INTHECOURTOFSHRAJENDERKUMARSHASTRI ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE02:SOUTHEAST SAKETCOURT:NEWDELHI INRE: SCNo.42/10 FIRNo.208/08 PSJamiaNagar State Vs. IDNo.

02403R0176482010

ShahzadAhmad@Pappu S/oSh.SirajAhmad R/oRehmaniManjil,Jalandhari, SadarCity,Ajamgarh,U.P. __________________________________________________________ DateofInstitution :26.05.2010 Dateofarguments :20.07.2013 Dateofjudgment :25.07.2013 JUDGMENT EntireNationalCapitalofIndiai.e.Delhiwasshakenon 13.09.2008whenfivebombsinachainexplodedatdifferentplacesin itshurti.e.ConnaughtPlace,KarolBagh,GreaterKailashandIndia Gate.ConnaughtPlaceandKarolBagharecommercialhubsofDelhi. Greater Kailash is a posh colony, which gives shelter to salt of its population, while India Gate is a historical and picnic spot, which remaingenerallycrowded. 26innocentpersonslosttheirlives,while 133sufferedinjuries. FiveFIRsnumberedas168/08,130/08,293/08,
SC No. 42/10 1 of 46

418/08and419/08wereregisteredinPSKarolBagh,GreaterKailash, Tilak Marg and Connaught Place respectively. An outfit 'Indian Mujaheddin took responsibilityof theseblastsbysendingemailsto variouselectronicandprintmedia. SpecialCellofDelhiPolicetook thetaskofinvestigation. AteamunderthesupervisionofInspector Mohan Chand Sharma was formed to trace out the culprits. When injuredstartedrecuperatinginhospitalsanddeadbodieswereputto rest, public could take their sleeps well but not the police. In the morningof19.09.2008whenpeoplewereintheprocessofwakingup, thepolicewasengrossedinplanningtonabthesuspects. SIRahul Kumar(nowInspector)lodgedacomplaint(Ex.PW8/C),narratingthe incidentas: Today(19.09.2008)ataround8.00am,a
specific information was received to Inspector Mohan ChandSharmathatBashir@Atifalongwithassociatesis residing in the top floor Flat No. 108 of L18, Batla House,Delhi.ThisinformationwaslodgedinDailyDiary anddiscussedwithseniorofficers.Afterdiscussionwith senior officers, as per their directions, a team led by InspectorMohanChandSharmaconsistingofInspector SanjayDutt,SIDharmender,Kumar,SIRavinderKumar Tyagi, SI Dalip Kumar, SI Rakesh Malik, SI Devender Singh, ASI Anil Tyagi, HC Balwant Singh, HC Rajbir Singh,HCSatyenderKumar(No.391/SB),HCSatyender Kumar(No.397/SB),HCVinodGautam,HCHansraj,HC Udaivir Singh, HC Manish Kumar, Ct. Gurmeet, Ct. Sandeep,Ct.BirenderNegiandCt.Rajeevincludingme, wasformedtoactupontheinformation. Atabout9.30 am,theteamlefttheofficeofSpecialCellNDRwitharms SC No. 42/10 2 of 46

andammunitioninourprivatecarsandtwotwowheelers toapprehendhimandhisassociates.Atabout10.30am, the team of special cell reached Batla House and requested78passerbypersonstojoinraidingpartyafter apprising them about contents of information, but none joinedbygivinggenuineexcuses.Withoutwastingfurther time,InspectorMohanChandSharmabriefedtheentire teamandtheteamreachedatL18,BatlaHouse,Delhi and surrounded the building. At about 11.00 am, Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma alongwith SI Dharmender Kumar, SI Ravinder Kumar Tyagi, HC Balwant Singh, HC Udaivir Singh, HC Satyender (No. 397/SB)andmyselfenteredintothebuildingtoconduct raidatflatNo.108,L18,BatlaHouse,Delhi,whereas other team members were deployed at ground floor to cover the building. Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma knocked at the main door of the flat by disclosing his identity, but when the occupants of the flat did not respond,thentheteamtriedtoenterintotheflat. The maindoorwasfoundboltedfrominside,butthesidedoor was found not to be bolted and it was pushed. Immediately, the team members went inside the flat in ordertoapprehendthesuspects.Nosoonerdidtheteam enteredinsidetheflat,theoccupantsoftheflatopened fireuponpoliceparty. Theteammembersalsofiredin selfdefencetoapprehendtheterrorists. Inbetween,Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, ACP NDR alongwith Inspector RameshChandraLamba,SI BhoopSingh, SI Harender Kumar,ASISatishKumar,ASIShahjahanandotherstaff also reached at the spot. During the cross firing, InspectorMohanChandSharmaandHCBalwantSingh sustained bullet injuries. Two militants also sustained bullet injuries in cross firing, while two other militants managedtoescapefromtheflatwhilefiringonthepolice party. Theinjuredpoliceofficersandthemilitantswere immediately removed to hospital. One of the militants namelyMohd.Saif,sonofSh.ShadabAhmad,residentof Village & PO Sanjarpur, PS Sarai Meer, Tehsil SC No. 42/10 3 of 46

Nijamabad, District Ajamgarh (UP) surrendered before thepoliceparty.Thenamesoftheescapedmilitantswere revealedbyMohd.SaifasJunaidandPappu.Duringthe cursorysearchoftheflat,oneA.K.Seriesriflealongwith two magazines containing 30 live rounds each was recoveredfromthefarendrightsideroomofthemilitants besidestwopistolsof.30borelyingnearthetwoinjured militants. Themilitantshaveobstructedthepoliceparty indischargingtheirofficialdutiesandfiredwithintentto killthepoliceofficials.

