of accused persons but he left after pointing out the accused. He cannot say at what time documents were prepared after departure of informer. He came to spot while driving the government vehicle from their officer however having no knowledge who maintains/filing the log book. He did not make any entry in log book with regard to the movement of government vehicle. He also stated that he was aware that every movement of the vehicle has to be made in the log book. He cannot say how the accused was explained his legal right. He left the spot at around 07.15 PM, and went to Special Cell Lodhi Colony and remained there till 10.00 PM. Thereafter, went to his office at New Friends Colony at around 11.00 PM. Site plan was not prepared in his presence and also do not remember how many documents were signed by him at the spot. FSL form was not prepared in his presence but same was given to him at the spot. He do not know how many pages the said FSL form was consisting of. The secret informer never uttered a word before him therefore, he cannot tell in which language he was fluent. He was positioned near the vehicle but he do not Case No. SC/9343/2016 State Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Dated: 28.07.2022 Page No. 6 of 26 remember if anyone else was positioned alongwith him. IO was positioned at the back side of the vehicle and he do not remember the distance but he was visible from the said place. He cannot tell whether from the said position of IO one can hear. Other members of raiding party consisting of HC Ravinder, HC Kulbir, Ct. Rajesh were positioned alone at different locations but he cannot tell distance between them. He cannot tell whether the raiding team members were positioned on both sides of the road or on single side. All the documents were prepared by SI Nirbhay Rana himself but he cannot tell where the same were prepared i.e. inside the car, outside the car or at footpath. The other accused was wearing helmet but he do not know the colour and description of the helmet. All the procedure with regard to weighing and testing was done by SI Nirbhay Rana. He also cannot tell whether SI Nirbhay Rana had informed the accused about Gazetted Officer or other departments of police can also be arranged. Honda Activa scooty of grey colour. He denied the suggestion that accused was picked up on 04.11.2015 from other place in Delhi. It is further wrong to suggest that accused Shaju never met with Firozuddin on 04.11.2015.

Case No. SC/9343/2016 State Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Dated: 28.07.2022 Page No. 7 of 26

8. In cross­examination stated that SI Nirbhay Rana talked to Addl. DCP in his presence but he do not remember the conversation. SI Nirbhay Rana was immediate inferior officer of Inspector Rahul Sahani. No communication was conducted by SI Nirbhay to Inspector Rahul Sahni before leaving the spot. There are residences and commercial shops near the spot. He stayed at the spot from 3.20pm to 10pm and used his mobile number however he cannot tell whether any other member of raiding team was carrying mobile or not. The first document prepared at the spot was notice u/s 50 which was written by him. He also prepared another notice, two seizure memos and rukka at the spot on the instructions of SI Nirbhay Rana. He had not mentioned the number of TVS Jupiter in both notices. One helmet was recovered at the spot however he do not remember the make and its colour. The said helmet was not taken into possession vide seizure memo. He has no knowledge if there is any register maintained in their office for issuance of electronic weighing machine, IO bag and field testing kit. He cannot say how many vehicles are in their office. The log books of official vehicles were maintained by respective drivers. He do not remember how many documents were prepared at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were pressurized to sign blank papers. Accused Firozuddin handed over a cloth bag to Shaju however he cannot say its size and description. At the spot, the proceedings and documents were prepared simultaneously. He cannot say whether sample was drawn first or seizure memo were prepared first. He cannot tell whether FSL form was prepared first or recovery memo was prepared first. ACP Satbir Dagar was their ACP during relevant time but he cannot tell whether he was on leave or not. Investigating officer

9. PW10 SI Shishu Pal stated that on 04.11.2015 at around 6.45pm duty officer told him that SI Nirbhay detained some persons from whom drugs were recovered thereafter he went to the spot. SI Nirbhay Singh handed over some documents and abovesaid two parcels thereafter he prepared the site plan and from telephone, he got the FIR from PS and arrested the accused persons. On the next day i.e. on 05.11.2015 handed over the report u/s 57 NDPS Act to the Case No. SC/9343/2016 State Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Dated: 28.07.2022 Page No. 8 of 26 Reader of ACP. Accused Shaju took the police to the new guest house where he stayed. He collected the photocopy of entry/guest register, recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of both the accused persons, he also recorded the statement of the owner of scooty. In cross­examination stated that he cannot tell which mobile no. used by him to know the FIR number. He denied suggestion that all the documents were prepared in PS. He cannot tell at what time report u/s 57 NDPS Act was prepared and also do not remember as to what time the seal was handed over by me. He cannot tell who brought his motorcycle from the spot. He cannot tell when he visited Navdurga hotel and also its room number and floor, he did not ask CCTV footage. He also did not ask the hotel owner in his statement as to who was the author of the entry of hotel register. The raiding team member had gone to the spot by a govt vehicle i.e. Tavera. He did not collect the log book of said vehicle from the driver. He also stated that he cannot comment regarding the movement of said vehicle on 04.11.2015 from SR Southern range to North district and from North District to SR Southern range. He did not mention the position of raiding party member from site plan. He also do not remember the colour of scooty and also do not remember if he gets any helmet from the spot. He cannot tell how the scooty was taken from spot to PS however one of the raiding team member had driven the same to PS. The entire raiding team party except the person who drove the scooty to PS went with him in Tavera. He denied suggestion that accused Firozuddin forcibly lifted from his shop. He took the search of scooty but nothing recovered from the said scooty. He also did not conduct any investigation as to whether prior to the present case, both the accused persons contacted each other before the spot. Other witnesses

23. The entire raiding team went to the spot in the Tavera government vehicle however there is no corresponding logbook exhibited to substantiate the fact. PW5 HC Hemant, the driver though stated that he has to maintain the logbook however not stated that he had made any entry in the log book. This fact is clear from his cross­examination. PW5 also stated he came to spot by driving vehicle but having no knowledge who maintains log book. It has also not came in the testimony of any other witness that any logbook was maintained. PW5 stated that they have parked the vehicle nearby the spot and took the position in front Case No. SC/9343/2016 State Vs. Firozuddin @ Bittu & Anr. Dated: 28.07.2022 Page No. 17 of 26 of the vehicle however the presence of said vehicle is also not shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/H. During cross­examination, the defence counsel put the RTI entry of the said date which suggests that the said vehicle was not used for coming to spot on that day. Therefore, in this scenario the use of Tavera vehicle in coming to spot also appears doubtful. It makes suspect whether infact raiding party came to spot in the manner stated.