Delhi District Court
State vs Akmal Hussain on 3 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.:DLNT01-000184-2013
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012
PS Alipur
U/s: 302/307/506/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. AKMAL HUSSAIN
S/o Sh. Eunush
R/o B-4/114, Swarn Jyanti Vihar,
Tikri Khurd, Delhi.
2. ABDUL RAFFIQ @ RAFFAN
S/o Sh. Abdul Aziz,
R/o A-516, Phase-II, Gautam Puri,
Badar Pur, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 13.03.2013
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 02.04.2013
Date of institution in Sessions Court : 09.04.2013
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 03.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 14.12.2012, on receipt of DD No.
58B, Inspector Satyavir Janaula, SI Ravinder and Ct. Satyapal reached at House
No.C-95, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Delhi where they met ASI Omender Singh, Ct. Karmpal
and Ct. Yad Ram who were already present at the spot. They came to know that injured
persons were already taken to SRHC Hospital. Inspector Satyavir Janaula along with ASI
Omender Singh, Ct. Karmpal and Ct. Yadram left the spot and went to SRHC Hospital
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.1 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:37:28
leaving SI Ravinder and Ct. Satyapal at the spot. After reaching at SRHC Hospital, IO
obtained MLC No.3496/12 of victim Shamshul Husan S/o Md. Umar R/o: C-3/127,
Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikari Khurd, Delhi and MLC No.3497/12 of victim Kamalludin
@ Nanhe S/o Nasruddin R/o Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikari Khurd, Delhi, both of whom
were declared brought dead by doctors. IO also obtained MLC No.3498/12 of injured
Begam Shahjahan W/o Noor Husan R/o B-5/80, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Delhi, who was
declared fit for giving statement, however, she was unable to give her statement due to
pain and nervousness at that point of time. She was referred to LNJP Hospital, Delhi by
doctors. Thereafter, Inspector Satyavir Janaula, directed ASI Omender to send the dead
bodies of deceased persons namely Shamshul Hussain and Kamalluddin at Mortuary and
he returned back to the spot where eye-witness/complainant Shadab Hussain @ Munna
met and get recorded his statement.
2. Complainant Sh. Shadab Hussain @ Munna S/o Late Sh. Shamshul Hussain stated
in his statement that he helps his father (deceased Shamshul Hussain) in his property
dealing business. That on 14.12.2012, Kamaluddin @ Nanhe along with his brother
Jamaludin @ Kalla and her sister Shahjahan came to their property office and all asked
his father to find solution in respect of plot bearing no. B-4/144, Swaran Jyanti Vihar
which was illegally occupied by accused persons namely Akmal and Raffan. That a
tenant who used to reside in the afore-mentioned property till the day before yesterday
was removed by accused persons in the yesterday night and they put their belongings at
the said plot. That his father accompanied Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, Begum Shahjahan,
Jamaludin @ Kalla to plot bearing no. B-4/144, Swaran Jyanti Vihar and he also
accompanied them. That despite efforts, compromise could not be effected between them
and heated arguments started between them. That his father asked both the accused
persons Raffan and Akmal to come to his property office and accompanied Kamaluddin
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.2 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:37:44
+0530
@ Nanhe, Begum Shahjahan, Jamaludin @ Kalla to his property office. That while on
the way at about 03:00 PM, when they reached near the House of Ashok Soni, both the
accused persons namely Akmal and Raffan along with one more person (whose name he
does not known) in an aggressive mood and challenging voice, both the accused persons
Raffan and Akmal holding knives in their hands came running towards them. That
accused Akmal stabbed Shahjahan by saying ‘ Tujhe Makaan Ka Kabja De Deta Hoon.
Ye Le Makaan Ka Kabja’. That when Kamaluddin tried to save his sister Shahjahan,
accused Akmal stabbed Kamaluddin many times. That when his father (deceased
Shamshul Hussain) tried to ran away from there to save his life, accused Raffan and the
third person caught hold of his father and accused Akmal stabbed his father from knife
many times. That he raised alarm to save his father but none came to rescue his father.
That Jamalludin @ Kake ran away from the spot when he saw stabbing of Nanhe.
Accused persons namely Raffan, Akmal and third person threatened him if he made any
statement against them then he would be killed.
3. On the basis of statement given by Complainant, the present FIR was registered
for the offences punishable under section 302/307/506/34 IPC. SHO reached at the spot.
Crime Team along with photographer also reached at the spot. Crime Team inspected the
scene of the crime and took photographs and also took earth control and other exhibits
from the scene of crime. On the same day, accused Akmal Hussain was arrested who
made disclosure regarding the alleged incident and he also pointed out the place of
incident. Accused Akmal Hussain got recovered the said knife (weapon of offence) from
his possession from his house. On 15.12.2012, postmortem examination on the dead
body of deceased persons namely Shamshul Hussain and Kamalludin got conducted and
later on, their dead bodies were handed over to their relatives. The knife used by accused
Akmal Hussain was sent to FSL for Subsequent Medical Opinion. On 19.12.2012,
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.3 of 56
SUSHIL
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:37:49
+0530
accused Raffan S/o Sh. Abdul Raziz was arrested in the present case. However, the third
associate of accused persons could not be arrested. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet against accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Raffiq @ Raffan
was filed for the offences punishable under section 302/307/506/34 IPC in the Court of
concerned Ld. MM.
4. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. M.M. committed
the case to this Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Arguments on the point charge were heard and vide order dated 04.06.2013,
charges for the offences punishable u/s 302/307/506/34 IPC were framed against accused
persons namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan to which both of them
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was fixed up for PE.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as thirty seven (37)
prosecution witnesses. The said prosecution witnesses are PW-1 Sh. Shadab Hussain,
PW-2 Smt. Shahjahan, PW-3 Mohd. Subhan, PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum, PW-5 HC
Ramesh Kumar, PW-6 Ct. Inderjeet, PW-7 Sh. Rajbir, Assistant Ambulance Officer,
PW-8 Sh. Abdul Salaam, PW-9 Jamaluddin, PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, PW-11 Ct.
Sandeep, PW-12 Ct. Sunil, PW-13 ASI Dharambir Singh, PW-14 ASI Omender, PW-15
Dr. Ritu Saxena, PW-16 HC Manoj Kumar, PW-17 Ct. Arvind Kumar, PW-18 SI Ajit
Singh, PW-19 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, PW-20 Dr. R. K. Sahai, PW-21 Ct. Karam Pal, PW-22
Dr. Sudesh Kumar, PW-23 Ct. Azad Singh, PW-24 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW-25 SI
Ravinder, PW-26 Ct. Suraj Kumar, PW-27 HC Umed Singh, PW-28 HC Anang Pal,
PW-29 HC Subhash Chander, PW-30 W/ Const Santosh, PW-31 Constable Nakul, PW-32
SI Devi Singh, PW-33 HC Satyapal, PW-34 Ct. Yadram, PW-35 W/Ct. Neelima, PW-36
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.4 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:37:53
+0530
Satyavir Janaula and PW-37 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of
depositions made by prosecution witnesses.
8. PW-1 Sh. Shadab Hussain is the complainant on whose statement the present FIR
has been registered. Apart from identifying both accused persons, he has materially
deposed on the lines of prosecution story. He has testified in his examination-in-chief that
his father late Sh. Shamshul Hussain was doing the business of property dealing and he
used to help him in the property dealing business. He further deposed that their property
dealing shop is near to their house which situated at C-3/127, Swaran Jyanti Vihar, Tikri
Khurd, Delhi. He further deposed that on 14.12.2012, Shahjan along with her brother
Kamaluddin and her another brother Kalla accompanied by their husband came to their
house. He further deposed that they all asked his father to get a compromise effected in
respect of plot bearing No.B-4/114, Swaran Jyanti Vihar which was under illegal
occupation of accused Akmal and Raffan. He further deposed that he cannot say since
when the said plot was in their illegal occupation. He further deposed that his father
assured them and after his Namaz, he along with above said persons went to Plot
No.B-4/114 and he also went after them.
PW-1 further deposed that both the accused persons were present at the plot along
with one more person. He further deposed that there were talks of compromise between
his father and above said persons and both the accused but there were heated arguments
between them. He further deposed that thereafter his father asked both the accused
persons, Shahjahan and others to come to his office for further talks. He further deposed
that his father was walking ahead, he, Shahjahan, her brothers and her husband were also
walking behind his father and both the accused persons were following them. He further
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.5 of 56
signed by
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:37:57
+0530
deposed that when they reached near the house of Ashok Soni, accused Raffan and one
more person who was with them caught hold of Shahjahan. He again deposed that
accused Akmal said that ‘Aa Tujhe Plot Deta Hu’. He further deposed that on this
accused Raffan and the third person caught hold of Shahjahan and accused Akmal
stabbed Shahjahan. He further deposed that her brother Kamaluddin tried to save her but
accused Akmal stabbed Kamaluddin. He further deposed that accused Raffan and third
person caught hold of his father and accused Akmal stabbed many times his father. He
further deposed that another brother of Shahjahan namely Kalla ran away from the spot.
He further deposed that he raised alarm but none came to their rescue. He further
deposed that both the accused persons said to him that if he tried intervene then he would
be killed. He further deposed that both the accused persons threatened him if he made
any statement against them then would kill him.
PW-1 further deposed that someone informed the police. He further deposed that
he removed his father to Raja Harish Chandra Hospital and his father expired on the way
to the hospital. He further deposed that dead body of his father remained in the hospital
and he came back to his house. He further deposed that police reached the hospital and
his statement was recorded by the police at the spot as Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed
that the concerned police official who recorded his statement got the FIR registered. He
further deposed that thereafter IO of the present case prepared site plan at his instance
and IO also called the Crime Team Officials at the spot and the crime team inspected the
place of occurrence and also took photographs of the place of occurrence. He further
deposed that IO also took the blood stained mud and also took the earth control from the
spot and kept the same in plastic containers which were sealed with seal of SJ. He
further deposed that IO seized the pullanda containing blood stained mud as Ex. PW1/B
and the pullanda containing earth control vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed
that IO at his pointing out, apprehended accused Akmal Hussain from his house and
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.6 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:01
+0530
effected his arrest vide Arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his Personal search vide
memo Ex. PW1/E. He further deposed that accused Akmal Hussain also made disclosure
statement to the IO as Ex. PW1/E-1 and thereafter, accused Akmal got recovered the
knife from his house used by him in the commission of offence. He further deposed that
IO prepared the sketch of knife as Ex.PW1/F. He further deposed that IO kept the said
knife in a cloth pullanda and the pullanda was sealed with the seal of JS and was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G.
PW-1 further deposed that during investigation, he also identified the body of his
father at the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and IO also recorded his statement to this effect
as Ex. PW1/H. He further deposed that he also joined investigation in the present case on
19.12.2012. He further deposed that on that day, IO apprehended accused Raffiq @
Raffan on his identification from Tikri Bus Stand and after interrogation, IO effected his
arrest vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/J and also conducted his personal search vide memo
Ex. PW1/K. He further deposed that accused Raffiq @ Raffan also made disclosure
statement to the IO which is Ex. PW1/L. He further deposed that accused Raffiq @
Raffan als pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.PW1/M. He
further deposed that Draftsman also took measurements of the place of occurrence at his
instance.