ThecomplaintwasendorsedbyInspectorJ.S.Joon,on thebasisofwhichFIRNo.208/08wasregisteredinPSJamiaNagarfor offencepunishableU/s186/353/307/332/34IPCandU/s25and27of TheArmsAct. Apart from aforesaid complaint, one Ovais Malik, residentofHouseNo.J1/A,4thFloor,BatlaHousesetlegalmachinery intomotion,byinformingpolicecontrolroom,thatheheardsoundof firingbetween10.3011.15am. During investigation, IO Inspector J.S. Joon found followingarticleslyinginthatflat: KF049MM22,8emptycartridges (fired) having marking of 7.62/2S S&B and three empty cartridges (fired)havingmarkingofKF01A7and13firedbullets.OneA.KSeries Rifle alongwithtwomagazinesand60livecartridgesfromrightside bed room of that flat, one pistol of .30 bore from drawing room alongwithonelivecartridgeinitschamberhavingmarkingofCAL.30

SC No. 42/10

4 of 46

MAUSERMADECHINABYNORINCOwrittenonitsbarrel,one another.30borepistolhavingmarkingofA1INTERNATIONALA1 ononesideofitsbarrelandC33097ontheothersideofbarrelfrom leftsidebedroomofthatflat. Onebulletproofjacketstatedtohave been worn by HC Rajbir Singh having marking of two bullets. IO seized all these as well as took blood samples from right side wall (pillar)neardoor,lobby,neardrawingroomgate,neardustbindrawing room,middleofdrawingroom,stairs,outsidetheflatandfromleftside bedroom.Healsoseizedabloodstainedpieceofmattressfoundlying inthedrawingroom,swabfromholesmadeonthewallsbytheimpact ofbullets.Allthesewerekeptindifferentpulandasandsealedbyseal ofJ.S. TwoinjuredoccupantswhowereknownasMohd.Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid were declared as brought dead at AIIMS Hospital,whileInspectorM.C.SharmasuccumbedtoinjuriesinHoly FamilyHospital.DuetodeathofsaidInspector,Section302IPCwas alsoaddedduringinvestigation. IOcollecteddeathsummaryofInspectorM.C.Sharma. BoardofDoctorsconductedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofdeceased Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid. Similarly, another Board of Doctors conducted postmortem on the dead body of Inspector M.C. Sharma. IO collected said reports as well as MLC of injured HC

SC No. 42/10

5 of 46

BalwantSingh. Investigationofthecasewasassignedtocrimebranch videanorderdated01.10.2008. OntherequestofIO,DirectorCFSL alongwithhisteaminspectedsceneofcrime.IOseizedweaponsused bymembersofraidingpartyon18.10.2008,collectedphotographsof sceneofincident,photocopyoflogbookofPCRvanE23andE25and recordedstatementsofwitnessesU/s161Cr.P.C. Whileinvestigating the case FIR No. 166/08 registeredinPS KarolBagh,ACPSanjeev Kumar Yadav seized one passport belonging to Shahzad Ahmad @ Pappu on the pointing of said Mohd. Saif from that flat apart from several other articles. Teams were sent to Ajamgarh in search of abscondingaccused. On 06.02.2009, IO requested the court for issuing NBWsagainstaccusedShahzadAhmad@PappuandArizKhan@ Junaid. Samewereissuedbythecourttobeexecutedtill20.02.2009. On 10.02.2009, SI Naresh Sangwan alongwith Ct. Subhash went to Ajamgarh for execution of said NBWs, but both of said accused absconded and the process could not be executed. On 20.02.2009, processU/s82Cr.P.Cwasorderedtobeissuedagainstbothofsaid accused. Apart from said process, process U/s 83 Cr.P.C was also issuedagainstsaidaccused,butnomovableorimmovablepropertywas found in the name of said accused and hence process remained

SC No. 42/10

6 of 46

unserved. On 03.07.2009, both of said accused were declared as proclaimedoffendersbythecourt. On01.02.2010,accusedShahzadAhmad@Pappuwas arrestedbyATSofLucknow(U.P).Onbeinginterrogated,saidaccused gavedisclosurestatement.On03.02.2010,accusedwasproducedbefore thecourtofLd.ACMM(SouthEast).IOfiledanapplicationseeking TIPofsaidaccused,butsamerefusedtoparticipateandhencenoTIP couldbeconducted. OnanapplicationfiledbyIO,accusedShahzad Ahmad@Pappuwasremandedinpolicecustodyforthreedays.The accusedledpolicepartyon04.02.2010toabridgeofGangNeharand pointedoutaplace,statingthatsamehadthrownweaponofoffence there in the evening of 19.09.2008, but no such weapon could be recoveredduetostrongflowofwater. IO took voice sample of accused Shahzad Ahmad @ Pappu to get the same matched with voice already obtained by him during monitoring of mobile phone No. 9811004309 stated to be belongingtoAtifAmeen.TheIOcametoknowthataccusedShahzad Ahmad@Pappuhadgotrailwayreservationdonefor24.09.2010from DelhitoAjamgarhbyKafiyatExpress.IOseizedcopiesofCDR/CAF/ Ownershipdetailandrailwayreservationchartofthatday. Aftercompletionofinvestigation,policefiledreportU/s 173Cr.P.C,indictingaccusedMohd.AtifAmeen@Bashir,Mohd.Sajid

SC No. 42/10

7 of 46

(bothdied),ArizKhan@Junaid(PO)andShahzadAhmad@Pappu foroffencespunishableU/s186/353/333/307/302/34/201/174AIPC. NooffencewasmadeoutagainstMohd.Saif@Rahul@Sameer. AccusedMohd.Shahzadwaschargedbyorderofthis courton04.02.2011foroffencespunishableU/s186/34,353/34,333/34, 302/34and307/34IPC.Samewasalsochargedforoffencepunishable U/s201IPCandagainforoffencepunishableU/s27/54/59Actand furtherforoffencepunishableU/s174AIPC. Accusedpleadednot guiltyforalltheseoffencesandclaimedtrial. Inordertobringarounditscase,prosecutionexamined 70witnesses. TheseareaptlycategorizedbyLd.DefenceCounselin hiswrittennotesas: (i) Eye witnesses HC Satender (PW7), Inspector Rahul Kumar (PW8), ASI Udaivir Singh (PW11), HC Balwant (PW14),SIRavinderKumarTyagi(PW15)andInspectorDharmender (PW22). (ii) Others involved in raid than eye witnesses HC Gurmeet (PW4), Inspector Sanjay Dutt (PW12), SI Anil Tyagi (PW13), ASI Chhajju Ram (PW29)andSh.SanjeevKumarYadav, DCPSpecialCell(PW56). (iii)ArrestandsearchSh.BhishamSingh,Addl.DCP (PW26),HCAzadSingh(PW33),InspectorManjeetTomar(PW53),

