Delhi District Court
State vs Shafiquddin @ Bobyy @ Kallu on 11 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 661/2018)
FIR No. 621/2014
Police Station Daryaganj
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 307/323/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34
Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu IPC, Sec. 323 read with
Sec. 34 IPC & 25 Arms Act
Charges framed against accused Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34
Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku IPC, Sec. 323 read with
Sec. 34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34
Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar IPC, Sec. 323 read with
Sec. 34 IPC & 25/27 Arms
Act.
State Versus 1. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu
S/o Sh. Shahbuddin,
R/o H.No. 226, Chatta Lal Miyan
Darya Ganj, Delhi.
2. Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku,
S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh,
R/o H. No. 46, Parda Bagh,
Darya Ganj, Delhi.
3. Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar,
S/o Sh. Abdul Rehman,
R/o H. No. J-3/31, Gali No. 7,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 1 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Date of Institution of case 01.09.2018
Date of Arguments 08.07.2025
Judgment reserved on 08.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on 11.07.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu,
Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku & Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar are facing
trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34
IPC & Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Additionally, accused
Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar and Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu are
also facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 Arms
Act and accused Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar is also facing trial for
the offence punishable under Sec. 27 Arms Act. The story of the
prosecution is that on 02.11.2014 at about 11:50 pm at Subzi
Mandi, N. S. Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi all the aforesaid three
accused persons along with their co-accused namely Ashraf
(since absconding) in furtherance of their common intention
attempted to commit murder of complainant Sh. Mohd. Akib by
firing two gun shots at him and causing injury to him. Further on
the abovesaid date, time and place, all the aforesaid three accused
persons along with their co-accused Ashraf (since absconding) in
furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple
injuries on the persons of PW-2 Mohd. Sohail. Further on the
abovesaid date, time and place accused Abdul Jabbar used a
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 2 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
pistol and cartridges loaded in it by firing one shot in air and two
gun shots at Mohd. Akib. Further on the abovesaid date, time and
place accused Abdul Jabbar was found in possession of a country
made pistol and cartridges loaded in it in contravention of the
notification issued under the Arms Act. Further on 04.11.2014,
accused Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu got recovered one
country made pistol and three live cartridges which he received
or retained in his possession on or after 02.11.2014 in
contravention of the notification issued under the Arms Act.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 03.11.2014 on receiving DD No. 3A, Ex. PX-5,
PW-13 IO/Inspector Ajay Singh along with Ct. Anil went to Lok
Nayak Hospital and collected MLC of injured namely Mohd.
Akib who was found under treatment with alleged history of gun
shot injury and his brother Mohd. Suhail was also found present
in the hospital. Thereafter PW-13 IO/Inspector Ajay Singh
inquired from them who told him that Akib had been fired at
Subzi Mandi, Daryaganj, Delhi. Thereafter IO made call to Duty
Officer, PS Daryaganj for sending staff and Crime Team at Subzi
Mandi, Daryaganj and he recorded complaint of injured Mohd.
Akib, Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint of
Mohd. Akib, IO prepared rukka, Ex. PW-13/A and got the
present FIR registered at PS Daryaganj through Ct. Anil.
Thereafter, IO along with Mohd. Suhail went to the spot of
incident where beat Constable Jawahar and Crime Team met
them and blood was also found lying on the spot. Thereafter, IO
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 3 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
got inspected the spot of incident through Crime Team and
efforts were made to trace empty cartridge case and bullet lead
but same could not be found. During investigation, IO lifted
blood in gauze, earth control and blood stained earth control from
the spot of incident and he also prepared site plan, Ex. PW-13/B
at instance of Mohd. Suhail. During investigation, IO seized
blood stained clothes of complainant Mohd. Akib along with
sample seal from hospital and recorded statement of brother of
complainant Mohd. Sohail and other eyewitness namely Anwar
Alam.
3. During investigation on 03.11.2014 at about 06:10 pm, an
information was received regarding apprehension of one of the
accused in the present FIR namely Jaswinder @ Tinku from the
area of Geeta Colony vide DD No. 35A, Ex. PX-8 and thereafter
IO went to PS Geeta Colony where SI Amarjeet handed over his
custody to IO vide DD No. 33A, Ex. PX-9. Thereafter, IO
interrogated accused Jaswinder @ Tinku, arrested him in the
present case, conducted his personal search and recorded his
disclosure statement. During investigation, on 04.11.2014,
accused Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu was arrested by the IO
on the basis of secret information. Thereafter, IO conducted his
personal search, recorded his disclosure statement and pursuant
to his disclosure statement, IO also got recovered one pistol with
three live cartridges and seized the same in the present case.