PW-1 identified the case property i.e., road material having dark brown stains i.e.
blood stained sand lifted from the place of occurrence as Ex.P-1, road material / earth
control as Ex. P-2, one metalic knife having rusty brown stain which was used by
accused Akmal Hussain in the commission of offence as Ex. P-3. He also identified one
jacket having dark stains, one cut / torn sweater having brown stains, one cut / torn kurta
having brown stains, one cut / torn pajama having blood stains, one cut / torn baniyan
having blood / brown stains, one underwear having brown stains, being the clothes of his
father i.e., deceased Shamshul Hussain which were being worn by him at the time of
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally signed Page No.7 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur by SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.03
16:38:05
+0530
commission of offence upon him as Ex. P-4 (Colly).
9. PW-2 Smt. Shahjahan is a victim/injured and a natural eye witness of the alleged
incident. She is also sister of deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe. Apart from identified both
accused persons, PW-2 has testified on the lines of prosecution version. In her
examination-in-chief, she has deposed that she was previously married to Yunis and that
she was having four children from her previous marriage with Yunis whose names are
Shan Mohammad, Imran, Mehmoona and Imrana. She further deposed that thereafter,
she married with Noor Hasan from she had three sons namely Javed, Akhtar and Iqbal.
She further deposed that the plot bearing no.B-4/114, Swaran Jyanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd
was allotted to her by the government. She further deposed that the possession of the plot
was handed over to her. She further deposed that he is residing in Sahibabad for the last
18 years and this plot was allotted to her 12 years back.
PW-2 further deposed that said plot had construction and she had given the same
on rent. She further deposed that she came to know that accused persons were trying to
take possession from his tenants. She further deposed that about one month prior to the
incident, accused persons occupied her plot illegally about which she lodged a report in
the police station which is Mark-A. She again said that accused persons had taken
possession of the plot one day prior to the day of incident but she lodged the report about
one month prior to the incident regarding their intention to occupy her plot. She further
deposed that Shamshul Hussain was the property dealer in the area. She further deposed
that on 14.12.2012, she along with her brothers namely Kamaluddin and Zamaluddin
went to the office of the Shamshul Hussain seeking his intervention in the matter. She
further deposed that from his office, she himself, her two brothers above-named and son
of Shamshul Hussain went to his plot at B-4/114. She further deposed that at the plot,
both the accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and Rafiq @ Raffan were present along
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.8 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:10
+0530
with one more person. She correctly identified both accused persons. She further
deposed that the matter could not be solved at the plot and there were heated arguments.
She further deposed that both accused persons asked them to reach at Shamshul
Hussain’s office. She further deposed that thereafter, they all left for the office of
Shamshul Hussain. She further deposed that accused persons followed them. She further
deposed that the third persons did not do anything but he followed them. She further
deposed that accused Raffan caught hold of her and accused Akmal Hussain said ” Ab
Legi Plot” and stabbed her and she fell down. She further deposed that his brother
Kamaluddin came to save her and accused Raffan inflicted knife blow to her. She further
deposed that thereafter accused Raffan and the third person caught hold of Shamshul
Hussain and accused Akmal stabbed Shamshul. She further deposed that thereafter they
(accused persons) escaped in vehicle. She further deposed that she was removed to the
hospital in the Ambulance and from there, she was removed to another hospital. She
further deposed that her clothes were taken in the hospital. She further deposed that her
clothes were blood stained. She further deposed that she handed over the photocopies of
her treatment paper to the IO as Mark-B (Colly).
PW-2 identified the case property i.e. her clothes which she was wearing on the
date of occurrence as well as the knives used by the accused persons in the commission
of offence. PW-2 correctly identified case property i.e., one ladies shirt (kurti) of green
colour having brown stains which she was wearing on the date of occurrence which was
seized during the investigation of the case and the same is Ex.P-2/1. She further
identified case property i.e., parcel no. 3 sealed which found containing one metallic
knife having rusty brown stains as Ex.P3 being used in the commission of offence.
10. PW-3 Mohd. Subhan deposed on 15.12.2022, he had gone to Mortuary of BJRM
Hospital where he had identified the dead body of deceased Shamshul Hussain vide his
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.9 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:13
statement Ex. PW3/A.
11. PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum is also an eye witness of the present case and she is the
wife of deceased Shamshul Hussain. She identified both accused persons and materially
corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 by testifying on the lines of prosecution
story. She correctly identified both the accused persons namely Raffan and Akmal by
pointing out her finger towards each of the accused. She further deposed that on
14.12.2012, she was present at her house and about 03:00 PM, she heard a noise in a gali
and came outside her house. She further deposed that she went to another gali where she
saw many public persons had gathered. She further deposed that she saw Raffan and one
more person had caught hold his husband namely Shamshul Hussain and Akmal was
stabbing her husband with knife. She further deposed that she cried for help but no one
came forward. She further deposed that she also saw that her son namely Munna @
Shadab was already present and he was also crying for help from the public persons
present there. She further deposed that she and her son tried to save her husband by going
towards him on which all the said three persons including Akmal and Raffan fled away
from there. She further deposed that their car make Nano was parked just near the spot.
She further deposed that she along with her son removed Shamshul Hussain in the said
car and took him to SRHC Hospital, Narela for necessary treatment. She further deposed
that on the way to said hospital, her husband was still taking some breathe but he had
already expired by the time they reached the hospital as also declared brought dead by
the concerned doctor present in the hospital. She further deposed that after postmortem of
the dead body of her husband, his dead body was received by them. She further deposed
that they took the dead body to their native village situated at District Kash Ganj, UP,
where dead body was cremated. Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
SC No. 57410/2016 KUMAR Date: Page No.10 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur 2025.04.03
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. 16:38:22
+0530
12. PW-5 HC Ramesh Kumar is the Duty Officer, PS Alipur. He has proved on record
FIR No.442/12 PS Alipur as Ex. PW5/A, Certificate under section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act as Ex. PW5/B, his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW5/C.
13. PW-6 Ct. Inderjeet is the Reader to SHO PS Alipur. He has proved on record
original local complaint dated 01.10.2012 filed by complainant Begum Shahjahan in
respect of illegal possession of the house contained in register at serial no.935 dated
01.10.2012 vide reference no.76B dated 01.10.2012 as Ex.PW6/B.
14. PW-7 Sh. Rajbir, Assistant Ambulance Officer, Base Alipur, Delhi, deposed that
he has been working with CAT Ambulance as Para Medical. He further deposed that on
14.12.2012, he was on duty at CAT Ambulance no. 16 from 8 am to 8 pm. He further
deposed that on that day, he received a call from CAT Control Room regarding incident
of stab injury at Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi, accordingly, he along-with
driver in Ambulance no. DL-1A-2430 went to the place of occurrence where he found
one injured lady namely Shahjahan and they took her to Raja Harish Chander Hospital in
their Ambulance and got her admitted there for medical treatment. He further deposed
that during investigation, IO recorded his statement.
15. PW-8 Sh. Abdul Salaam deposed that on 15.12.2012, he went to Mortuary BJRM
Hospital and in the said Mortuary, he identified the dead body of Kamaluddin @ Nanhe
who was his brother-in-law (Jija). He further deposed that IO recorded his statement to
this effect as Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body of his
brother-in-law was handed over to their relative Jamaluddin, in his presence vide receipt
Ex.PW8/B.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.11 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
16:38:26 +0530
16. PW-9 Sh. Jamaluddin is also an eye-witness of the alleged incident. In his
examination-in-chief, PW-9 has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he along-with his elder
brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe (now deceased) came to the house of their sister
Shahjahan who was residing at that time at Ghaziabad, U.P. He further deposed that
thereafter, on the same day, he along-with his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and his
sister Shahjahan came to the property dealer office of Samshul Hussain (now deceased)
at Tikri Khurd, Delhi. He further deposed that in fact, they came to the office of Samshul
Hussain for resolving the property dispute in respect of Plot No. B-4/114, Swaran Jayanti
Vihar, Tikri Khurd. He further deposed that after reaching the office of Samshul Hussain,
they requested him for resolving the said property dispute over the said plot, which was
between Shahjahan and Noorjahan, who both are his real sisters. He further deposed that
upon their request, Samshul Hussain stated to them to accompany him over the said plot,
in order to talk to Noorjahan and her family members. He further deposed that thereafter,
he alongwith his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, sister Shahjahan accompanied Samshul
Hussain to the said plot i.e. B-4/114, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd. He further
deposed that upon reaching there, they met accused Akmal Hussain as well as accused
Rafiq @ Raffan.
Attention of PW-9 was drawn towards both the accused persons one by one and he
correctly identified them. He further deposed that both the accused persons are real
brothers and sons of Noorjahan. He further deposed that thereafter, they talked to both
the accused persons about the dispute of the said plot and they requested them for
amicable solution of the dispute but both the accused persons had not heard of them and
got agitated. He further deposed that during negotiation, both the accused persons Akmal
Hussan and Rafiq @ Raffan stated to them for reaching the office of Samshul Hussain
and further stated to them that they would talk to them in the office of Samshul Hussain.
He further deposed that he was apprehensive of the fact that some untoward incident may
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.12 of 56
signed by
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:30
+0530
take place and due to fear, he left the said place for the house of his mother at Badarpur
Border. He further deposed that when he reached at the house of his mother at Badarpur
Border, his mother Bano informed him that both the accused persons had caused knife
injuries to his brother Kamaluddin, his sister Shahjahan as well as the property dealer
Samshul Hussain.
PW-9 further deposed that thereafter, he made a call to his other relative and he
went to PS Alipur along-with few of his relatives. He further deposed that in the hospital,
he met police officials who informed them that the injured and deceased were in the
hospital, accordingly, they went to the hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital,
he identified the dead body of his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and IO recorded his
statement to this effect as Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, he
received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW8/B. He further deposed that the incident had
not occurred his presence.
As PW-9 did not support the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief, he was
cross-examined by Ld. Addl PP for state with the permission of the Court. During cross-
examination by Ld. Addl PP for state, PW-9 admitted that both the accused persons are
sons of his real sister namely Noorjahan. He denied the suggestion that he stated to IO
that when he along-with Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, Shadab, Shahjahan and Samshul Hussain
left the said plot and that on or about 3 pm while walking when they had reached at near
the house of Ashok Soni, accused Akmal Hussain and Rafiq @ Raffan along-with one of
their accomplice came chasing them. He further denied the suggestion that both accused
Akmal and Rafiq were armed with knives and their accomplice was also armed with
knife. He further denied the suggestion that he stated to IO that accused Rafiq @ Raffan
and their accomplice caught hold of Shamshul Hussain or that accused Akmal Hussain
while raising noises to the effect that since they want share in the property, he would
teach a lesson to them. He further denied the suggestion that thereafter, in his presence
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.13 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:34
+0530
accused Akmal Hussain caused knife blows over Samshul Hussain. He further denied the
suggestion that upon seeing the aforesaid incident, he run away from the spot.
Attention of PW-9 was drawn towards his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
which is Mark P8/1 and it was read over to the witness, however, witness denied making
any such statement to the police. He further denied the suggestion that he stated to IO
that accused Akmal Hussain at the same time, had also caused injuries with knife over
the person of his sister Shahjahan and his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe. PW-9 admitted
that later on, he came to know Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and Samshul Hussain had expired
in the hospital. He admitted that his sister Shahjahan was also admitted in the hospital as
she had also suffered knife injuries. He admitted that Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and Samshul
Hussain had expired due to the injuries caused with knives. He further denied the
suggestion that he is intentionally not deposing complete true facts being won over by
accused persons being his relatives.
17. PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Medical Officer, SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi
deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was working as Medical Officer in SRHC Hospital
Narela. He further deposed that on that day at about 3:40 PM, one person namely
Shamshool Hassan S/o Mohd. Omar, aged about 48 years was brought to casualty of
SRHC Hospital with alleged history of physical assault. He further deposed that on his
examination, the said patient was not responding and he was not having pulse, heart beat
and respiration. He further deposed that the said patient was also put to ECG test which
showed no sign of heart beat and there was also put to ECG test which showed no sigh of
heart beat and there was flat line appearing on the screen. He further deposed that
consequently, the said patient was declared dead by him at 03:45 PM. He further deposed
that he prepared notes in this regard on treatment sheet of the said patient as Ex.
PW10/A. He further deposed that he had also prepared the MLC No.3496 of said patient
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.14 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:39
+0530
wherein it was also mentioned that the said patient was found having multiple stab
injuries over various parts of the body as described on back side of the said MLC. The
said MLC is Ex. PW10/B. He further deposed that he also issued Death Certificate of the
said patient as Ex. PW10/C.
PW-10 further deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was working as Medical Officer in
SRHC Hospital, Narela. He further deposed that on that day at about 04:15 PM, one
person namely Kamaluddin @ Nanhey S/o Sh. Nasruddin, aged about 45 years was
brought to the casualty of SRHC Hospital with alleged history of physical assault. He
further deposed that on his examination, the said patient was not responding and he was
not having pulse, heart beat and respiration. He further deposed that the said patient was
also put to ECG test which shows no sign of heart beat and there was flat line appearing
on the screen. He further deposed that consequently, the said patient was declared dead
by him at 4:15 pm. He further deposed that he prepared notes in this regard on treatment
sheet of the said patient as Ex. PW10/D. He further deposed that he had also prepared the
MLC bearing No.3497 of the said patient wherein it was also mentioned that the said
patient was found having multiple stab injuries over various parts of body as described
on back side of the said MLC as Ex. PW10/E. He further deposed that he had issued
Death Certificate of the said patient as Ex. PW10/F.
18. PW-11 Ct. Sandeep has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted at Constable
with Crime Team Outer District, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that on that
day, a call was received from District Control Room and accordingly, he along-with ASI
Ajit Singh, In-charge Mobile Crime Team along-with staff, reached at the place of
occurrence i.e. on a road, C-Block, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi. He further
deposed that upon the instructions of IO, he took 7 photographs of the place of
occurrence from different angles. He further deposed that after developing, he handed
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.15 of 56
SUSHIL
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:43
+0530
over the photographs to the IO. He has proved on record the negatives of the said
photographs as Ex.PW11/A and photographs as Ex.PW11/B. He further during
investigation, IO recorded his statement.
19. PW-12 Ct. Sunil has deposed that on 14.12.2012 after the registration of present
FIR No. 442/12, U/s 302/307/506/34 IPC, on the instructions of Duty Officer HC
Ramesh Kumar, he took the copies of FIR in a govt. motorcycle bearing no.
DL-1SN-4143. He further deposed that he delivered the copy of FIR to the concerned
Ld. MM, Joint Commissioner of Police, DCP, Outer District at their respective
residences. He further deposed that after delivering the copies of FIR, he returned back to
PS at about 1 A.M. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement to this effect.
20. PW-13 ASI Dharamvir Singh has deposed that on 19.12.12, he along-with IO
Inspector Satyavir Janaula, HC Anang Pal along-with driver Sukhram and complainant of
the present case i.e. Shadab Hussain @ Munna left for the investigation of the present
case from PS Alipur. He further deposed that they all left in a government vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1PA-6256 and they left the PS on or about 7.20 pm. He further
deposed that at about 9.30 pm, they had reached near GTK Road bus stop near village
Tikri Khurd, complainant Shadab Hussain @ Munna pointed out towards accused Rafiq
@ Rafan (correctly identified), standing at the bus stand. He further deposed that on the
pointing out and on the identification of complainant Shadab Hussain, they apprehended
accused Rafiq @ Rafan. He further deposed that IO interrogated accused Rafiq. He
further deposed that after interrogation, IO effected the arrest of accused Rafiq vide arrest
memo Ex. PW-1/J. He further deposed that IO also conducted the personal search of
accused Rafiq vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/K. He further deposed that accused
Rafiq also made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/L before the IO. He further deposed
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.16 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:47
+0530
that accused Rafiq also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out
memo Ex. PW-1/M. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
21. PW-14 ASI Omender has deposed that on 14.12.2012 he was on day emergency
duty from 8.00 A.M to 8.00 P.M. He further deposed that on that day, on receipt of DD
no.57-B Ex. PW14/A, he along-with Ct. Yad Ram went to the place of information i.e. at
Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, where he found blood stains near House no. C-95,
Swarn Jayanti Vihar. He further deposed that it was also revealed to him that the injured
persons have been taken to SRHC hospital by PCR Van. He further deposed that while
he was making enquiries at the spot, in the meantime, Inspector Satyabir Janaula, SI
Ravinder and Ct. Satya Pal had also reached there. He further deposed that Inspector
Satyabir Janaula also made inquiries. He further deposed that in the meantime, Beat Ct.
Karambir had also reached at the spot. He further deposed that Inspector Satyabir Janaula
left SI Ravinder and Ct. Satya Pal reached at the spot. He further deposed that he along-
with Ct. Karambir, Ct. Yad Ram accompanied Inspector Satyabir Janaula to SRHC
hospital. He further deposed that in the said hospital, Inspector Satyabir Janaula collected
MLCs of Shamshul Hassan and Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and both were declared brought
dead. He further deposed that Inspector Satyabir Janaula also collected MLC of injured
Begum Sahajaan. He further deposed that the concerned doctor opined injured Begum
Sahajaan fit for statement and also referred the said injured to LNJP hospital. He further
deposed that Inspector Satyabir Janaula requested injured Begum Shahjaan for making
statement but she was not in a position to make statement due to pain and uneasiness. He
further deposed that injured Begum Sahajaan was taken to LNJP hospital in the hospital
ambulance. He further deposed that Inspector Satyabir Janaula instructed them for taking
the dead bodies of Shamshul Hussain and Kamaluddin to the mortuary of BJRM
hospital. He further deposed that accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Yad Ram and Ct.
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.17 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:51
Karambir took both the bodies to BJRM mortuary in a private tempo and both the bodies
were deposited in the mortuary of BJRM hospital. He further deposed that he deputed Ct.
Karambir for taking care of both the bodies. He further deposed that thereafter, he
alongwith Ct. Yad Ram had returned to the spot. He further deposed that by the time they
had returned back to the spot, Inspector Satyabir Janaula had already got registered FIR
no. 442/12 and Crime Team officials had already inspected the place of occurrence.
PW-14 further deposed that in his presence, IO Inspector Satyabir Januala lifted
the blood stained mud and also lifted the earth control, from the spot and kept the same in
plastic containers and the plastic containers were sealed with the seal of SJ. He further
deposed that IO seized the pullanda containing blood stained mud vide memo Ex.PW1/B
and the pullanda containing earth control vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that
thereafter, in his presence, at the pointing out of complainant Shahdab Hussain, IO
apprehended accused Akmal Hussain (correctly identified) from his house and effected
his arrest vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide memo
Ex.PW1/E. He further deposed that accused Akmal Hussain also made disclosure
statement to the IO as Ex.PW1/E-1. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Akmal
also got recovered one chapar type knife from under the two bricks kept at the corner of
wall of the room of his house number B-4/114, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd and
claimed that the said weapon was used by him in the commission of offence. He further
deposed that IO measured the said knife and upon measuring its total length came to 32.8
cm. He further deposed that IO prepared the sketch of said knife Ex.PW1/F. He further
deposed that IO kept the said knife in a cloth pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the
seal of JS and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G.
PW-14 further deposed that during investigation, accused Akhmal Hussain also
pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW14/A. He
further deposed that IO recorded the statements of witnesses including his statement. He
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally signed Page No.18 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur by SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.03
16:38:55
+0530
further deposed that thereafter, accused Akhmal Hussain was got medically examined
and was sent to lock up. PW-14 correctly identified case property i.e., road material
having dark brown stains i.e. blood stained sand as Ex.P-1 being lifted from the place of
occurrence. He further identified another case property i.e., road material/earth control as
Ex.P-2 being lifted from the place of occurrence. He also identified another case
property i.e., one metalic knife having rusty brown stains as Ex.P-3 being recovered at
the instance of accused Akmal Hussain from his house and used by accused Akmal
Hussain in the commission of offences.
22. PW-15 Ms. Ritu Saxena, CMO, Lok Nayak Hospital, deposed that she has been
deputed by MS of Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi to appear and depose on behalf of Dr.
Supriya J.R (Casualty) who has left the hospital and her present whereabouts are not
within the knowledge of the hospital. She had correctly identified the handwriting and
signature of Dr. Supriya as she had worked under her and that is how, he had seen her
signing and writing during official work.
PW-15 further deposed that on 14.12.2012, at about 5.59 P.M, injured
Shahjaan W/o Sh. Noor Hassan was brought by Dr. Parveen from SRHC Hospital Narela
vide MLC no. 3498 bearing Emergency Number 244508. She further deposed that as per
the available record, the said patient was examined by Dr. Supriya the then J.R
( Casualty) in Lok Nayak Hospital. She further deposed that according to said record, the
said patient was giving history of assault ( stab injury). She further deposed that upon
local medical examination by Dr. Supriya, the said patient was conscious oriented having
no history of loss of consciousness, vomiting, seizure and ENT bleed. She further
deposed that the patient had decreased air entry on right side of chest on account of some
penetrating injury caused due to stabbing. She further deposed that the said patient was
found having following injuries:- Digitally
signed by
SC No. 57410/2016 SUSHIL Page No.19 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:38:59
+0530
1. One incised wound on right side of chest ( inner quadrant right breast) size
approximately 3x 2 cm.
2. Two incised wound just medial to right breast 2×1 cm.
3. Clean lacerated wound 1x 03 cm on right hand thumb.
4. Clean lacerated wound 2×1 cm left index finger.
PW-15 has further deposed that patient was referred to Surgery
(Emergency) for detailed examination and further management and opinion. She further
deposed that the Casualty Slip in respect of patient Shahjaan is in handwriting of Dr.
Supriya. She further deposed that after giving primary treatment, patient Shahjaan was
referred to Surgery (Emergency). She further deposed that the photocopy of the Casualty
Slip prepared by Dr. Supriya Mark B which bears the signature of Dr. Supriya at point X
which she identify.
23. PW-16 Manoj Kumar has deposed that on 14.12.2012, Inspector Satyaveer
Janaula had deposited six pullanda sealed with the seal of SJ in the malkhana, seized in
case FIR no. 442/12. He further deposed that he had made entry at serial no. 1085 in
register no. 19 in this regard. He further proved the original register no. 19 containing
the aforesaid entry which is in his handwriting as Ex.PW16/A (OSR). He further deposed
that so long as the case property remained with him, same were not tampered by him or
anyone. He further deposed that thereafter, on 18.12.2012, Inspector Satyaveer Janaula
had deposited three pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, Delhi in the
malkhana pertaining to case FIR no. 442/12. He further deposed that he had made entry
at serial no. 1101 in register no. 19 in this regard. He proved on record the original
register no. 19 containing the aforesaid entry which is in his handwriting as Ex.PW16/B
(OSR). He further deposed that so long as the case property remained with him same
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016
signed by Page No.20 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:04
+0530
were not tampered by me or anyone.