SC No. 42/10

8 of 46

InspectorTejBahadurSingh(PW55)andSh.RavinderKumarSingh (PW64). (iv)PCRW/Ct.NirmalSingh(PW30),Ct.Satender Kumar(PW34)andHCNathiRam(PW39). (v) Investigating officers Inspector Joginder Singh Joon(PW66)andInspectorSatishSharma(PW68). (vi) Officials involved in investigation SI Mahesh Kumar(PW6),Sh.P.K.Gottam(PW21),SIPraveenVats(PW35),SI Nafe Singh (PW37), Ct. R.P. Meena (PW38), ASI Sant Pal Singh (PW41),HCSundaRam(PW43),HCGiriRaj(PW49)andInspector Naresh(PW65). (vii)WitnessesofregistrationofFIRASISarojBala (PW50). (viii) Maalkhana HC Rewati Lal (PW45) and HC JugenderSingh(PW46). (ix)OthersSIMahipalSingh(PW5),ASIRamPal (PW9),HCNarpatSingh(PW31),HCRamSingh(PW32),HCVijay (PW40),ASISanjayArya(PW42),HCParmalSingh(PW44),ASI Azam Khan (PW48), HC Laxman Singh (PW51), Inspector Sunil Kumar(PW52),HCIslamuddin(PW54),HCMohanSingh(PW59), Sh. Alok Kumar, Principal PTC (PW60), Inspector Suresh Kaushik (PW61)andASIChiranjiLal(PW70).

SC No. 42/10

9 of 46

(x) Witnesses about call records Sh. Ajeet Singh, AssistantNodalOfficerfromIdeaCellularLimited(PW17),Sh.Vishal Gaurav,NodalOfficerfromBhartiAirtelLimited(PW24),Sh.Deepak, AlternateNodalOfficerfromVodafoneMobileServices(PW25)and Sh.G.S.Patnaik,SecretarytotheVicePresidentofIndia(PW67). (xi)RailwayOfficerMs.ShantiDevi(PW28. (xii) Judicial Officers and staff Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Narender Kumar, Special Judge NDPS (PW10), Sh. Mohan Singh Assistant Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Narender Kumar, Special Judge NDPS (PW23), Sh. Naveen Arora, SeniorCivilJudgecumRC(PW57)andSh.SauravKulshrestra,ARC cumCivilJudge(PW58). (xiii)OtherpublicpersonsSh.K.N.Masiwal(PW1), Sh.AbuTalibAkhtar(PW2),Sh.SyedAhmed(PW3),Sh.Moshin Nisar(PW16),Sh.OvaisMalik(PW20),Sh.RavinderKumarSingh, Addl.S.P,UPATS(PW64)andSh.AjeetSingh,RecordClerk,Record Station,AIIMSHospital(PW69). Theaccused,whenincriminatingevidencewasputto himwhilerecordinghisstatementU/s313Cr.P.C,deniedthesameas incorrect. As per him, thewitnesses examinedbyprosecutionwere interestedwitnesses,hewasinnocentandwasfalselyimplicatedinthis case.TheaccusedoptedtoexamineMohd.Saif,sonofSh.Shadaband

SC No. 42/10

10 of 46

Zeeshan,sonofSh.EhsaanAhmad. Bothofthemwereexaminedas DW1andDW2respectively. Sixwitnessesi.e.HCSatender(PW7),InspectorRahul Kumar (PW8), HC Udaivir (PW11), HC Balwant (PW14), SI Ravinder Kumar Tyagi (PW15) and Inspector Dharmender Kumar (PW22)arestatedtobeeyewitnessesofincident. Asstatedearlier, FIRinthiscasewasregisteredonacomplaintgivenbyInspectorRahul Kumar. The latter (complainant) after verifying his complaint (Ex. PW8/C)gaveaccountofincidentinthecourt,asfollow: On19.09.2008atabout8.00am,Iwaspresent
in the office and Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma informed me telephonically that he had received information through informer that above said Atif @ BashirisstayinginflatNo.108,L18,BatlaHouse,Jamia Nagar,NewDelhialongwithhisassociates.Heaskedme tolodgeaDDentryinthisregardandtoconstituteateam for raid. I lodged a DD entry vide DD No. 3 dated 19.09.2008.AttestedcopyofsameisEx.PW8/A.Ateam comprisingofInspectorMohanChandSharma,myself,SI DharmenderKumar,SIRavinderTyagi,SIDevender,SI Dalip Kumar, ASI Anil Tyagi, SI Rakesh Malik, HC Manish,HCSatyenderKumar(No.391/SB),HCSatender Kumar (No. 397/SB), HC Balwant, HC Rajbir, HC Udaivir, HC Rajiv, HC Vinod Gautam and others was formed to act upon this information. I alongwith SI RavinderTyagi,HCBalwant,HCSatender,Ct.Sandeep, SIRakeshMalik,HCManish,HCVinodGautamandCt. BirenderNegidepartedfromofficeinaprivatecarand twotwowheelersalongwitharmsandammunition. Rest ofmembersoftheteamweredirectedaccordingly. DD No.4was recordedin this regard,copy ofwhichis Ex. PW8/B.Atabout10.15am,wereachedatAbbasiChowk, SC No. 42/10 11 of 46