Thereafter, IO moved application for TIP of accused Jaswinder
@ Tinku and Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu but both the
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 4 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings. During
investigation, third accused Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar joined the
investigation in the present case, after securing anticipatory bail
from the court of Sessions on 25.11.2014. Thereafter IO formally
arrested him in the present case, recorded his disclosure
statement and moved application before Ld. MM for conducting
his TIP proceedings but he refused to participate in it. During
investigation, IO got identified all the three accused persons
through complainant as well as eyewitness Mohd. Suhail and
recorded their supplementary statements. During investigation,
IO collected Crime Team Report, CDR of mobile phones of
complainant and accused persons, sent the exhibits to FSL for
expert opinion, collected FSL Report, obtained sanction under
Sec. 39 Arms Act, obtained nature of injuries on the MLCs of
complainant as well as eyewitness Mohd. Suhail and recorded
statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the Court through the SHO.
4. Vide order dated 0 3 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 8 copy of the charge-sheet
was supplied to accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C was
and v i d e order dated 20.08.2018 the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 10.04.2019, the Ld. Predecessor Court
was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34
IPC & Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC against accused persons
namely Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu, Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku
& Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar. Additional charges under Sec. 25/27
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 5 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Arms Act were also framed against accused Abdul Jabbar @
Jabbar and additional charge under Sec. 25 Arms Act was also
framed against accused Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu. Accused
persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses.
The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
7. PW-1 Mohd. Akib was the complainant/injured in the
present case. He deposed that on 02.11.2014 at about 10:00 pm
or 11:00 pm, he received a call from his cousin Suhail who
informed him that a quarrel had taken place between him and
some unknown persons at Subzi Mandi, Darya Ganj. He further
deposed that he went to the spot and saw that four or five persons
were with Suhail and they were also being beaten by those 4-5
persons and suddenly someone fired three shots. He further
deposed that one bullet hit on his right leg and after receiving
bullet injury, he ran towards Subzi Mandi and became semi-
unconscious. He also deposed that he did not know what had
happened thereafter. He also deposed that public persons shifted
him to LNJP Hospital where police met him and recorded his
statement, Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that he had never
seen those assailants at Police Station or at any other place and
none of the said assailants was present in the court on that day.
He also deposed that he had not seen the faces of assailants even
on the day of incident. This witness was cross-examined by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State in which he did not support the case of
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 6 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
prosecution and nothing incriminating against accused persons
could come on record. This witness became completely hostile
regarding identity as well as specific roles of accused person.
This witness was confronted with his statements recorded under
Sec. 161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW-1/1 & Ex. PW-1/2 at various points.
This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
persons despite opportunity given to them.
8. PW-2 Mohd. Sohail was cousin of complainant as well as
eyewitness of the alleged incident. He deposed that on
02.11.2014 at about 11:30 pm, he was going to his house from
the house of his aunt Fozia and when he reached near tea stall,
Subzi Mandi, Daryaganj, two boys met him and asked him about
the address of Karim Hotel. He further deposed that in the
meantime, another boy came and started hurling abuses at him
and inquired as to why they were standing there. He further
deposed that he told him that he was leaving the place
immediately but the said boy gave two or three slaps to him. He
also deposed that he moved from that place and stood at the tea
stall and in the meantime commotion took place and many
persons started running here and there. He further deposed that
he made a call to his cousin Mohd. Akib and after sometime, he
came to the spot. He further deposed that in the meantime,
someone fired a shot and a bullet hit on the right leg of Mohd.
Akib. He further deposed that some public persons shifted Mohd.
Akib to LNJP Hospital and police recorded his statement. He also
deposed that he did not know anything else about this case. He
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 7 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
also deposed that he had never seen the assailants at Police
Station or at any other place. He also deposed that he had not
seen the faces of assailants at the time of incident as it was dark.
This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State he did not support the case of prosecution and became
hostile regarding identity as well as specific role of accused
persons alike PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib. This witness was
confronted with his statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC as
Ex. PW-2/1, Ex. PW-2/2 & Ex. PW-2/3 at various points. This
witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused
persons despite opportunity given to them.
9. PW-3 Sh. Rajiv Vashisth, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
has proved CDR for period of 01.11.2014 to 04.11.2014, CAF,
Certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act & Cell ID
chart of mobile phone no. 9717418751 issued in name of Ms.
Sayra Begum as Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/D. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that the call details, Ex. PW-3/A had
not prepared by him nor same was sent by him to the police
station. He also admitted that he had no personal knowledge
about the present case.
10. PW-4 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director
(Biology), FSL, Rohini has proved his detailed DNA report as
Ex. PW-4/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
11. PW-5 Dr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL,
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 8 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Rohini have proved his detailed report with respect to pistol 7.65
mm caliber, Ex. F-1 and three 7.65 mm cartridges, Ex. A-1 to Ex.