PW-16 further deposed that thereafter, on 27.12.2013, he had handed over one
pullanda sealed with the seal of SJ containing knife to Ct. Subhash vide RC no. 27/12/13
for taking the same to the autopsy surgeon mortuary BJRM hospital. He further proved
original RC no. 27/12/13 which is in his handwriting as Ex. PW16/C. He further deposed
that on the same day, Ct. Subhash deposited back the pullanda containing knife sealed
with the seal of FMT BJEM hospital and he had made endorsement in entry register as
Ex.PW16/A. PW-16 further deposed that thereafter, on 09.03.2013, he had handed over
one pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital containing knife alongwith one
sample seal to Ct. Umed vide RC no. 40/21/13 for taking the same to the SRHC Hospital,
Narela. PW-16 proved original RC no. 40/21/13 which is in his handwriting as Ex.
PW16/D. He further deposed that on the same day, Ct. Umed deposited back the pullanda
containing knife sealed with the seal of SRHC hospital and he had made endorsement in
entry as Ex.PW16/A.
PW-16 further deposed that thereafter on 02.04.2013, he had handed over nine
sealed pullandas alongwith four sample seal to Ct. Karmavir RC no. 57/21/13 for taking
the same to the FSL Rohini. He further proved original RC no. 57/21/13 which is in his
handwriting (ORS) as Ex.PW16/E. He further deposed that on the same day, Ct.
Karamvir after deposited the aforesaid exhibits at FSL returned back to PS and handed
over him the acknowledgment. He further deposed that he had made endorsement in
entry as Ex.PW16/A. He has further proved on record the original acknowledgment
which is seen and return as Ex. PW16/F.
24. PW-17 Ct. Arvind Kumar deposed that he was working as DD Writer. He proved
on record DD register containing DD No.76B dated 01.10.2012 as Ex. PW17/A.
Digitally
signed by
SC No. 57410/2016 SUSHIL Page No.21 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL KUMAR
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:09
+0530
25. PW-18 SI Ajit Singh has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted as In-charge,
Mobile Crime Team (Outer District). He further deposed that on that day at about 5.15
pm, he had received a call through wireless set for reaching alongwith Crime Team at the
place of occurrence i.e near C-95, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi, accordingly,
he along-with other members of Crime Team i.e. Ct. Sandeep (photographer) and other
staff had reached there. He further deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence
and got the same photographed through Ct. Sandeep from different angles. He further
deposed that after carrying out the inspection of the spot, he prepared Crime Team report
dated 14.12.2012 and he proved the same on record as Ex.PW18/A.
26. PW-19 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that he has been working as Record Clerk
with LNJP hospital since 2007. He deposed that he has seen the photocopies of
Emergency/OPD Cards in respect of patient Shahjahan W/o Sh. Noor Hassan dated
14.12.2012, 26.12.2012 and 28.12.2012 and the same are Mark B collectively. He
further deposed that the hospital is not having any office copies of the aforesaid three
OPD Cards. He further deposed that the OPD Cards in original are used to be given to
the patients/attendants. He has proved on record computerized record of OPD
Registration Details date wise w.e.f. 01.12.2012 to 31.12.2012. He further deposed that
as per said record, the aforesaid three OPD Cards were issued to patient Shahjahan. He
proved on record the computerized record of the same as Ex. PW19/A which shows the
issuance of aforesaid three OPD Cards which are encircled at portion A to A1, B to B1
and C to C1 respectively.
27. PW-20 Dr. R. K. Sahai, Medical Officer has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was
posted at SRHC Hospital Narela on deputation from Government of Haryana. He further
deposed that on that day, patient namely Begum Shahjahan W/o Sh. Noor Hassan was
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.22 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:13
+0530
brought to the hospital by CAT Ambulance with alleged history of physical assault. He
further deposed that he had medically examined the aforesaid patient and prepared MLC
no. 3498/12. PW-20 proved the same on record as Ex. PW20/A. He further deposed that
upon medical examination, the injured found sustained following injuries:-
1. CLW 3x3x2 cm over right lower inner quadrant breast. Margins clear.
2. CLW 2x1x2 cm over right inframammary region(below breast). Margins clear.
3. CLW on left index finger.
PW-20 further deposed that after medical examination, the aforesaid patient was
referred to S.R (Surgery) for further management and opinion. He further deposed that
from Surgical side, the aforesaid patient was examined by Dr. Rishab Jain S.R (Surgery)
and the observations made by said doctor on MLC Ex. PW20/A are at portion X to X1
and same also bears signatures of Dr. Rishab Jain at point B which he identified as he has
seen him signing and writing in the discharge of his official duty with him in the said
hospital. He further deposed that as per the observations made by Dr. Rishab Jain, the
aforesaid patient was further referred to LNJP hospital for further evaluation and
management.
PW-20 further deposed that on the MLC Ex. PW20/A, he had opined the nature of
injury on the person of injured Shahjahan as simple at point C being caused by sharp
weapon. He further deposed that he had also received a letter dated 09.03.2013 of
Inspector Satyabir Janulla, wherein request was made to give subsequent opinion with
regard to the weapon recovered in this case. He further deposed that alongwith the said
letter, one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital was also received.
He further deposed that he had opened the said pullanda which was found containing one
knife. He further deposed that after examination, he had given opinion to the effect that
the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex. PW20/A, could be caused by such type of weapon.
He further deposed that subsequent opinion dated 09.03.2013 given by hims is now Ex.
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.23 of 56 FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.04.03 16:39:17 +0530
PW20/B. He further deposed that after examination, he had resealed the said knife with
the seal of SRHC hospital and handed over his subsequent opinion alongwith said
pullanda to the concerned police official. PW-20 correctly identified case property i.e.,
one metallic knife having rusty brown stains which is the same knife which was
examined by him at the time of giving subsequent opinion Ex. PW20/B and the said
knife is Ex. P3.
28. PW-21 Ct. Karam Pal has deposed that on 14.12.2012 while he was on patrolling
duty and was present at B-4 Police Colony i.e. Tikri Beat, there he had received an
information regarding the use of knives at Swaran Jayanti Vihar. He further deposed that
upon this, he went to the place of occurrence, where he had met ASI Omender Singh and
Ct. Yaad Ram. He further deposed that it was revealed to him that injured persons had
already been taken to hospital. He further deposed that after sometime, Inspector Satyavir
Janaula alongwith staff had also reached at the spot. He further deposed that thereafter,
he himself, Ct. Yaad Ram and ASI Omender Singh, had accompanied Inspector Satyavir
Janaula to SRHC Hospital Narela. He further deposed that in the said hospital, Inspector
Satyavir Janaula had collected the MLCs of deceased Shamsul Hussain and Kamaaluddin
@ Nanhe and also MLC of injured Shahjahan Begum. He further deposed that Inspector
Satyavir Janaula had prepared applications and instructed ASI Omender for taking the
dead bodies of both the aforesaid deceased to BJRM Hospital Mortuary, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Omender took the dead bodies of both
the aforesaid deceased persons in a private Tempo to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital,
where they had deposited both the said dead bodies there. He further deposed that
thereafter, he had remained in the aforesaid Mortuary.
PW-21 further deposed that on 15.12.2012, IO had got conducted postmortem on
the bodies of both the aforesaid deceased persons and after postmortem, handed over
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.24 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:26
the said bodies to their relatives. He further deposed that till the time the aforesaid
dead bodies remained deposited in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital, same was not
tampered. He further deposed that he had also signed on the relevant memos regarding
handing over the dead bodies. He further deposed that the memo regarding handing over
the body of deceased Kamaaluddin is Ex.PW8/B and the memo regarding handing over
the body of deceased Shamsul Hussain is Ex.PW21/A.
PW-21 further deposed that during investigation on 18.12.2012 on the instruction
of IO, he went to BJRM Hospital Mortuary from where he had collected the postmortem
report of deceased Shamsul Hussain. He further deposed that he had also collected one
sealed polythene pullanda containing the clothes of deceased Shamsul Hussain, sealed
with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and one sealed pullanda containing blood on gauze
piece of said deceased and one sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital. He further deposed
that on the same day, he had also collected the postmortem report of deceased
Kamaaluddin @ Nanhe. He further deposed that he had also collected one sealed
polythene pullanda containing the clothes of said deceased, sealed with the seal of FMT
BJRM Hospital and one sealed pullanda containing blood on gauze piece of said
deceased and one sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital.
PW-21 further deposed that he had handed over the postmortem report as well as
the aforesaid pullandas to IO Inspector Satyavir Janaula. He further deposed that IO had
seized the pullandas in respect of deceased Kamaaluddin @ Nanhe vide seizure memo
Ex.PW21/B and pullandas in respect of deceased Shamsul Hussain vide seizure memo
Ex.PW21/C. He further deposed that IO had recorded his supplementary statement in this
regard.
29. PW-22 Dr. Sudesh Kumar has deposed that he was posted in BJRM Hospital. On
that day at about 12:50 P. M. he had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.25 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:34
+0530
Kamaluddin @ Nanhe S/o. Nasruddin with the alleged history that the deceased was
stabbed and died and his body was sent to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital for autopsy vide
FIR No. 442/12. He further deposed that after conducting postmortem on the body of
deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, he had prepared report bearing no. 1260/12 Ex. PW
22/A, which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and official stamp at point A.
He further deposed that the cause of death of Kamaluddin was hemorrhagic shock as a
result of huge blood loss consequent upon stab injury no. 1 & 2 as detailed in his report.
He further deposed that the said injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration
and caused by sharp weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature. Time since death was about 22 hours. He further deposed that after postmortem,
he had handed over the inquest papers, sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased
alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and sealed pullanda containing blood
gauze piece of deceased along-with sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital to the police.
PW-22 further deposed that on the same day i.e. 15.12.2012 at about 1:15 pm, he
had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Shamshul Hussain S/o. Mohd. Umar
with the alleged history that the deceased was stabbed and died and his body was sent to
Mortuary of BJRM Hospital for autopsy vide FIR No. 442/12. He further deposed that
after conducting postmortem on the body of said deceased, he had prepared report
bearing no. 1262/12 Ex. PW 22/B which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and
official stamp at point A. He further deposed that the cause of death of said deceased was
hemorrhagic shock as a result of huge blood loss consequent upon stab injury no. 1, 2, 3
& 5 as detailed in his report. He further deposed that the said injuries were ante mortem
in nature, fresh in duration and caused by sharp weapon and was sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was about 22 hours. He further deposed
that after postmortem, he had handed over the inquest papers, sealed pullanda containing
clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and sealed pullanda
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.26 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:39
containing blood gauze piece of deceased alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital
to the police.
PW-22 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had received
one sealed packet sealed with the seal of SJ containing weapon of offence for providing
subsequent opinion. He had opened the said sealed packet. The same was containing one
knife. He had prepared sketch Ex. PW 22/C of said knife and also measured the same
and mentioned the measurements on the said sketch. The said sketch also bears his
signature and also his official stamp at point A.
PW-22 further deposed that he had examined the said knife alongwith the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report. After examination, he had opined that injuries no. 1
to 6 as observed during the postmortem of deceased Kamaluddin vide PM report Ex PW
22/A can possibly be caused by said knife or by similar type of object.
PW-22 further deposed that he had also examined the said knife alongwith the
injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW 22/B. After examination, he had
opined that injuries no. 6 to 6 as observed during the postmortem of deceased Shamshul
Hussan vide PM Report Ex. PW 22/B, can possibly be caused by said knife or by similar
type of object. After examination, the said knife was sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM
Hospital and was handed over to the police. The subsequent opinion dated 21.02.2013
given by him Ex. PW 22/D, bearing his signature also also his official stamp at point A.