Batla House, Jamia Nagar. SI Rakesh Malik and HC ManishweresenttoSaheenBagh,JamiaNagartoverify one address as directed by Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. At about 10.45 am, Inspector M.C. Sharma alongwith other team members also reached there. He briefedalloftheteammembersabouttheraid.Theteam reached at L18, Batla House at 11.00 am, where an advancepartyincludingInspectorM.C.Sharma,myself, SI Dharmender, SI Ravinder Tyagi, HC Balwant, HC SatenderandHCUdaivirwasformedtogoupstairsto conducttheraidintheflat. Restofteammemberswere deployed in the street to cover the building. SI Dharmender was sent upstairs posing as Vodafone Executivetofindpresenceofterroristsinsidetheflat. I andInspectorM.C.Sharmaalongwithfourothermembers oftheadvancepartywaitedatstairs.Withinminutes,SI Dharmendercamebackandinformedthatsomepersons were present inside the flat No. 108. Inspector M.C. Sharmaalongwithadvancepartymovedandknockedthe maindoorofsaidflatanddisclosedhisidentity,butno onerepliedfrominside.Wetriedtoopenthemaindoor, butitwasfoundboltedfrominside.Thenwecheckedthe otherdoor,towardsleftsideofthemaindooranditwas found closed but not bolted from inside. Immediately, teamenteredintotheflattoconducttheraid.Assoonas we entered in the drawing room of the flat, terrorists already present there fired on police party from two directions.Onefiringcamefromdrawingroomsideand other from the left side room of the flat. The team membersweretrappedinthedrawingroomandwealso firedinselfdefence.Duringtheshootout,InspectorM.C. SharmaandHCBalwantsustainedbulletinjuries. The terrorists present in the drawing room were trying to escapefromtheflatbyopeningthemaindooroftheflat whilefiringonthepoliceparty.Oneterroristpresentin thedrawingroomalsosustainedbulletinjuriesandtwo terroristsmanagedtoescapefromtheflatwhileopening fireonthepoliceparty.Outofthosetwoterrorists,oneis SC No. 42/10 12 of 46

accusedShahzadAhmad@Pappupresentincourt. SI DharmenderandHCUdaivirtookinjuredInspectorM.C. Sharmatothehospital. SIRavinderTyagitookinjured HC Balwant to the downstairs and handed over to HC Gurmeettosendhimtohospitalandcamebacktotheflat. Theterroristwhofiredfromtheleftsideroomoftheflat was still hiding inside the room. I searched for the escapedterrorists.Meanwhile,Sh.SanjeevKumarYadav (ACPSpecialCell)alongwithSIDalipKumar,HCRajbir, HC Vinod Gautam and other staff came to the flat. I briefedhimabouttheincident. Inbetween,SIRavinder Tyagi informed local police about the shoot out. ACP SanjeevKumarYadav,myselfandHCRajbirtriedtoenter insidetheroomtoapprehendtheterroristpresentinthe left side room. Immediately, one terrorist fired on us. ACP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav fired in self defence and terroristfelldown.Weagaintriedtoenterinsidetheroom buttheterroristagainfiredonusandtwoofthebulletshit HC Rajbir but he was saved as he was wearing bullet proofjacket. Wealsofiredinselfdefenceandterrorist sustainedbulletinjuries.Onfurthersearchoftheflat,one Mohd.Saifwasfoundpresentinthetoiletoftheleftside room. He came out after raising his hand and surrenderedbeforethepoliceparty.

PW8alsostatedaboutapassportbelongingtoaccused ShahzadAhmad,havingbeenrecoveredfromthespot,inhispresence, whichwasseizedbyACPSanjeevKumarYadav,theIOofthecase (FIR No. 166/08, PS Karol Bagh), copy of which is marked as Ex. PW8/A,signedbyhimatpointA. Other eye witnesses of incident i.e. HC Satender (PW7), HC Udaivir (PW11), HC Balwant (PW14), SI Ravinder Kumar Tyagi (PW15) and Inspector Dharmender Kumar (PW22)
SC No. 42/10 13 of 46

tautologized the story as disclosed by complainant Inspector Rahul Kumar. HCSatender(PW7)toldfurtheraboutInspectorM.C. Sharma, having asked SI Rahul Kumar to verify some address of Saheen Bagh, New Delhi. Two officials were sent to verify that address.HCBalwant(PW14)furtherstatedthathesawthreepersons inside the flat including accused present in court (Shahzad Ahmad) werefiringuponthem.Duringfiring,he(PW14)sufferedbulletinjury onhisrightarm.HeglancedtowardsInspectorM.C.Sharma,whohad alsosufferedbulletinjuries. Hehadfallendownontheground. He (PW14) had seen bullet injuries on his (Inspector M.C. Sharma) abdomen. PistolofInspectorM.C.Sharmahadfallenontheground, whichwaspickedupbySIDharmender.Hispistolalsofelldown,but hemanagedtopickitbylefthand.Twoofassailantsincludingaccused (ShahzadAhmad)managedtofleeawaythroughfrontgate,firingupon them. Apart from corroborating the deposition given by PW8 and othereyewitnesses,InspectorDharmenderKumar(PW22)statedthat Inspector M.C. Sharma after reaching at spot, directed him to go upstairs to flat No. 108, posing as a 'Sales Executive' of Vodafone MobileCompanyandalsotoseewhethertherewasanyinmateinthat flati.e.FlatNo.108.Onhisdirections,hewentupstairsandfoundthat bothofmaindoorsofsaidflatwereunboltedfromoutside.Heheard