A-3 as Ex. PW-5/A. He also deposed that the improvised pistol
Ex. F-1 was in working order and test fire was conducted
successfully by using the cartridge, Ex. A-1. He also deposed that
the improvised pistol Ex. F-1 was a firearm and the cartridges
Ex. A-1 to A-3 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959.
This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused
persons despite opportunity given to them.
12. PW-6 Sh. Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone
Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved, CAF, certificate under Sec. 65B of
The Indian Evidence Act & CDR for the period of 01.11.2014 to
04.11.2014 of mobile phone number 9811729068 issued in name
of Jaswinder Singh as Mark-P-6, Ex. PW-6/B & Ex. PW-6/C. He
also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence
Act, CAF & CDR for the period of 01.11.2014 to 04.11.2014 of
mobile phone no. 9811941111 issued in name of Abdul Jabbar as
Ex. PW-6/D to Ex. PW-6/F. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that all exhibited documents were not prepared in his
presence.
13. PW-7 Dr. Sneh Tanwar, deposed that on 03.11.2014, he
was posted as CMO, Lok Nayak Hospital and he had examined
two persons namely Akib and Suhail vide MLCs, Ex. PW-7/A &
Ex. PW-7/B respectively. He further deposed that after giving
primary treatment, patient Akib was referred to Ortho emergency.
He also deposed that as per MLC, Ex. PW-7/A of Akib, the
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 9 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
nature of injury was opined as ‘grivous’ by SR Orthopedic
Surgery and as per MLC of Suhail, Ex. PW-7/B, no fresh external
injury was seen. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the
history given by the injured that he had received/sustained injury
on his right leg by a stranger. He also admitted that while
examining the injured, he did not mention any burning point or
sign of smoke on the body of patient.
14. PW-8 Inspector Ganesh Kumar, has proved the sanction
under Sec. 39 of The Arms Act, 1959 accorded by then Addl.
DCP Anto Aphonse, in the year 2017-18. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge
about the facts of the case.
15. PW-9 HC Anil Bharti, deposed that on 03.11.2014, on
receiving DD No. 3A, he along with SI Ajay went to LNJP
Hospital where injured Mohd. Akib was found under treatment.
He further deposed that SI recorded complaint of Mohd. Akib,
prepared rukka and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He
further deposed that after getting the FIR registered, he went to
spot where Mohd. Suhail, brother of complainant met him. He
narrated about the proceedings conducted by the IO at spot of
incident viz. Inspection of spot through Mobile Crime Team,
preparation of site plan at instance of Mohd. Suhail, seizure of
blood on gauze, earth control and blood stained earth control for
the spot of incident, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. He also
proved seizure memo of one sealed parcel collected by him from
the hospital containing blood stained pant of complainant as Ex.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 10 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
PW-9/B. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the place of
incident was a public place and being a Subzi Mandi, public
persons remained there for purchasing vegetables etc. He also
deposed that during his stay, none of the public person came
forward that he being a witness of any incident.
16. PW-10 HC Ajay Sharma, was the Photographer at Mobile
Crime Team. He proved photographs of the spot of incident from
different angles as Ex. PW-10/A (colly). He also proved
negatives of aforesaid photographs as Ex. PW-10/B (colly). This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons
despite opportunity given to them.
17. PW-11 Dr. Shashank Verma, Senior Resident, Lok Nayak
Hospital deposed that as per x-ray report of Mohd. Akib, Mark-
PW-11/1, portion ‘X’, there was ‘comminuted (multiple pieces)
fracture of right fibula’ of patient. He also deposed that in the
record-sheet of Mohd. Akib, Ex. PW-11/A, there was also
mention of ‘comminuted (multiple pieces) fracture of right
fibula’ of patient. In his cross-examination, he admitted that x-ray
plates were not enclosed with the MLC wherein the doctor has
opined a fracture on the injured.
18. PW-12 Retd. SI Usman Ali, was the second IO in the
present case. He deposed that the present matter was assigned to
him in January, 2018. He also deposed that he applied for seeking
sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act, vide request, Ex. PW-12/A. He
also deposed that after obtaining sanction, Ex. PW-8/A, he
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 11 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
prepared charge-sheet and filed before the Court of Ld. MM
through SHO. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
19. PW-13 Inspector Ajay Singh, was the Investigating Officer
in the present case. He deposed that in November, 2014 on
assignment of DD No. 3A, Ex. PX-5, he along with Ct. Anil went
to LNJP Hospital where injured Mohd. Akib was found under
treatment. He further deposed that brother of injured Mohd.
Suhail was also present in the hospital and they told him that
Akib had been fired at Subzi Mandi, Darya Ganj. He also
deposed that he recorded complaint of injured Mohd. Akib, Ex.
PW-1/A, prepared rukka, Ex. PW-13/A and got the present FIR
registered through Ct. Anil. He further deposed that he along
with Suhail went to the spot of incident where he met beat Ct.