He also identified the case property i.e. Knife Ex. P3.
On Court question (i.e. Can you explain if the injuries which are found mentioned
in postmortem reports Ex. PW 22/ and Ex. PW 22/B had been caused from front side or
from back side?). He replied that since both the deceased had suffered multiple deep
injuries piercing the organs and he has already mentioned the depth of the injuries in his
reports, therefore, the injuries could be caused from front side and from the side of
deceased and possibly not caused from back side.
SC No. 57410/2016 SUSHIL Page No.27 of 56 FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.04.03 16:39:43 +0530
30. PW-23 Ct. Azad Singh has deposed that on 09.03.2013 he was posted at PW
Alipur. On that day, on the instruction of IO, he went to LNJP Hospital from where he
had collected one pullanda sealed with the seal of hospital along-with one sample seal of
similar speciment stated to be containing the cloth4s of injured Begum Shahjahanj.
Accordingly, he had returned back to PS and handed over the aforesaid exhibits to the IO
and IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW 23/A, which bears his signature at
point A. so far as the aforesaid exhibits remained with him, same were not tampered with
in any manner. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
31. PW-24 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.03.2013 he was posted as
SI Draftsman Crime Branch, Police Head Quarter, Delhi. On that day, at the request of
Inspector Satyavir Janaula, he reached at PS Alipur and from there, he accompanied IO
Inspector Satyavir Januaula to the spot i.e. near C-95, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd,
Delhi where they had met Shabda Hussan @ Munna. He further deposed that at the place
of occurrence, he prepared rough notes and took measurements at the instance of Shadab
Hussian @ Munna. Thereafter, on 06.03.2013, he had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW
24/A which bears his signature at point A.
He further deposed that after preparing the scaled site plan Ex. PW 24/A he
destroyed the rough notes prepared at the spot and handed over the scale site plan to IO.
IO recorded his statement in this regard.
32. PW-25 SI Ravinder has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted at PS Alipur.
On that day, DD No. 57-B was marked to ASI Omender, who along-with Ct. Yaad Ram
went to the place of information i.e. Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd. Upon the direction
of Duty Officer, he had accompanied Inspector Satyabir Janaula and Ct. Satya Pal to the
place of occurrence, where they had met ASI Omender and Ct. Yaad Ram. At the spot it
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.28 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:47
+0530
was revealed to them that the injured persons have been taken to SRHC Hospital by PCR
Van. In the meantime, beat Ct. Karam Pal had also reached at the spot. Inspector Satyabir
Janaula left him and Ct. Satya Pal at the spot. He further deposed that SI Omender
along-with Ct. Karam Pal, Ct. Yad Ram accompanied Inspector Satyabir Janaula to
SRHC Hospital.
PW-25 further deposed that thereafter, Inspector Satyavir Janauna along-with Ct.
Karam Pal returned to the spot. Again said. In fact Inspector Satyavir Janaula returned
back to the spot along-with Ct. Yaad Ram. He further deposed that Inspector Satyabir
Janaula had recorded the statement made by Shadab Hussain @ Munna at the spot. He
further deposed that Inspector Satyavir Janaula had prepared the rukka at the spot and
rukka was handed voer to Ct. Satya Pal who accordingly, went to PS, got registered FIR
No. 442/12, came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
In the meantime, Crime Team Officials had inspected the place of occurrence. Crime
Team Photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence.
PW-25 further deposed that in his presence, IO Inspector Satyabir Januala lifted
the blood stained mud and also lifted the earth control, from the spot and kept the same in
plastic containers and the plastic containers were sealed with the seal of SJ. IO seized the
pullanda containing blood stained mud vide memo already Ex. PW 1/B and the pullanda
containing earth control vide memo already Ex PW 1/C, both memos bear his signatures
at point C.
PW-25 further deposed that thereafter, at the pointing out of complainant Shahdab
Hussain, IO apprehended accused Akmal Hussain from his house in his presence and
effected his arrest vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal
search vide memo already Ex PW1/E, both bearing his signatures at points C. Accused
Akmal Hussain also made disclosure statement to the IO which is already Ex/ PW 1/E-1
bearing his signature at point C.
SUSHIL
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.29 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur KUMAR
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
16:39:51 +0530
PW-25 further deposed that accused Akmal also got recovered one chopper type
knife from under the two bricks kept at the corner of wall of the room of his house
bearing no. B-4/114,Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd and claimed that the said weapon
was used by accused in the commission of offence. He further deposed that IO measured
the said knife and upon measuring its total length came to 32.8 cm. IO prepared sketch of
said knife which is already Ex. PW 1/F. IO kept the said knife in a cloth cpullanda and
pullanda was sealed with the seal of SJ and was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW 1/G. Both memos bear his signature at points C.
PW-25 further deposed that during investigation accused Akmal Hussain also
pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memo already Ex. PW
14/A bearing his signature at poiont C. IO recorded the statements of witnesses including
his statement. Thereafter, accused Akhmal Hussain was got medically examined and was
sent to lock up.
PW-25 also identified the case property i.e. having road material having dark
brown stains i.e. blood stained sand Ex. P-1 & Earth control Ex. P-2 which was lifted
from the place of occurrence, knife having rusty brown stains Ex. P-3 which was
reovered at the instance of accused Akmal Hussain fromhis house being the weapon of
offence stated to be used by accused Akmal Hussain in the commission of offence and
was seized in his presence during investigation.
33. PW-26 Ct. Suraj Kumar has proved on record DD N. 58B dated 14.12.2012 as Ex.
PW 26/A, DD No. 59B and 60B, both dated 14.12.2012 as Ex PW 26/B & Ex. PW 26/C.
He has also proved on record DD No. 64B 14.12.2012 as Ex. PW 26/D.
34. PW-27 HC Umed Singh has deposed that on 09.03.2013, he was posted at PS
Alipur as Constable. On that day on the instruction of IO/Inspector Satyavir Janaula, he
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL Page No.30 of 56
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
had collected one sealed pullanda stated to be containing knife from MHC(M), vide RC
No. 40/21/13 and went to SRHC Hospital. IO had also handed over one written request to
him. He had produced the said pullanda and written request to the concerned doctor. The
concerned doctor had examined the said knife after opening the pullanda and prepared
his report. The concerned doctor had resealed the said knife and handed over his report,
sealed pullanda of knife alongwith sample seal. Accordingly, he returned back to PS and
handed over the said report to IO and produced the said sealed pullanda alongwith
sample seal to MHC(M). So far as the aforesaid case property remained with him, same
was not tampered.
35. PW-28 HC Anang Pal has deposed that on 19.12.2012, he was posted at PS Alipur.
On that day complainant Shadab Hussain @ Munna came to PS on or about 7:20 P.M.
and met IO/Inspector Satyavir Jnaula and informed him about the presence of accused
Raffan @ Rafiq at Tikri Khurd. Accordingly, IO had prepared a raiding party consisting
of himself, ASI Dharamvir and they all along-with complainant Shabad Hussain left the
PS in a government gypsy bearing regisgtration no. DL 1PA 6256 beign driven by
driver/Ct. Sukh Ram. In aforesaid gypsy, at about 9:30 P.M., they all reached at the bus
stand at GTK Road, near village Tikri Khurd. He further deposed that upon reaching
there, complainant Shabad Hussain had pointed out towards accused Abdul Rafiq @
Raffan, who was present at the bus stand. He further deposed that they managed to
apprehend accused Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan. He further deposed that IO had interrogated
Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan and effected his arrest vide memo Ex. PW 1/J and conducted his
personal search vide memo already Ex.1/K. The aforesaid accused had also made
disclosure statement already Ex.PW1/L before the IO in his presence. All the said memos
bear his signature at points C. Thereafter, said accused had pointed out the place of
commission of offence vide pointing out memo already Ex.PW1/M which also bears his
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.31 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur Digitally
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:59
signature at point C. He further deposed that IO had recorded statement of witnesses
including his statement in this regard.
36. PW-29 HC Subhas Chander has deposed that on 21.02.2013, he was posted at PS
Alipur as Constable. On that day, on the instruction of IO/Inspector Satyavir Janaula, he
had collected one sealed pullanda stated to be containing knife from MHC(M) vide R.C.
No. 27/21/13 and went to BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that IO had also handed
over one written request to him. He had produced the said pullanda and written request to
the concerned doctor. The concerned doctor had examined the said knife after opening
the pullanda and preapred his report. The concerned doctor resealed the said knife and
handed over his report, sealed pullanda of knife alogwith sample seal. Accordingly, he
returned back to PS and handed over the said report to IO and produced the said sealed
pullanda alongwith sample seal to MHC(M). So far as the aforesaid case property
remained with him, same was not tampered.
37. PW-30 W/Constable Santosh has deposed that on 14.12.2012, she was posted at
PS Alipur and was working as DD writer. Her duty hours were from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00
P.M. At about 3:25 P.M. on receipt of information from the control room about the
quarrel at H. No. 114, B-4 Swaran Jyagi Vihar, she recorded DD No. 57-B in DD register
and the said call was informed to ASI Umender for further necessary action who along-
with Ct. Yad Ram went to the spot.
She produced the original DD register, containing the aforesaid entry and proved
the same as Ex. PW 30/A.
She further deposed that on 14.12.2012, while posted as such, at about 3:30 p.m.,
on receipt of information from the control room about the stabbing to a woman, quarrel
at B-5/80, Swaran Jyanti Vihar, she recorded DD No. 58-B in DD register and the said
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL Page No.32 of 56
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
call was informed to ASI Umender telephonically for further necessary action and Const.
Dhounkan Singh was also sent to the spot. She further deposed that she has brought the
original DD register, containing the aforesaid entry. The copy of the same is Ex. PW
30/B. She further deposed that on 14.12.2012, while posted as such, at about 3:35 P.M.,
on receipt of information from the control room about the stabbing to a male, near T-53
Swaran Jyanti Vihar, she recorded DD No. 59-B in DD register and the said call was
informed to ASI Umender telephonically for further necessary action. She further
deposed that she has brought the original DD register, containing the aforesaid entry. The
copy of the same is Ex. PW 30/C.
She further deposed that on 14.12.2012, while posted as such, at about 3:40 P.M.
on receipt of information from Raja Harish Chander Hospital by Ct. Vijay about the
brought dead of Shamshul Hassan S/o. Mohd.h Umar, R/o. C-3/127, Swaran Jyanti Vihar,
Alipur, aged 45 years. Const. Vijay requested the said call was informed to ASI Umender
telephonically for further necessary action. She further deposed that she has brought the
original DD register, containing the aforesaid entry. The copy of same is Ex.PW30/D.
38. PW-31 Ct. Nakul has deposed on that on 14.12.2012 he was posted at PS Alipur as
Computer Operator. On that day, he recorded the FIR No. 442/2012, U/s. 302/307/506/34
IPC, on the basis of rukka given by duty officer to him on the computer installed at PS
Alipur, he issued certificate U/s. 65 B Evidence Act regarding the genuineness and
authenticity of recording of FIR by him. He has seen the certificate from the judicial file
which is already Ex.PW5/B which bears his signatures at point A. he further deposed that
due to some clerical error word “mere pitaji ko bad mai pakad liya tha” was not added
while recording FIR.