SC No. 42/10

14 of 46

somevoicesofinmatesinthatflat.Hewentdownandapprisedsaidfact toInspectorM.C.Sharma. HCGurmeet(PW4),InspectorSanjayDutt(PW12),SI AnilTyagi(PW13),ASIChhajjuRam(PW9)andACPSanjeevKumar Yadav(nowDCP)(PW56)arethewitnesses,whoreachedatspot.As per DCP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (PW56), on 19.09.2008 at about 8.008.30am,InspectorM.C.Sharmainformedhimthatoneofaccused ofDelhiSerialBlasthastakenshelterinBatlaHouse,alongwithhis accomplices. Hedirectedhim(InspectorM.C.Sharma)toconducta raid.PW56alsostatedtohavereachedatJamiaNagarat11.15amand joinedtheraid.ThiswitnessmentionedaboutMohd.Saif,havingbeen interrogated by him and again about complaint given by SI Rahul KumartoInspectorJ.S.Joon,whichwasendorsedbythelatterandwas sent for registration of FIR. In his cross examination done by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness admitted that no article belonging to accusedShahzadAhmadlikewearingclothesetc.wasfoundatspot, excepthispassport. HC Gurmeet (PW4) deposed to have received instructionfromInspectorRahulKumaron19.09.2008toreachoffice of Special Cell to join some raid. He proceeded for Batla House alongwithInspectorSanjayDuttandHCHansraj.Whentheywereat Abbasi Chowk, Inspector Sanjay Dutt received information about

SC No. 42/10

15 of 46

Inspector M.C. Sharma and HC Balwant having suffered injuries in shootoutatBatlaHouse.HealongwithHCHansrajproceededtowards BatlaHouseonfoot.TheyfoundSIRavinderTyagibringingdownHC Balwantininjuredcondition.HetookHCBalwantinaprivatevehicle belongingtoSIRavinderTyagiandgothimadmittedinTraumaCentre, AIIMS. Inspector Sanjay Dutt (PW12) verified aforesaid facts and statedfurthertohavereachedHolyFamilyHospital. InspectorM.C. SharmawasadmittedinOPDofthathospital. Hesignednecessary documentsforhisadmission.SIAnilTyagi(PW13)alsostatedtohave joinedraidon19.09.2008afterreachingbuildingNo.L18. Hetook positioningalinearthatbuilding.Asperthiswitness,afterabout12 minutes,heheardsoundoffiring.Fewminutesthereafter,HCUdaivir andSIDharmenderbroughtdownInspectorM.C.Sharmaininjured condition.HecalledSIDevenderaskinghimtobringsomevehicle.SI Devenderbroughtacar(i10)andhealongwithSIDharmender,HC UdaivirandSIDevendertookInspectorM.C.SharmatoHolyFamily Hospital. AdmissionpapersofInspectorM.C.Sharmawerefilledup bySIDharmenderandSIDevender. SIChhajjuRam(PW29)deposedthaton19.09.2008, hewaspostedinPCR(SouthZone). Onthatday,hewasservingas InchargeofEagle25PCRvanfrom8.00amto8.00pm.At11.12am, they received a call from EagleI about firing at Batla House near

SC No. 42/10

16 of 46

KhalilUlLahMosque.Theydrovetheirvanandreachedatspotwithin fourminutes.HewastoldthatInspectorM.C.SharmaandHCBalwant had suffered bullet injuries. He was asked to take one injured to TraumaCentre.HealongwithHCRamGopaltookthesametoTrauma Centre.Othervan(Eagle23)followedthemhavingsomeotherinjured init. InspectorJ.S.Joondeposedonoaththaton19.09.2008, hewaspostedinPSJamiaNagar.OnthatdayonreceiptofDDNo.10, healongwithHCSubhash,Ct.RamphalandCt.SatenderwenttoHouse No.L18,BatlaHouse.Hecametoknowaboutanencounterbetween officialsofSpecialCellwithterrorists.SIRahulgavehimacomplaint (Ex.PW8/C).Hemadeendorsementonit,whichisEx.PW66/Aand gaveittoCt.RamphalforregistrationofFIR.Thiswitnessstatedabout recovery of one pistol loaded with one live cartridge from drawing room,onepistolinaroomsituatedatleftside,onerifleofA.K.Series alongwith two magazines containing 30 live cartridges each, which werefoldedinamattress(gadda). PW66alsostatedabout30used cartridgesfoundlyingindrawingroom,lobbyofflat,leftsideroomand outsidethatflat,outofwhich19wereof9mm,8of.30mmand3of A.K.Seriesrifle.Again13firedbulletswerefoundlyinginthatflat. IOalsostatedaboutseizureofotherarticlesi.e.floorsample,earth control,bloodsoakedwearingclothesofInspectorM.C.Sharmahaving

SC No. 42/10

17 of 46

beenhandedovertohimbyASISantPal,wearingshirtofHCBalwant Singh, which was blood stained. PW66 also mentioned about HC RajbirSingh,havingbeenhandedovertohimonebulletproofjacket, which he i.e. HC Rajbir Singh was wearing. He noticed two holes causedbybulletsinthatjacketandalsotwobulletsentangledinsideit. Hegotpostmortemconductedonthedeadbodyofdeceased.Ct.R.P. Meena(PW38)statedtohavereachedatspotwithIOInspectorJ.S. Joon.IOgavehimrukka,whichhetooktoPSandgotFIRregistered. SI Praveen Vats (PW35) deposed on oath that on 19.09.2008 at about 11.30 am, he was patrolling in the area. Duty Officertoldhimaboutfiring,havingtakenplacenearKhalilUlLah Masjid,BatlaHouse,NewDelhi.Hewentthereandreachedatabout 11.45am. IOInspectorJ.S.Joonmethim. Alargecrowdofpeople gathered at spot. PW35 witnessed the recovery of arms and ammunitionfromspot,seizedbytheIO. ASISantPalSingh(PW41)statedtohavereachedat spotalongwithSHOInspectorMohd.Iqbalafterreceiptofacallfrom policecontrolroomatabout9.00am.Atspot,hewasinformedabout InspectorM.C.Sharmahavingbeeninjuredinthatincidentandreferred toHolyFamilyHospital.PW41wentsaidhospitalandfoundInspector M.C.Sharmaadmittedthere.HeagainwenttoAIIMSHospital,where HCBalwantwasadmittedalongwithtwounknownmilitants. Bothof