Jawahar and Mobile Crime Team and efforts were made to trace
empty cartridge case and bullet lead but same could not be found.
He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the spot of
incident viz. inspection of spot through Mobile Crime Team,
preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-13/B at instance of Mohd.
Suhail, seizure of blood on gauze, earth control and blood stained
earth control for the spot of incident, vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-9/A. He also proved seizure memo of one sealed parcel from
the hospital containing blood stained pant of complainant as Ex.
PW-9/B. He further deposed that on 03.11.2014 at about 06:10
pm, an information was received regarding apprehension of one
of the accused in the present FIR namely Jaswinder @ Tinku
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 12 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
from the area of Geeta Colony vide DD No. 35A, Ex. PX-8 and
thereafter he went to PS Geeta Colony where SI Amarjeet handed
over his custody to him vide DD No. 33A, Ex. PX-9. He proved
arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of
accused Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku as Ex. PW-13/C, Ex.
PW-13/C-1 & Ex. PW-13/C-2. He also narrated about
apprehension of accused Shafiquddin @ Kallu @ Bobby on the
basis of secret information and proved his arrest memo, personal
search memo and disclosure statement as Ex. PW-13/D, Ex.
PW-13/D-1 & Ex. PW-13/D-2. He also narrated about recovery
of one pistol with three live cartridges at instance of accused
Shafiquddin @ Kallu @ Bobby from shop no. 3685, Subzi
Mandi, Darya Ganj and proved their sketch and their seizure
memo as Ex. PW-13/D-3 & Ex. PW-13/D-4. He also narrated
about formal arrest of third accused namely Abdul Jabbar on
securing anticipatory bail and proved his arrest memo, personal
search memo and disclosure statement as Ex. PW-13/F, Ex.
PW-13/F-1 & Ex. PW-13/F-2. He also narrated about moving
application for conducting TIP of accused persons but accused
persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He also proved
Mobile Crime Team Report as Ex. PW-13/G. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that the history disclosed by the victim
to the doctor concerned that they sustained injury from some
strangers. He also admitted that the site plan did not bear
signature of that person at whose instance the said site plan was
prepared. He also admitted that he did not cite any public witness
or any of the documents prepared in respect of accused
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 13 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Jaswinder. He also admitted that at that time there were many
hawkers (rehdiwala) was present in the Subzi Mandi, Daryaganj.
He also admitted that he did not make any videography or
photography of the said shop or the place of shop underneath jute
bag from where recovery was effected.
20. PW-14 HC Arun, deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was
posted as Constable in PCR and was on duty with HC Ram
Kishore at Van No. R-28 and they were going to their base at Taj
Enclave. He further deposed that at around 05:30 pm, one Sikh
person was sighted wandering in suspicious condition on the
back side of PS Geeta Colony. He further deposed that HC Ram
Kishore tried to stop said person but he started running on seeing
them. He also deposed that they chased and overpowered him
and on inquiry, his name revealed to be Jaswinder @ Tinku. He
further deposed that on inquiry, it was also revealed that he was
involved in firing incident which took place on the night of
previous day at Darya Ganj, Subzi Mandi. He further deposed
that HC Ram Kishore conveyed the information to Control Room
and SI Amarjeet came from PS Geeta Colony and accused
Jaswinder was handed over to him. In his cross-examination, he
denied the suggestion that accused Jaswinder Singh never
disclosed to them that he was involved in the incident of previous
night at Darya Ganj. He admitted that he was not having
information of the incident of Daryaganj in writing. He also
deposed that many persons were passing on the road at that time
when they had apprehended the accused but no one was asked to
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 14 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
join in his apprehension.
21. PW-15 Ct. Rupa Ram Sinwar, deposed that on 02.01.2015,
on the direction of IO, he obtained four sealed parcels with one
sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC No. 01/21/15, two parcels
vide RC No. 02/21/15 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini. He
proved copy of RC No. 01/21/15 & RC No. 02/21/15 as Ex.
PW-15/A & Ex. PW-15/B. He also proved acknowledgment with
respect to said deposition at FSL Rohini as Ex. PW-15/B-1. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he could not tell the name
and designation of the person of FSL to whom he handed over
the parcels in question.
22. PW-16 Retd. ASI Ram Kishore, was the In-charge PCR.
He deposed that on 03.11.2014, he was deputed on PCR with Ct.
Arun Kumar. He deposed similarly on the lines of PW-14 HC
Arun Kumar regarding apprehension of accused Jaswinder
Singh. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
accused Jaswinder Singh never disclosed to them that he was
involved in the incident of previous night at Darya Ganj. He
admitted that he was not having information of the incident of
Daryaganj in writing. He also deposed that many persons were
passing on the road at that time when they had apprehended the
accused but no one was asked to join in his apprehension.