39. PW-32 SI Devi Singh has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted as SI at
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.33 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:07
+0530
PCR, Outer Zone as Incharge at L-62, PCR Van. He further deposed that he received a
call from control room regarding quarrel at Swarn Jyanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd and on the
receipt of said call, he along-with staff reached there where he found one person in
injured and unconscious condition whose name was later on revealed as Kamaluddin @
Nanhe S/o. Nassiruddin, R/o. Swaran Jyanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd. He took the said injured
in conscious condition to SRHC, Narela and got him admitted there who was declared
brought dead by the doctor after examining him.
40. PW-33 HC Satyapal has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted at PS Alipur.
On that day, he alongwith SI Ravinder alongwith Inspector Satyavir Junela at about 4:30
P.M. reached C-Block, Swaran Jyanti Vihar, Tikri, Delhi where ASI Omender alongwith
Ct. Karampal and Ct. Yad Ram met them. Inspector Satyavir Junela left him and SI
Ravinder at the spot and alongwith ASI Omender Singh and Ct. karampal and Ct. Yad
Ram went to SRHC Hospital. He further deposed that Inspector Satyavir Junela returned
to the spot from the hospital and recorded the statement of complainant Shadab Hussain
@ Munna and prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him. He went to the PS
got the present case registered and returned to the spot. He handed over the copy of FIR
and original tehrir to Inspector Satyavir Junela. His statement was recorded.
41. PW-34 Ct. Yadram Singh has deposed that on 14.12.2012 he was posted at PS
Alipur and he was on emergency duty from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. with ASI Omender.
On that day, on receipt of information by ASI Omender Singh vide DD No. 57-B at about
3:25 P.M., he along-with him went to the place of information Swaran Jyanti Vihar, Tikri
Khurd. He further deposed that at the spot, they found blood stained near H.No. C-95 and
there they came to know that injured persons have been taken to SRHC Hospital. When
ASI Omender was making inquiry, Inspector Satyabir Janaula arrived there, along-with
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.34 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:18
+0530
staff. He further deposed that Inspector Satyabir Janola make enquiries at the spot. He
alongwith ASI Omender, Inspector Satyabir Janola and other staff went to SRHC
Hosptial. In the hospital, they were informed that both the injured were brought dead to
the hospital. In the hospital, one injured lady was also there. She was fit for statement but
she refused to make the statement due to pain and nervousness. He further deposed that
on the instruction of Inspector Satyabir Janola, he alongwith ASI Omender and Ct.
Karampal took both the dead bodies to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. In the mortuary,
both the dead bodies were deposited and he alongwith ASI Omender returned to the
spot.
42. PW-35 W/Ct. Neelima has deposed that on 14.12.2012 she was posted at PCR,
Police HQ on channel no. 124 and on that day at about 3:26 P.M., information was
received from mobile no. 9999067218 regarding quarrel at H. No. B-4/114, Swaran
Jyanti Vihar Narela. She further deposed that he filled the PCR form and passed on the
information on channel. Computerized copy of PCR From is Ex. PW 35/A.
43. PW-36 Inspector Satyavir Janaula is the Investigating Officer of the present FIR
case. He has narrated all the steps taken by him after reaching at the spot and taken
during the course of investigation. PW-36 has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted
at PS Alipur as Inspector Investigation. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 58-B, he
along-with SI Ravinder and Const. Satyapal went to the spot i.e. C-95, Swaran Jyanti
Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi where ASI Omender, Ct. Karampal and Ct. Yadram where
already present. There he came came to know that injured had been taken to SRHC
Hospital, Narela. He asked SI Ravinder and Ct. Satyapal remained at the spot. He along-
with Const. Yad Ram went to SRHC Hospital, Narela. There he collected the MLCs no.
3496/12 & 3497/12 on which injured Shamshul Hassan and Kammaluddin were declared
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.35 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:28
+0530
brought dead. He had also collected the MLC No. 3498/12 of injured Begum Shahjahan
who was fit for statement but she had not got recorded her statement due to bodily pain
and anxiety at that time and she was referred to LNJP Hospital. He asked ASI Omender,
Ct. Karampal and Ct. Yadram to get the dead body preserved at the mortuary of SRHC
Hospital, Narela. He further deposed that he returned at the spot. The complainant
Shadab Hussain @ Munna met him at the spot and he recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A
and the same was attested by him at point A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW 36/A. He
handed over the original rukka to Ct. Satyapal for registration of FIR, who got the FIR
registered and came back at the spot after about 1 and ½ hour. He handed over the
original rukka and copy of FIR to him.
PW-36 further deposed that Crime Team was called at the spot, who took the
photographs of the spot from different angle. He further deposed that he prepared the site
plan at the instance of complainant Sadab Hussain as Ex. PW36/B. He further deposed
that he lifted the blood stained mud and earth control from the spot and kept in a plastic
container and sealed with the seal of SJ after putting it in pullanda and seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that he made local inquiry
from the public persons regarding the incident upon which one person namely
Jamaluddin @ Kalla came to him and told that he was the eye-witness in the present
case. He voluntarily deposed that the said persons had told him that he had left the spot
during the commission of crime due to fear. He further deposed that he recorded his
statement. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, ASI Omendra came at the spot after
depositing the dead body in mortuary.
PW-36 further deposed that in the Tikri Market, he came to know upon inquiry
from the local persons that accused Akmal Hussain was going towards his house. He
further deposed that thereafter, he along with complainant and police officials went to the
house of the accused i.e., B-4/114, Swarn Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi from where
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.36 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:32
+0530
the accused Akmal Hussain was arrested at the instance of complainant Sadab Hussain @
Munna vide arrest Memo Ex. PW1/D. He further deposed that he conducted personal
search of accused Akmal Hussain and recorded disclosure statement of the accused
Akmal Hussain which is Ex.PW1/E1.
PW-36 further deposed that accused Akmal Hussain got recovered one chopper /
knife from his said house which was kept by him under two bricks at south-west corner
of the room of his house. He further deposed that accused Akmal stated to him that the
said weapon was used by him while committing the crime. He further deposed that he
measured the said knife and prepared the sketch of the same as Ex. PW1/A and the total
length of the said knife (Chopper) was 32.8 cm. He further deposed that he prepared
pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of SJ. He further deposed that he
seized the said weapon vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G. He further deposed that thereafter
accused Akmal Hussain took them to the spot and he prepared pointing out Memo of the
spot as Ex. PW14/A. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of
complainant Sadab Hussain and statement of the police officials. He further deposed that
the medical examination of accused Akmal Hussain got conducted and he seized the
cloths of accused Akmal Hussain vide memo Ex. PW36/C after putting his seal on the
same and accused Akmal Hussain was sent to lock up.
PW-36 further deposed that on 15.12.2012, he along with ASI Omendra, Ct.
Somvir and accused Akmal Hussain tried to search the other accused persons in the case
but none was found at that time. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to
mortuary of BJRM Hospital and got conducted the postmortem examination of the dead
body of deceased Samsul Hassan and Kamaluddin @ Nanhe. He further deposed that
after postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased were handed over to their
respective relatives after due identification and recorded their statements regarding the
same as Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that he handed over the dead
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.37 of 56
signed by
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:42
+0530
bodies to their respective relatives vide receipt Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW8/B.
PW-36 further deposed that thereafter, three days PC remand of the accused
Akmal Hussain was taken from the concerned Court. He further deposed that he along
with accused and other police officials went to Gautam puri, Badarpur, Delhi in search of
co-accused Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan and Raju but they were not found there at that time
and they came back at the PS where injured Begum Shahjahan was also present. He
further deposed that he recorded her statement.
PW-36 further deposed that on 16.12.2012 and 17.12.2012, they again tried to
search co-accused persons with accused Akmal Hussain. He further deposed that on
17.12.2012, accused Akmal Hussain was produced before the concerned Court. He
further deposed that on 18.12.2012, Ct. Karampal had produced the clothes of both the
deceased persons along with the sample seal which were duly sealed with the seal of
Hospital which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/B and Ex. PW21/C.
PW-36 further deposed that on 19.12.2012, HC Anang Pal, Ct. Sukhpal along with
driver and operator of the official vehicle Gypsy again started investigation in the present
case. He further deposed that complainant Sadab Hussain @ Munna met him at the gate
of the police station and he told him that the accused Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan was seen in
the Tikri Khurd area. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with complainant and
his staff went to the said area. He further deposed that at about 08:30 PM, they were
going towards GTK Road from 60futa Road, Tikri Road and when they were crossing the
bus stand, Tikri Khurd on GTK Road, the complainant told him that accused Abdul Rafiq
@ Raffan was present at the bus stop. He further deposed that thereafter, he apprehended
accused Abdul Raffiq @ Raffan from there and arrested him at the instance of the
complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/J. He further deposed that the personal search of
accused was conducted and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Abdul Rafiq
@ Raffan. He further deposed that he prepared the pointing out memo of the spot at the
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.38 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:47
+0530
instance of accused Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan as Ex. PW1/M.
PW-36 further deposed that he had collected the stained soil of the spot and seized
the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that he also seized the earth
control from the spot vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that he had
prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the knife (Chopper) as Ex.PW36/D. He
further deposed that he got prepared the scaled site plan of the spot as Ex. PW-2H/A. He
further deposed that he had collected the subsequent opinion regarding the knife from the
concerned doctor of BJRM Hospital and SRH Hospital. He further deposed that the said
knife was sent to BJRM Hospital for subsequent opinion through Ct. Umesh as Ex.
PW36/E. He further deposed that he had collected the FSL report and filed it in the
concerned Court vide his letter Ex. PW36/F. He further deposed that he had also
collected two PCR call forms and placed the same on record as Ex. PW36/G and Ex.
PW36/H. He further deposed that after completion of the investigation, he prepared
charge-sheet against the accused persons and filed it in the concerned Court. PW-36
correctly identified both the accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafique
@ Raffan.
One yellow envelope sealed with the Court seal which was found containing one
metallic knife having brown stains of rust and on seeing the same, PW-36 identified the
same as knife which was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Akmal Hussain
from his house. Same is Ex.P-3. He further deposed that Earth Control and Blood stained
sold are Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. He further deposed that he does not remember whether any
complainant dated 01.10.2012 was received in the PS or not.
44. PW-37 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini,
Delhi deposed that on 02.04.2013, nine sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL
for their forensic examination which were marked to him for forensic examination. He
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.39 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:51
+0530
further deposed that all the nine parcels and exhibits as shown in the report heading of
‘description of articles contained in the parcel’ and the exhibits were analyzed and on
their biological examination, the blood was detected on exhibits 1, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b,
5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f and 9 and he proved the same on record as Ex.
PW37/A. He further deposed that he had also conducted serological examination on the
afore-mentioned and he has also proved on record the same as Ex. PW37/B. He further
deposed that after the examination, the remnants of the exhibits has been sealed with the
seal of FSL IKM DELHI.
45. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence coming
on record was put to both the accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and and Abdul
Raffiq @ Raffan and their separate statements were recorded u/s 313 Cr..PC., wherein
they denied the case of prosecution and claimed false implication. However, both of them
wished to lead defence evidence.
46. In their Defence Evidence, accused persons have examined two defence witnesses
namely Sh. Tej Prakash (DW-1) and Sh. Abdul Aziz (DW-2). DW-1 Sh. Tej Prakash has
deposed that he is running a grocery shop at the aforesaid address on the ground floor for
the last about 22 years. He deposed that he knew deceased Shamshul Hussain. He
deposed that about 10-12 years back he was sitting on his shop, at that time, he noticed
deceased Shamshul Hussain and one other person were coming in injured condition from
courtyard (ANGAN) of one Subhan Miya and they fell down in front of house of
Dharambir and 8-10 people were already present there when he went to there on hearing
the noise. He deposed that some one called the family members of Shamshul Hussain
from their home which is at a distance of 5-7 minutes from the spot. He deposed that
thereafter son and wife of Shamshul Hussain shifted him to SRHC Hospital. He deposed
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL Page No.40 of 56
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
that thereafter police arrived at the spot after 1- 1½ hours. He deposed that he and other
shopkeepers shutdown their shops on seeing so many police personal as they don’t went
to get into un-necessary troubled. He deposed that he reached at the spot when 8 to 10
people were already present there. He deposed that police never met him.