SC No. 42/10

18 of 46

saidmilitantsweredeclaredasbroughtdead.HeprocuredMLCofall injured.Doctorconcernedhandedoverhimwearingclothesofinjured HC Balwant and both of deceased militants. He returned to Holy Family Hospital. Inspector M.C. Sharma had already expired. He procuredMLCofhim. Doctorconcernedhandedoverhimwearing clothesofInspectorM.C.Sharma.Hehandedoverallthesearticlesto IOInspectorJ.S.Joon.IOrecordedhisstatement. InspectorSatishSharma(PW68)isanotherIOofthe case,whostatedaboutvisitofCFSLofficialsatspoton01.10.2008.As perhim,theteampickedup10bloodsamplesfromdifferentplaces,one lead(usedbullet)recoveredfromfrontsideofkitchenandotherfrom drawing room. One book, which was blood stained, one piece of blanketandonebedsheet,whichwerelyinginthedrawingroom.This witnessalsostatedthaton18.10.2008,heseizedweaponsusedbypolice team comprising SI Rahul,ACPSanjeevKumarYadav,SIRavinder Tyagi,SIDharmenderandHCRajbironbeingproducedbythem.He (PW68) received information about accused Shahzad Ahmad on 02.02.2010,havingbeenarrestedbyATS(Lucknow). Hewentthere alongwithHCAzad.Saidaccusedwasarrestedbyhiminthiscasevide arrestmemoEx.PW33/B.Onhisapplication,saidaccusedwasgiven transitremandbythecourtconcerned.AccusedwasbroughttoDelhi andproducedinthecourton03.02.2010inmuffledface.Hefiledan

SC No. 42/10

19 of 46

applicationbeforethecourt,seekingTIPofaccused,whichcouldnotbe conducted due to refusal by him. This witness also stated about accused,havinggivendisclosurestatement(Ex.PW33/D)andagain that accused Shahzad Ahmad led them to Gang Nehar, Bulandsehar (U.P)andpointedoutaplace,butdespitetheirefforts,noweaponcould berecoveredfromthatcanalduetoheavyflowofwater.Pointingout memopreparedbyhimisEx.PW33/F. ASISarojBala(PW50)wasDutyOfficerinPSJamia Nagaron19.09.2008.SheverifiedregistrationofFIRinthiscaseona rukkasentbyInspectorJ.S.JoonthroughCt.Ramphal,copyofwhichis Ex.PW50/A. Dr.RajivSethi(PW18),aSeniorConsultantinHoly FamilyHospital,NewDelhistatedonoaththaton19.09.2008,hewas workingasSurgicalConsultant(oncall)inHolyFamilyHospital.On thatdayat11.17am,InspectorM.C.Sharmawasbroughttocasualtyof that hospital with alleged history of gunshot injury. He had been collapsed. He prepared death summary of him alongwith Dr. P. Chadha, which is Ex. PW18/A. Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW19) stated aboutpostmortemconductedbyhimalongwithDr.AdarshKumarand Dr. Bharat Verma on the dead body of Mohd. Atif Ameen. Their reportsinthisregardareEx.PW19/AandEx.PW19/Brespectively. This witness further stated about postmortem conducted by him

SC No. 42/10

20 of 46

alongwithDr.SanjeevLalwaniandDr.SushilSharmauponthedead bodyofdeceasedM.C.Sharmaon20.09.2008. Postmortemreportin thisregardisEx.PW19/C.Asperthiswitness,on15.05.2009,hegave subsequentopinionontheMLCofinjuredBalwant,onarequestofIO. Asperhim,theinjuriessufferedbysaidHCBalwantweregrievousin nature.Thesecouldhavebeencausedbygunshots.Hisreportinthis regardisEx.PW19/E. Sh. K.N. Masiwal (PW1) identified dead body of InspectorM.C.Sharmaon20.09.2008inTraumaCentre,AIIMS.Sh. AbuTalibAkhtar(PW2)isstatedtobeacousinofdeceasedMohd. Atif Ameen and identified deadbodyof latteron22.09.2008inthe mortuaryofTraumaCentre,AIIMS.Sh.SyedAhmad(PW3)iscousin ofdeceasedSajid,whodeposedtohaveidentifieddeadbodyofsaid Sajidon22.09.2008inmortuaryofJaiPrakashNarayanTraumaCentre, AIIMS.InspectorSanjayDutt(PW12)toldtohavereachedatspoton beingcalledbyInspectorM.C.Sharmatelephonically. Healongwith HCHansrajandCt.GurmeetreachedAbbasiChowkat11.15am.He cametoknowaboutfiringbetweenpoliceandmilitantsatFlatNo.108, L18,BatlaHouse. InspectorM.C.SharmaandHCBalwantsuffered bulletinjuries. HerushedtoHolyFamilyHospital,whereInspector M.C. Sharma was admitted in OPD of that hospital. He signed documentsfortheadmissionofsaidinjuredi.e.M.C.Sharma.

SC No. 42/10

21 of 46

InspectorTejBahadurSinghofUPATS(PW55)stated onoaththaton01.01.2009,alistof10militantsbelongingtoIndian Mujaheddin was handed over to their office, by the office of CommissionerofPolice,Delhi.Aftergettingsaidinformation,ateam comprisinghimselfi.e.PW55andDeputyS.P.Sh.RavinderKumar Singh was constituted. On 17.01.2010, the members of said team alongwith SI Anil Yadav, Ct. Praveen Kumar, commando Ct. Shiv KumarwentintheareaofDistrictAjamgarh. On01.02.2010,allof themreachedVillageKhalispur,insearchofaterroristnamelyShahzad Ahmad. A secret information was received about said person by Deputy S.P. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Singh. One team of ATS from BanarasaswellasATSunitAjamgarhalsojoinedthem.Thus,abigger raiding team was prepared. All of them weredividedinthreesub teams. At 15.30 hours, they went to the house of Shahzad Ahmad situatedatVillageKhalispur.Theaccusedwasfoundpresentthere.He triedtofleeawayafterjumpingdownfromroofofhishouse.Hei.e. (PW55) with the help of SI Anil Yadav and Ct. Om Prakash overpowered him. He i.e. Shahzad Ahmad was arrested. Arrest documentsareEx.PW55/A.Apartfromsaidwitnessi.e.PW55and IO/ Inspector Satish Sharma, HC Azad Singh (PW33), Inspector ManjeetTomar(PW53)alsostatedaboutarrestofsaidaccused. Sh. RavinderKumarSingh,AdditionalS.P,UPATS(PW64)statedabout