23. PW-17 Retd. Inspector Dhan Singh, was the In-charge,
Mobile Crime Team, Central District. He deposed that on
03.11.2014, on receiving information from District Control
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 15 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Room, he along with other members i.e. ASI Pawan, Fingerprint
Proficient and Ct. Ajeet Sharma, Photographer reached at the
spot of incident i.e. Subzi Mandi, Darya Ganj. He deposed about
proceedings conducted by Mobile Crime Team at the spot of
incident. He proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex.
PW-13/G. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were
number of shops near the scene of crime. He denied the
suggestion that he did not visit the spot with team or that he had
not conducted inspection or that he gave the observation in report
at the instance of IO.
24. PW-18 ASI Mukesh Kumar, was the MHC(M) at PS
Daryaganj. He proved entries made by him in register nos. 19 &
21 regarding movement of case properties as Ex. PW-18/A, Ex.
PW-18/B, Ex. PW-15/A & Ex. PW-15/B. He also proved
acknowledgment regarding deposit of case properties at FSL as
Ex. PW-15/A-1 & Ex. PW-15/B-1. In his cross-examination, he
denied the suggestion that entries were ante-dated and ante-
timed.
25. PW-19 Dr. Swati Gupta, Professor, Maulana Azad Medical
College has examined x-ray films of patient Akib referred vide
MLC, Ex. PW-7/A and proved her opinion, Ex. PW-11/A that
there was ‘comminuted fracture shaft right fibula’. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that after seeking the x-ray films, she
gave her opinion.
26. During the course of trial, accused persons admitted the
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 16 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
genuiness of following documents, under Sec. 294 Cr.PC:-
(i) TIP proceedings of accused Jaswinder Singh @
Tinku exhibited as Ex. PX-1.
(ii) TIP proceedings of accused Abdul Jabbar exhibited
as Ex. PX-2.
(iii) FIR along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The
Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PX-3 & Ex.
PX-4.
(iv) DD No. 3A exhibited as Ex. PX-5.
(v) DD No. 23A exhibited as Ex. PX-6.
(vi) DD No. 59B & 35A exhibited as Ex. PX-7 & Ex.
PX-8.
(vii) DD No. 33A exhibited as Ex. PX-9.
27. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate
statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313
Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. They
claimed that it was a false case against them and witnesses
were interested witnesses. They further claimed that they were
innocent and they had been falsely implicated in the present
case. Accused persons did not lead defence evidence in the
present case.
28. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. B. B. Sharma, Ld.
Counsel for the three accused persons.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 17 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
29. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued that the CDR of the mobile phones of
accused persons have been proved by the prosecution to show
that they were present at the spot of incident at the time of
incident. He also argued that PW-1 Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd.
Suhail have narrated the incident, though, they have turned
hostile on identity of accused persons but since PW-1 Mohd.
Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail had correctly identified the
accused persons in the presence of police officials, the
testimonies of police officials shall be taken into consideration
with respect to identity of accused persons who committed the
alleged offences. He also argued that weapon was used by
accused Abdul Jabbar for the commission of offence and one
pistol and three live cartridges have been recovered at instance of
accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu and sanction under Sec.
39 of Arms Act has been duly proved by the prosecution. He also
argued that he IO as well as the other police officials have duly
proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that
since the prosecution has proved its case against accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt, they should be convicted for the
offences under which charges have been framed against them.
30. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 18 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his points, he
argued that the investigation in the present case has been
conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that accused persons
have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police
officials. He further argued that PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib
as well as PW-2 Mohd. Suhail have turned hostile on identity of
accused persons. He further argued that prosecution has not
examined any independent eyewitness. He also argued that no
independent witness was joined in investigation even at the time
of recovery of alleged weapons. He also argued that no CCTV
footage with respect to alleged incident has been collected by the
IO. He also argued that concerned DCP who accorded sanction
under Sec. 39 of Arms Act has not been examined as PW. He
also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, they
should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which
charges have been framed against them.
31. In the present case, charges under Sec. under Sec. 307 read
with Sec. 34 IPC & Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC against
Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu, Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku &
Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar. Additional charges under Sec. 25/27 Arms
Act was also framed against accused Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar and
additional charge under Sec. 25 Arms Act was also framed against
accused Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu. These Sections have
been defined as follows:-
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:-
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 19 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
307. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to
any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he
may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
Section 25 of Arms Act provides punishment for the possession
of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever–
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts,
repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer,
or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair,
test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of
section 5; orFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 20 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation
3
firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of
firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other
category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition
of any class or description in contravention of section 11,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
5
not be less than [seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of
section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
7
which shall not be less than [seven years but which may
extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and
special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.]
[(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the
police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.]