DW-1 further deposed that he knows accused persons also as they were his
customers as they were residing in B-114, Swarn Jyanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi for the
last 20 years. He deposed that similarly, deceased Shamshul Hussain was also his
customer and he was a property dealer by profession. He deposed that Shamshul Hussain
was having rivalry with many persons being a property dealer and there used to be
quarrels between him and various persons.
47. DW-2 Sh. Abdul Aziz has deposed that accused Abdul Rafiq is his son. He further
deposed that accused Akmal Hussain is son of his sister-in-law (SALI) and Yunus. Akmal
and his two sisters were left by his mother when they were very young as she went away
with some one and started living with him. He further deposed that thereafter he and his
wife looked after Akmal and his sisters. He further deposed that previously Akmal and
his sisters were residing at Village Tikri Khurd and the said house belongs to Akmal
Hussain. He further deposed that name of mother of Akmal Hussain is Shahjahan
Begum.
DW-2 further deposed that while Akmal Hussain was residing at village Tikri
Khurd, some notorious property dealers alongwith some notorious persons used to
pressurized their family to leave the premises otherwise they would face consequences
and their goods would be thrown out. He further deposed that he do not know the names
of those property dealers. Shahjahan also used to accompany those property dealers and
used to pressurized Akmal and his sisters to vacate the premises. He further deposed that
he came to know about the incident later on when he was informed about the quarrel and
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.41 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:59
+0530
the incident from the neighbors. He further deposed that on reaching the spot, he was told
that there was a quarrel between dealers in which Shamshul, who is also related to him
and one Kamalluddin who is his brother in law (SALA) were died. He further deposed
that after hearing this, he became perplexed and went back to Badarpur. He further
deposed that he received telephone from his neighbour Shabban who informed him that
police officials were asking to get the landlord of the house namely Akmal Hussain and
thereafter he informed Akmal and took him to PS Alipur, where he was told by the SHO
that they would leave Akmal after making some inquiries and he was told to go back to
his house and he returned back to his house with his son Abdul Rafiq but subsequently he
was booked in the present case.
DW-2 further deposed that thereafter he was again informed by the police officials
to bring his son Abdul Rafiq after 2-3 days to PS Alipur for making inquiries. He further
deposed that he accordingly, went to PS Alipur with his son Abdul Rafiq who was made
to sit there and he was told to leave. He further deposed that subsequently, hs son Abdul
Rafiq was also booked in the present case. He further deposed that he requested the
police officers many times to leave Akmal and Abdul Rafiq as they are innocent and are
not involved in the incident but all his pleas were fallen on deaf ears.
After examination of DW-1 and DW-2, both accused persons closed their Defence
Evidence on 01.12.2023 and the matter was fixed up for final arguments.
48. This Court has heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for the accused
persons and has also carefully gone through the judicial record.
49. Learned Addl. PP for the state has argued that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent, consistent and convincing evidence. He
has contended that the eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms.
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.42 of 56
Digitally
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:03
+0530
Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum have consistently testified that accused persons
namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan had, in furtherance of their common
intention, committed murder of deceased Shamshul Hussain and deceased Kamaluddin
by inflicting knife injuries on them. He has further contended that eye witnesses namely
PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum have
also testified that during said incident, accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and
Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan, had also made an attempt to murder Begum Shahjahan by
causing knife injuries to her. He has further contended that eye witnesses namely PW-1
Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum have
corroborated the testimony of each other in material particulars. He has further contended
that the accused persons have failed to advance any justifiable reason as to why eye
witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms.
Parveen Begum would have falsely implicated them in this case by letting off the actual
culprit. He has further contended that there is no reason to discredit the credible,
consistent and unimpeachable testimonies of eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab
Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum. He has contended that the
ocular testimony of eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms.
Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum is corroborated by the post-mortem report of
the deceased Shamshul Hussain and deceased Kamaluddin. He has further contended that
in the postmortem report of deceased Kamaluddin and Shamshul Hussain which are
Ex.PW-22/A and Ex.PW-22, the concerned doctor has opined that the injuries sustained
by the deceased Kamaluddin and Shamshul Hussain were caused by sharp weapon and
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has contended that the said
act of the accused persons falls within the purview of Section 300 IPC and thus, they are
liable to be convicted for the offence of murder. It has been further argued by Ld. Addl.
PP for the State that injuries sustained by victim Begum Shahjahan are also on her vital
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL Page No.43 of 56
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
parts and have been caused by sharp weapons, therefore, the accused persons are also
liable to be convicted for the offence of attempt to murder Begum Shahjahan.
50. On the other hand, Ld. Amicus Curie for the accused persons have contended that
the eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum are
interested witnesses as they are son and wife of the deceased Shamshul Hussain. It is
argued that PW-1 Shadab Hussain had not accompanied his father deceased Shamshul
Hussain to the Hospital which goes on to establish that he was not present at the spot. It
has been contended that accused Akmal Hussain is the son of eye witness PW-2 Ms.
Shahjahan from her first husband and that accused persons have been falsely implicated
in the present case just to put pressure on them (accused persons) to transfer a plot which
was earlier purchased by them (accused persons) from her. It is contended by Ld.
Counsels for accused persons that all the three eye witnesses are planted witnesses and
they have been tutored by the IO. He has contended that if the said eyewitness PW-1
Shadab Hussain was present at the spot at the time of alleged incident, he would have
taken her father to the hospital. It is further submitted that as per MLC of deceased
Shamshul Hussain, he was taken to the hospital by his wife PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum,
who had also reached at the spot after the alleged incident had taken place. He has argued
that the testimonies of the eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms.
Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum suffer with the flaws of material inter se
contradictions, improbabilities and embellishments, therefore, they are not trustworthy
and their version deserves to be discarded. He has further argued that the weapon of
offence has also been planted upon the accused Akmal Hussain with a view to falsely
implicate accused persons in the present case. It has been contended on behalf of accused
persons that the contradictions and inconsistencies coupled with the absence of proof of
any motive for the accused persons to commit the present offence has created reasonable
SC No. 57410/2016
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
SUSHIL Page No.44 of 56
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
16:41:18 +0530
doubts on the unbelievable story of the prosecution. It has been prayed by Ld. Amicus
Curiae for both the accused persons that the both accused persons may kindly be
acquitted.
51. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a criminal trial, the accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Further,
prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to prove its case against the accused
beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent and conclusive evidence. Burden of
proving its case exclusively lies upon the prosecution and in order to succeed, it has to
discharge the said burden. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from ‘may
have’ to ‘must have’. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the
benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
52. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2012 at about 03:00 P.M., near C-95,
Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd, Delhi, both accused persons namely Akmal Hussain
and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan, along-with their co-accused Raju (since not apprehended), in
furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Shamshul Hussain and
Kamaluddin @ Nanhe by inflicting knife injuries to them and also made an attempt to
commit murder of injured Ms. Shahjahan (PW-2) by causing knife injuries to her on her
vital organs. It is also the case of prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place,
both accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan, along-with
their co-accused Raju (since not apprehended), in furtherance of their common intention,
criminally intimidated Mr. Shadab Hussain.
53. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined four eye witnesses namely. PW-1
Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan, PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum and PW-9
SC No. 57410/2016 SUSHIL Page No.45 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
16:41:23 +0530
Jamaluddin @ Kalla to prove its case. The first eye witness is PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain
who is the son of the deceased Shamshul Hussain. PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain has given a
vivid account of the events occurred at the time of alleged incident of murder of his
father Shamshul Hussain and another person namely Kamaluddin. PW-1 Mr. Shadab
Hussain has deposed that when they reached near the house of Ashok Soni, accused
Akmal said that ‘Aa Tujhe Plot Deta Hu’. He has further categorically deposed that on
this accused Raffan and the third person caught hold of Shahjahan and accused Akmal
stabbed Shahjahan. He has further testified that her (Shahjahan) brother Kamaluddin
tried to save her but accused Akmal stabbed Kamaluddin. He has further deposed that
accused Raffan and third person caught hold of his father (deceased Shamshul Hussain)
and accused Akmal stabbed many times his father. He has further deposed that another
brother of Shahjahan namely Kalla ran away from the spot. He further deposed that he
raised alarm but none came to their rescue. He further deposed that both the accused
persons said to him that if he tried intervene then he would be killed. He further deposed
that both the accused persons threatened him if he made any statement against them then
would kill him. PW-1 further deposed that someone informed the police. He further
deposed that he removed his father to Raja Harish Chandra Hospital and his father
expired on the way to the hospital. He has further deposed that dead body of his father
remained in the hospital and he came back to his house. He further deposed that police
reached the hospital and his statement was recorded by the police at the spot as Ex.
PW1/A. He further deposed that the concerned police official who recorded his
statement got the FIR registered.
54. The second eye-witness examined by prosecution is PW-2 Smt. Shahjahan. She is
an injured in the alleged incident. She is also sister of deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe.
She has identified both accused persons and she has corroborated the testimony of eye
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.46 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:27
+0530
witness PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain by testifying on the lines of prosecution version. It has
come in her testimony that accused Raffan had caught hold of her and accused Akmal
Hussain said “Ab Legi Plot” and stabbed her and she fell down. It has further come in
her testimony that his brother Kamaluddin came to save her and accused Raffan inflicted
knife blow to her. She has also testified that thereafter accused Raffan and the third
person caught hold of Shamshul Hussain and accused Akmal stabbed Shamshul. She has
also identified her blood stained clothes as Ex.P1 and the weapon of offence i.e blood
stained knife as Ex.P3.
55. The Third eye-witness examined by prosecution is PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum,
who is the wife of the deceased Shamshul Hussain. PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum has
corroborated the testimony of eye-witnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain and
PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan by testifying on the lines of prosecution version. She has correctly
identified both the accused persons namely Raffan and Akmal by pointing out her finger
towards each of the accused. It has been deposed by PW-4 that on 14.12.2012, she was
present at her house and about 03:00 PM, she heard a noise in a gali and came outside her
house. She has further deposed that she went to another gali where she saw many public
persons had gathered. She has further categorically deposed that she saw Raffan and one
more person had caught hold her husband namely Shamshul Hussain and Akmal was
stabbing her husband with knife. She has further deposed that she cried for help but no
one came forward. She has further deposed that she also saw that her son namely Munna
@ Shadab was already present and he was also crying for help from the public persons
present there. She has further deposed that she and her son tried to save her husband by
going towards him on which all the said three persons including Akmal and Raffan fled
away from there. She further deposed that their car make Nano was parked just near the
spot. She further deposed that she along with her son removed Shamshul Hussain in the
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.47 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.03
16:41:32 +0530
said car and took him to SRHC Hospital, Narela for necessary treatment.