SC No. 42/10

22 of 46

arrestofaccusedShahzad@Pappu.Asperhim,on01.01.2009,hewas posted as Deputy S.P. in UPATS. He received a letter from Commissioner of Police, Delhi, where names of 10 terrorists were mentioned. HealsoreceivedappropriatedirectionsfromDIGofhis department to take appropriate action against those persons. On 17.01.2010,hegotinformationaboutShahzadAhmad,whowaslivingin theareaofAjamgarhDistrict.HealongwithInspectorT.B.Singhwent there in search of said accused. On 01.02.2010, he got information about accused Shahzad Ahmad, who was living in the house of his grandfatheratKhalispur,PSBilariyaGanj,Ajamgarh. HejoinedSI Ashwani Kumar of Varanasi Unit, Inspector Ram Sewak Yadav of AjamgarhUnittoseethesensitivityofmatter.Theyreachedhouseof grandfatherofaccusedShahzadAhmad,wherethelatterwasfoundand wasarrestedinthiscase.Hesubmittedareport,whichisEx.PW55/A. According to prosecution, accused Shahzad Ahmad talkedtohisfatherbyusingmobilephoneofcoaccusedAtifAmeen. Moreover, he had already booked a train ticket for himself totravel AjamgarhfromNewDelhion24.09.2008,inKafiyatExpress. Sh.VishalGaurav,aNodalOfficerfromBhartiAirtel Limited(PW24)broughtcustomerapplicationformofmobilephone No. 9793066723, which was in the name of one Siraj Ahmad (Ex. PW24/A). Sh. Deepak, an alternate Nodal Officer from Vodafone

SC No. 42/10

23 of 46

Mobile Services (PW25) proved call details of mobile phone No. 9811004309 from 01.08.2008 to 29.09.2008 i.e. Ex. PW25/A. This witness also brought customer application form of aforesaid phone number,whichwasinthenameofMohd.AtifAmeen,residentofL18 TopFloor,RoomNo.108,BatlaHouse,JamiaNagar,NewDelhi.The customer had filed copy of his driving licence and passport size photographalongwithapplication.Copyofcustomerapplicationform isEx.PW25/B andcopyofdrivinglicenceofthatcustomerisEx. PW25/C. CertificateU/s65BofIndianEvidenceActissuedinthis regard is Ex. PW25/I. This witness also verified document Ex. PW23/Gi.e.calldetailsofaforementionedphone. As per Sh. Bhisham Singh, Additional DCP Crime Branch (PW26), in September 2008 after interrogation of accused Shahzad Ahmad and from analyzing call details of phone, it was revealedtohimthataccusedShahzadAhmadwasusingamobileNo. 9811004309tospeaktohismotherandfather,whilehewasstayingat BatlaHouseandsaidphonewasinthenameofAtifAmeen.Hehanded overownershipdetail,CDRofsaidmobilephonetotheIOofthiscase. Further, said witness i.e. PW26 handed over reservation chart of KafiyatExpressTrainforreservationdonebyaccusedShahzadAhmad for24.09.2008forgoingtohishometown.IOseizedthesedocuments videseizurememoEx.PW26/A.Ms.ShantiDevi,ChiefReservation

SC No. 42/10

24 of 46

Supervisor,NorthernRailway,NewDelhi(PW28)verifiedletterNo. NDCR/E36/LTC/Misc./36/2010dated22.02.2010senttoACPBhisham Singh, copy of which is Ex. PW28/A. This witness also verified document Ex. PW23/J, which is copy of chart of passengers dated 24.09.2008,Class3tierAC,seatNo.B125,B126andB127oftrain No.2226.Asperher,saiddocumenti.e.Ex.PW23/Jwastruecopyof originalbroughtbyherinthecourt. Sh.MohanSingh(PW23)was assistantahlmadintheCourtofSh.NarenderKumar,SpecialJudge, NDPSCourt,TisHazari,Delhi.Thiswitnessbroughtinthecourtcase fileofcase SCNo.78/08,FIRNo.166/08,PSKarolBagh(Special Cell)titledasStatevs.Mohd.ShakilaswellascasefileofcaseSC No. 75/08, FIR No. 293/08, PS Tilak Marg titled as State vs. ShahzadAhmad&Ors.PW23verifiedcopiesofseveraldocuments includingEx.PW23/H(copyofcustomerapplicationforminrespectof mobilephoneNo.9793066723),Ex.PW23/I(copyofreservationchart ofrailway)astruecopiesfromthecasefilebroughtbyhim. IfEx.PW23/Jistakenastrue,threerailwayticketsin thenameofSiraj,AfzalandShahzadwerebookedonaforesaidtrainfor 24.09.2008. Sh.NaveenArora,SeniorCivilJudgecumRC,South West,Delhi(PW57)statedaboutfilingacomplaintbyhimU/s195 Cr.P.C to initiate proceedings against accused Shahzad for offence
SC No. 42/10 25 of 46