(1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs,
tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has
in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or
proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in
contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with
9
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ten
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 21 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to fine.]
[(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued
under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a
notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has
in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
11
[seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life]
and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever–
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place
specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class
or description as has been specified in that notification in
contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name
of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification
mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub-
section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub-
section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has
in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in
contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any
firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition
in contravention of section 10; or
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 22 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of
section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-
section (2) of section 3, or
sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition,
fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section
44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such
entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a
false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of
such record or account or the making of copies of entries
therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises
or other place where arms or ammunition are or is
manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or
conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out
where the same are or is manufactured or kept,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
12
not be less than [two years but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to
fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of
13
imprisonment for a term of less than [two years].][(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1B),
whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section
in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 23 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed
area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any
enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the
suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of
public order, and includes any areas specified by notification
under section 24A or section 24B.](2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his
possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in
contravention of that section shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or
other arms–
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction
or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the
intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other
arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from
the date of giving such information to such district magistrate
or the officer in charge of the police station,
in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of
the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.]
(4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by
the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for
the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or
fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under
sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 24 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name
and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a
name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to
two hundred rupees, or with both.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any
person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or
carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any
provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime
syndicate or a person on its behalf, –
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts,
repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer,
conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation
firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of
firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other
category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition
of any class or description in contravention of section 11,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),–
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 25 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by
use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or
coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of
gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other
advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more
persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate
or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
(8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of
firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7
and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit
trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery,
movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or
within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are
not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are
being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act
including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited
arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in
celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal
safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
27 Arms Act: Punishment for using arms, etc.
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention
of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 26 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7
and such use or act results in the death of any other
person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life,
or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
30. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions
of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
31. PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail
are the star witness of the prosecution as they are the only
eyewitnesses of the alleged incident and injured in the present
case. No independent eyewitness has been examined in the
present case and hence the testimonies of PW-1/complainant
Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail is to be appreciated as per
the established principles of testimonies of injured witnesses.
32. PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib deposed that on
02.11.2014 at about 10:00-11:00 pm, he received call from his
cousin Mohd. Suhail and thereafter he went to the spot of
incident where he saw that 4-5 persons were beating his cousin
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 27 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Suhail. However, PW-2 Mohd. Suhail deposed that when he
reached near tea stall, two boys met him and thereafter another
boy also came there and started beating him and thereafter one
boy gave 2-3 slapped to him. Thus, as per the version of PW-2
Mohd. Suhail, he was slapped by only one boy and only three
boys were involved in the incident. PW-2 Mohd. Suhail also
deposed that he made call to his cousin Mohd. Akib who came at
the spot and in the meantime someone fired at Mohd. Akib. Thus,
as per version of PW-2 Mohd. Suhail, he was not given beatings
in the presence of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib. Thus, there
are material contradictions in the testimonies of
PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail with
respect to the number of persons involved in the incident and the
giving of beatings by the said persons to PW-2 Mohd. Suhail in
presence of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib. This raises serious
doubt on the veracity of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and
PW-2 Mohd. Suhail.
33. PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib has explained the alleged
incident in detail but he has turned hostile on the identity of
accused persons. He specifically deposed that he never saw the
assailants at the police station or at any other place. He also
deposed that he had not seen the faces of assailants even on the
date of incident. He specifically deposed that none of the
assailants was present in the court on the day of recording of his
testimony. Even in the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl.
PP for the State, PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib did not identify
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 28 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
any of the accused and he did not support the prosecution story.
Thus, nothing incriminating has come on record against the
accused persons through the testimony of PW-1/complainant
Mohd. Akib.
34. PW-2 Mohd. Suhail also narrated the alleged incident in
detail but he also turned hostile on the identity of accused
persons. He specifically deposed that he had never seen the
assailants at Police Station or at any other place. He also deposed
that he has not seen the faces of assailants as the time of incident
as it was dark. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged
incident took place on 02.11.2014 at about 11:50 pm i.e. at night
time. Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that
there was proper light at the spot of incident through which the
faces of accused persons could be seen. Thus, even through the
testimony of PW-2 Mohd. Suhail, nothing incriminating has
come on record against accused persons.