56. The fourth eye witness examined by prosecution is PW-9 Jamaluddin, who is
brother of PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe. He has identified
both accused persons, however, he resiled from his previous statement made before the
police. PW-9 has deposed that on 14.12.2012, he along-with his elder brother
Kamaluddin @ Nanhe (now deceased) came to the house of their sister Shahjahan who
was residing at that time at Ghaziabad, U.P. He has further deposed that thereafter, on
the same day, he along-with his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and his sister Shahjahan
came to the property dealer office of Samshul Hussain (now deceased) at Tikri Khurd,
Delhi. He has further deposed that in fact, they came to the office of Samshul Hussain for
resolving the property dispute in respect of Plot No. B-4/114, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri
Khurd. He further deposed that after reaching the office of Samshul Hussain, they
requested him for resolving the said property dispute over the said plot, which was
between Shahjahan and Noorjahan, who both are his real sisters. He further deposed that
upon their request, Samshul Hussain stated to them to accompany him over the said plot,
in order to talk to Noorjahan and her family members. He further deposed that thereafter,
he alongwith his brother Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, sister Shahjahan accompanied Samshul
Hussain to the said plot i.e. B-4/114, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd. He further
deposed that upon reaching there, they met accused Akmal Hussain as well as accused
Rafiq @ Raffan.
PW-9 has further deposed that both the accused persons are real brothers and sons
of Noorjahan. He further deposed that thereafter, they talked to both the accused persons
about the dispute of the said plot and they requested them for amicable solution of the
dispute but both the accused persons had not heard of them and got agitated. He further
deposed that during negotiation, both the accused persons Akmal Hussan and Rafiq @
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.48 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:35
+0530
Raffan stated to them for reaching the office of Samshul Hussain and further stated to
them that they would talk to them in the office of Samshul Hussain. He further deposed
that he was apprehensive of the fact that some untoward incident may take place and due
to fear, he left the said place for the house of his mother at Badarpur Border. He further
deposed that when he reached at the house of his mother at Badarpur Border, his mother
Bano informed him that both the accused persons had caused knife injuries to his brother
Kamaluddin, his sister Shahjahan as well as the property dealer Samshul Hussain.
PW-9 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, he did not state
anything pertaining to the alleged incident. However, his testimony is still having
importance and the same corroborates some facts deposed by PW-1 and PW-2.
57. In the present case, the manner in which the injuries were inflicted to both
deceased persons namely Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and Shamshul Hussain by the accused
persons, it is established that they had common intention to inflict the same and they both
actively participated towards the furtherance of their common intention. The postmortem
report of the deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe which is Ex.PW-22/A reflects that the
deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe sustained multiple incised wounds on his chest and other
vital parts. As per the opinion given in the said postmortem report, all the said injuries
were ante mortem, fresh and caused by sharp weapon. PW-22 Dr. Sudesh Kumar, who
conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe , has
opined that “the cause of death of Kamaluddin was hemorrhagic shock as a result of
huge blood loss consequent upon stab injury no. 1 & 2 as detailed in his report. The said
injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration and caused by sharp weapon and
was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”.
58. The postmortem report of the deceased Shamshul Hussain which is Ex.PW-22/B
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.49 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:39
+0530
also reflects that the deceased Shamshul Hussain had sustained multiple incised wounds
on his chest and other vital parts. As per the opinion given in the said postmortem report,
all the said injuries were ante mortem, fresh and caused by sharp weapon. PW-22 Dr.
Sudesh Kumar, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased
Kamaluddin @ Nanhe , has opined that ” the cause of death of Shamshul Hussain was
hemorrhagic shock as a result of huge blood loss consequent upon stab injury no. 1, 2, 3
& 5 as detailed in his report. The said injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in
duration and caused by sharp weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature”.
59. Further, it has come in the testimony of PW-22 Dr. Sudesh Kumar that he had
examined the weapon of offence i.e. knife and after examination, he had opined that
injuries no.1 to 6 as observed during the postmortem of deceased Kamaluddin vide PM
report Ex.PW22/A can possibly be caused by said knife or by similar type of object. It
has also come in the testimony of PW-22 Dr. Sudesh Kumar that he had also opined that
injuries no. 6 to 6 as observed during the postmortem of deceased Shamshul Hussan vide
PM Report Ex.PW22/B, can possibly be caused by said knife or by similar type of object.
60. In the instant case, the ocular testimony of the eyewitness regarding injuries
caused by the assailants to the deceased persons has been corroborated by their
postmortem reports. The fact that the said injuries were intentionally caused by the
assailants coupled with the opinion of PW-22 Dr. Sudesh Kumar in his postmortem
reports that they were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature to cause death
of a person, conclusively brings this case within the purview of Section 300 IPC.
Therefore, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the present offence is a case
of murder committed by both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.
Digitally
SC No. 57410/2016 signed by Page No.50 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur SUSHIL
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:43
+0530
61. As it has been contended on behalf of accused persons that the eyewitnesses PW-1
Mr. Shadab Hussain and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum are the son and wife of deceased
Shamshul Hussain and eye witness PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan is the sister of deceased
Kamaluddin @ Nanhe, therefore, their testimonies are based on concocted facts and
unbelievable. However, this Court is of view that their evidence is required to be
analyzed with deep scrutiny to rule out every possibility of false implication of the
accused persons. As per prosecution story, the alleged incident took place in the presence
of eyewitnesses namely PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms.
Parveen Begum. However, it cannot be overlooked that PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan is herself a
victim/injured and she has also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. Her MLC has
been proved on record by PW-15 Dr. Ritu Saxena and PW-20 Dr. R.K. Sahai as
Ex.PW-20/A. Therefore, even though the eyewitness PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan is related to
the deceased Kamaluddin @ Nanhe but she is also an injured/victim and a natural eye
witness of the alleged incident. Similarly, PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain and PW-4 Ms.
Parveen Begum are the son and wife of deceased Shamshul Hussain. However, it is
important to mention that the MLC of deceased Shamshul Hussain which is Ex.PW-10/B
specifically mentions that she was brought to the hospital by ‘Parveen Wife’ i.e. PW-4
Ms. Parveen Begum. It is also important to mention that PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum has
also testified that her son PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain was present at the spot and she
along-with her son PW-1 Mr. Shadab Hussain removed her husband (deceased Shamshul
Hussain) in a car for taking to Hospital for treatment. Thus, no ulterior motive can be
attributed to the said eye witnesses to let off the actual culprit in order to falsely implicate
the accused persons.
62. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as ‘Bhaskar Rao vs. State of Maharashtra’
(2018) 6 SCC 591 has laid down the guidelines for evaluating and ascertaining the
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.51 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:46
+0530
veracity of interested and natural witnesses. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced as under :
“32. Coming back to the appreciation of the evidence at hand, at the outset, our attention
is drawn to the fact that the witnesses were interrelated, and this Court should be cautious
in accepting their statements. It would be beneficial to recapitulate the law concerning
the appreciation of evidence of related witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954
SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364: 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed
the law as under: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
“26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from
sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a
close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there
is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along
with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we
are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own
facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases
before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be
limited to and be governed by its own facts.”
33. In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ
226] , a five-Judge Bench of this Court has categorically observed as under: (AIR pp.
209-210, para 14)
“14. … There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given
bywitnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such
evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the
evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence
is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be
unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where
factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such
factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to
failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence
should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such
evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot
be accepted as correct.”
34. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab [(1964) 3 SCR 397 : AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1965) 1
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.52 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:50
Cri LJ 350] , this Court held that evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the
victim, should be closely scrutinised but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of
his evidence. In Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 195 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
1213 : 2005 Cri LJ 2199] , this Court observed that:
(SCC p. 227, para 6)
“6. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses.
On the contrary , reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that
the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.”
35. The last case we need to concern ourselves is Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra
[(2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773] , wherein this Court after observing
previous precedents has summarised the law in the
following manner: : (SCC p. 164, para 38)
“38. … it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an “interested” witness.
He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on
such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and
wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness.
Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his
evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most
reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.”
36. From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this Court, we may note that whoever
has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to
be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result,
would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which
remains the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived
from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is
no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a
universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to
judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a
position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under
such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or
modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considerations
in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never be overlooked in
applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the
facts and circumstances of each case.”
63. Applying the principles laid down in Bhaskar Rao (supra) case on the facts of this
case, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, even though related to the deceased persons are found to be
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.53 of 56
Digitally
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur signed by
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:41:56
+0530
natural witnesses of the incident and in absence of any motive to falsely implicate the
accused persons, there exists no reason to disbelieve them qua the identity of the accused
persons. No justifiable reason is forthcoming as to why the said witnesses would falsely
implicate the accused persons to screen or save the actual culprit. The eye-witnesses i.e.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 have been cross-examined at length by Ld Amicus Curiae for
both accused persons, however, nothing damaging their veracity could be brought on
record during their cross-examination. The testimonies of defence witnesses DW-1 and
DW-2 are found to be unreliable and made with a view to save both accused persons
from the prosecution in the present case. Further, the turning hostile of eye-witness i.e.
PW-9 does not come to the rescue of both accused persons. On the contrary, the
testimony of PW-9 corroborates the testimony made by other eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-4. Except a few minor contradictions in their testimonies, neither any
major contradiction nor any discrepancy has been found in their testimonies and they are
found to be reliable and trustworthy.
64. In assessing the value of the evidence of an eye witness the two principal
considerations are :
(i) whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe his presence at the
scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for him to witness the
fact deposed by him and
(ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence.
The Supreme Court laid down broad principles for the appreciation of evidence in
Ganesh K. Gulve vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 3068 that:
‘the Court is required to bear in mind the set up and environment in which the crime is
committed. The level of understanding of the witnesses. The over zealousness of some of
near relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also
convicted. Everyone’s different way of narration of same facts. These are only illustrative
SC No. 57410/2016 Digitally Page No.54 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.03
16:42:01
instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles, the evidence is required to be
appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state
of affairs. It is for the courts to separate the grain from the chaff.’
65. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ‘Narayan Chetram
Choudhary vs. State of Maharashtra‘ (2000) 8 SCC 457 has held that minor
contradictions cannot be a ground to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses. Its
relevant portion reads as under :-
“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be
used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by
itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version
given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in
his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise.
Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as
memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person.
The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present
case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is
contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject
the whole of the testimony of such witness.”
66. The purpose of the trial of the case is to find out truth and in its quest, it is duty of
the Court to separate the grain from the chafe. The credible testimony of the eyewitnesses
PW-1 Shadab Hussain, PW-2 Ms. Shahjahan and PW-4 Ms. Parveen Begum coupled
with the supporting testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, the true facts of the case
have been elicited beyond any reasonable doubt to the effect that the accused persons
namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan, in furtherance of their common
intention, committed murder of deceased persons namely Kamaluddin @ Nanhe and
Shamshul Hussain and they also made an attempt to murder victim/injured Ms Shahjahan
(PW-2) and criminally intimidated PW-1 Shadab Hussain by threatening him for dire
consequences if he makes any statement to anyone. Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SC No. 57410/2016 SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.55 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur KUMAR Date:
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr. 2025.04.03
16:42:06
+0530
67. In the backdrop of above discussion, this Court is of considered view that
prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly, both
accused persons namely Akmal Hussain and Abdul Rafiq @ Raffan are hereby convicted
for the offences punishable u/s.302/307/506/34 IPC. Let both the convicts be heard
Digitally
separately on the point of sentence. signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
Announced in the open Court 2025.04.03
16:42:10
today i.e. on 03rd April, 2025. +0530
(SUSHIL KUMAR)
Additional Sessions Judge-04
North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi.
SC No. 57410/2016 Page No.56 of 56
FIR No. 442/2012 PS Alipur
State v. Akmal Hussain & Anr.