35. The alleged incident took place at Subzi Mandi, N. S.
Marg, Daryaganj which is a public place. PW-2 Mohd. Suhail has
specifically deposed that in the meantime commotion took place
and many persons started running here and there which means
that several eyewitnesses were present at the spot of incident at
the time of incident. PW-9 HC Anil Bharti who went to the spot
of incident along with IO/Inspector Ajay Singh on receiving DD
No. 3A, has specifically deposed that the place of incident was a
public place and being a Subzi Mandi, public persons remained
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 29 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
there for purchasing vegetables etc. In the present case, IO has
not cited any independent eyewitness to corroborate or prove the
prosecution story. IO has also not collected the CCTV footage of
the spot of incident or the area adjacent to the spot of incident.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as ‘Mohammad
Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as
MANU/DE/3131/2017′ has held that:-
‘ joining of independent public witness is not mere a
formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false
implication of individual. In number of cases either
no independent public witnesses are associated on
the pretext that none of them is available; in some
cases only passerbyes are requested to join the
investigation. Non-examination of independent public
witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse
inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for
withholding them’.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Mohammad Burhan (Supra), due to non-examination
of any independent eyewitness and non-collection of the CCTV
footage of the spot of incident or the area adjacent to that, the
adverse inference is being drawn against the case of the
prosecution in the present case.
36. Prosecution has examined Nodal Officers of Telecom
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 30 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Service Providers to prove the presence of accused persons at the
spot of incident. PW-3 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht, Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Ltd. has proved the CDR, CAF & Cell ID chart of mobile
phone no. 9717418751 issued in name of one Sayra Begum along
with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act,
exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/D. However, none of the
prosecution witness has deposed as to by whom the said mobile
phone number was being used at the time of incident. The
prosecution has also not examined Ms. Sayra Begum to prove as
to by whom her mobile phone number was used on date of
incident. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht is of no
value.
37. PW-6 Sh. Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone
Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved the CDR and CAF of mobile phone
numbers 9811729068 issued in name of accused Jaswinder Singh
and mobile phone no. 9811941111 issued in name of accused
Abdul Jabbar. The place of incident is a Subzi Mandi and as per
the case of prosecution, several public persons were present there
at the time of incident. The tower of Cellular company covers big
area regarding the location and in that area, thousands of persons
may be present at one time and even if the presence of accused
persons is also shown in that area, in absence of any
corroborating evidence, the same does not have much evidentiary
value.
38. PW-7 Dr. Sneh Tanwar has proved the MLC of
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 31 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail,
exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A & Ex. PW-7/B. As per the MLC of
PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib, there was 1 cm round wound
over lateral side of right leg approximately 4 cm above lateral
malleous with surrounding swelling present and 0.5 cm round
wound over medial side of right leg approximately 6 cm above
medial malleous. No fresh injury was found on the body of PW-2
Mohd. Suhail. PW-11 Dr. Shashank Verma has proved the x-ray
report of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib marked as PW-11/1 and
deposed that there was comminuted (multiple pieces) fracture of
right fibula of the patient. PW-19 Dr. Swati also deposed that
there was comminuted fracture sharp right fibula and she proved
her opinion exhibited as Ex. PW-11/A. Thus, all the three doctors
have proved injuries and its nature on the person of
PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail.
However, since PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd.
Suhail have turned hostile on the identity of accused persons, the
said injuries cannot be attributed to accused persons.
39. PW-4 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director
(Biology), FSL has proved DNA report of PW-1/complainant
Mohd. Akib, exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A. As per the report, the
blood of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib (Ex.-1) was found on
his cloth, (Ex. 4a & 4b). Finding of blood of injured on his cloth
is natural as he had sustained bullet injury. The blood of
PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib was not found on the clothes of
accused persons and hence accused persons cannot be connected
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 32 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
with the commission of offence in the present case.
40. As per the prosecution story one pistol along with three
cartridges were recovered at instance of accused Safiquddin @
Bobby @ Kallu which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-13/D-4. The recovery of the case property has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with
the law laid down in this regard by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to
Section 25 and Section 26 of the said Act. Section 27 is based on
the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle
under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle
that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement
of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the
information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is
true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in
nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it
will be considered as a reliable information.
41. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement
of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be
given by the person who is accused of an offence and the
recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the
information given by such accused.
42. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as
Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
cited as ‘MANU/DE/3131/2017’ has held that:- joining of
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 33 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
“independent public witness is not mere a
formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false
implication of individual. In number of cases
either no independent public witnesses are
associated on the pretext that none of them is
available; in some cases only passerbyes are
requested to join the investigation. Non-
examination of independent public witness in the
instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference
is to be drawn against the prosecution for
withholding them.
43. Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-“52.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:
’27 How much of information received from the
accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact
is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information, received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession
or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 34 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
accused appellant while in custody on his own free
will and volition made a statement that he would
lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of
offence along with his blood stained clothes then the
first thing that the investigating officer should have
done was to call for two independent witnesses at the
police station itself. Once the two independent
witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in
their presence the accused should be asked to make
an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard
to pointing out the place where he is said to have
hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused
while in custody makes such statement before the
two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the
exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by
the accused should be incorporated in the first part
of the panchnama that the investigating officer may
draw in accordance with law. This first part of the
panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in
accordance with law. This first part of the
panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in
the presence of that independent witnesses so as to
lend credence that a particular statement was made
by the accused expressing his willingness on his ownFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 35 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
free will and volition to point out the place where the
weapon of offence or any other article used in the
commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the
first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter
the police party along with the accused and the two
particular place anything like the weapon of offence
of blood stained clothes or any other article is
discovered then the part of the entire process expects
the investigating officer then it is clear that the same
is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the
matter.”
44. As per the case of prosecution, PW-13/IO Inspector Ajay
Singh deposed that accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu made
disclosure statement, Ex. PW-13/D-2 and pursuant to his
disclosure statement accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu got
recovered one pistol and three live cartridges from shop no.
3685, Subzi Mandi, Daryaganj. The prosecution has not proved
that the abovesaid shop belonged to accused Safiquddin @
Bobby @ Kallu. No independent witness was joined in the
investigation at the time of recovery of pistol and three live
cartridges at instance of accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu.
IO had not served any notice upon the public person who might
have refused to join the investigation nor he has recorded their
names and addresses. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 36 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered
opinion that due to non-joining of any independent witness at the
time of recovery of case property, the recovery of pistol and live
cartridges at instance of accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu
has become doubtful. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove
the recovery of pistol and live cartridges at instance of accused
Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu.
45. PW-5 Dr. Puneet Puri has proved his FSL Report, Ex.
PW-5/A with respect to pistol, Ex. F-1 and three live cartridges,
Ex. A-1 to A-3 allegedly recovered at instance of accused
Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu. As per the report, Ex. PW-5/A
pistol, Ex. F-1 was firearm and cartridges, Ex. A-1 to A-3 were
ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959. Since the recovery at
instance of accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu has become
doubtful, the FSL report, Ex. PW-5/A does not have much
evidentiary value.
46. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In
a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 37 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
47. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that:-
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling
witness” should be of a very high quality and
caliber whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without
any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under noFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 38 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
circumstances should given room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have corelation with
each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of very
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should
not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only, if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to
be applied, can it be held that such a witness
can be called as a “sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intactFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 39 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
48. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimony
of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case
where the court is convinced about the truthfulness
of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances
with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It
the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality
that may be sufficient to sustain an order of
conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In
the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be
of such quality.”
49. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 40 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
50. Due to turning of hostile of PW-1/complainant Mohd.
Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail on the identity of accused persons,
coupled with the fact of non-production of corroborating
evidence, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution
story. The versions of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2
Mohd. Suhail are not natural one and it castes a shadow of doubt
on their veracity. The things appears to have not happened in the
manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid
discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the
testimonies of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd.
Suhail are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same
are not corroborated by other material evidence. The testimonies
of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail in the
present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the
conviction of the accused persons.
51. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted.
The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
52. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a
guilty person should be preferred to conviction of
an innocent person. Unless the prosecution
establishes the guilt of the accused beyondFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 41 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed
on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to
deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty,
without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real
culprits.”
53. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer
Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as follows:
“The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two view are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate
the evidence where the accused has been
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as toFIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 42 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
whether any of the accused really committed any
offence or not.”
54. In the present case, due to turning of hostile of PW-1/com-
plainant Mohd. Akib and PW-2 Mohd. Suhail coupled with the
fact of non-collection of relevant CCTV footage, non-
examination of any independent eyewitness and doubtful
recovery of weapon at instance of accused Safiquddin @ Bobby
@ Kallu, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution
story and two views are possible in this case and hence the
benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
55. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention attempted to
commit murder of PW-1/complainant Mohd. Akib and they
caused simple hurt on person of PW-2 Mohd. Suhail. The
prosecution has also failed to prove the use of pistol/arm by
accused Abdul Jabbar and possession of pistol/arm/ammunition
by accused Abdul Jabbar and Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu.
56. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of
offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC
against all the three accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution has also failed to prove the ingredients of offences
punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act against accused Abdul
Jabbar @ Jabbar beyond reasonable doubts. Prosecution has also
failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec.
FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 43 of 44
State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
25 Arms Act against accused Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu
beyond reasonable doubts.
57. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused
persons namely Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu, Abdul Jabbar @
Jabbar & Jaswinder Singh @ Tinku are hereby acquitted for
offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC.
Accused Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar is hereby also acquitted for
offences punishable under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act. Accused
Safiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu is hereby also acquitted for the
offence punishable under Sec. 25 Arms Act.
58. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: 2025.07.11 on 11th day of July, 2025 15:32:06 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:11.07.2025 FIR No. 621/2014, PS: Daryaganj, Page No. 44 of 44 State Vs. Shafiquddin @ Bobby @ Kallu & Ors.
[ad_1]
Source link