punishableU/s174IPC. SaidcomplaintisEx.PW57/A.Sh.Saurav Kulshrestra, ARCcumCivil Judge, District Courts Karkardooma (PW58)statedthaton02.02.2010whenhewaspostedasMM02(SE), NewDelhi,anapplicationseekingTIPofaccusedShahzadwasmarked to him by ACMM (SE). Accused was in muffled face. He asked accused,astowhetherhewantedtoparticipateinTIPornot.Accused refusedtoparticipateintheTIP.Herecordedstatementofaccusedin that regard. Sh. Alok Kumar, Principal PTC, Ita Nagar, Arunachal Pradesh(PW60)statedaboutacomplaintfiledbyhimU/s195Cr.P.C on16.04.2010,copyofwhichisEx.PW60/A. ItissubmittedbyLd.Addl.PPthatfromthedepositions ofPWsasdiscussedabove,itiswellprovedthatInspectorM.C.Sharma diedandHCBalwantsufferedgrievoushurtonbeinghitbybulletsfired bytheoccupantsofFlatNo.108,L18,BatlaHouse. Similarly,said occupantstriedtokillHCRajbirbyshoweringbulletsuponhim,but duetobulletproofjacket,whichhewaswearing,thebulletscouldnot piercehisbody. Allofeyewitnessesmentionedabovestatedtohave seen accused Shahzad Ahmadfleeing from saidflat,whilefiringat policeparty. Apartfromhim,itisalsowellprovedthatapassport belongingtoaccusedShahzadAhmadwasrecoveredfromthatflatafter operation was over. It is clear that accused Shahzad Ahmad while leavingsaidflat,forgothispassport.Theaccusedhadwellplannedto

SC No. 42/10

26 of 46

leaveDelhiafterthatoperation.SamehadreservedhisseatinKafiyat Express. He was scheduled to leave Delhi on 24.09.2008 and this reservation has been well established from the statement of PW28. Again from the call details of phone numbers 9811004309 and 9793066723,itiswellprovedthatfatherofaccusedtalkedtopersonon phonebelongingtoAtif.Thelatterfounddiedinsaidflat.Itisnotplea of accused even that Atif had any relationship or intimacy with the fatherofaccusedShahzadAhmad.Insuchacircumstance,asperLd. Addl.PP,itcanbepresumedthatitwasaccusedShahzadAhmad,who hadtalkedtohisfather,byusingphonebelongingtoAtif. Fromcall detailsandlocationofcelltower,itisprovedthatsaidphonecallwas madefromflatNo.108,L18orimmediatelyneartothatplace. ItisalsothecontentionofLd.Addl.PPthatasaccused ShahzadAhmadfiredatpolicepartyalongwithcoaccused,allitshows thathewassharingcommonintentionwithcooffenders. Referring one of occupants namely Mohd. Saif, who wasapprehendedfromsameflatunhurt,Ld.Addl.PPclaimsthatpolice had no intention to kill the suspects and fired only in self defence, otherwise there was no reason to spare one of those occupants i.e. Mohd.Saif.Accordingtoher,itshowsbonafidesofpoliceact. Inhistrytodemolishthecaseofprosecution,Sh.Satish TamtaAdvocateremindedthecourtthataspercriminaljurisprudence,

SC No. 42/10

27 of 46

itisfortheprosecutiontoproveitscaseandthatbeyondreasonable doubt. Accordingtohim,itisnotprovedonfile: (a) That accused Shahzad was present at spot at the timeofincidentorparticipatedwithoccupantsofthatflatinfiring atpoliceparty. Ld. Defence Counsel expatiated as that none from eye witnesses i.e. PW7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 22 gave description in their statementrecordedunderSection161Cr.P.C.oftwoallegedterrorists whofledawayfromthatflat. There was no scope of escape from flat No. 108. The buildinghadonlyonestaircaseleadingtothatflat,whichwasheavily guardedbypolice.HCSatender(PW7)statedthatsomemembersof raidingpartytookpositioninfrontlaneaswellasthebacklaneofL18. TwomemberswerepositionedatentrygateofL18.FlatNo.108is situatedatfourthfloorwhichistopfloorofthebuilding.Evenasper chargesheet,adjoiningbuildingsweredoublestoreyedonly. ASIAnil Tyagi(PW13)alsodeposedinthecourtthattotalnakabandiwasdone ofthatgaliwheresaidflatissituated.Hei.e.PW13didnotseeany publicpersongoinginorcomingoutofthebuilding.Hewaspositioned atmaingateofL18.Similarly,ACPSanjeevYadav,whowasexamined asPW56deposedthatnooccupantsofflatmethimwhileclimbingthe
SC No. 42/10 28 of 46

steps of L18, Batla House. Insp.RahulKumar(PW8)searchedthe adjoiningflati.e.FlatNo.107aswellasroofofthatbuildingbutcould notgetanyclueashowsaidtwopersonsescaped.Asperhim,there weretwosetsofdoors,onewoodenandothermadeofirongrillsandit wasnecessaryforapersonincomingoutoftheflat,thatbothofthese doorswereopen.PW8,whoadmittedinhiscrossexaminationthatit musthavetakensometimetoopenthemaindoorsbeforetwooccupants wentoutfromthereandagainthattoescapefromthemaindoors,the occupantshadtoopentwodoors,onewoodenandotherirongrilldoors. One from the occupants of flat namely Md. Saif was apprehendedalive.Evenaspercaseofprosecution,heremainedinside theflatduringentireoperation.Inthisway,saidMohd.Saifwasaneye witnessofincidentbutprosecutiondidnotopttoexaminehimasa witness.AccusedexaminedsaidMd.SaifinhisdefenceasDW1.Itis statedonoathbysaidwitnessthataccusedShahzadAhmad@Pappu wasnotpresentinthatflat,atthetimeofincident.Similarly,DW2i.e. ZeeshanAhmadwasresidentofsameflat,wholeftitat7.007.30am andasperhim,thereremainedonlyAtif,Mohd.SaifandSajidinthat flat. It is conceded by Ld. Addl. PP that none from eye witnessesgavedescriptionofanyofsaidtwopersons,whofledaway fromflatNo.108whentheirstatementswererecordedU/s161Cr.P.C.

SC No. 42/10

29 of 46

According to her, even if no such description was given by said witnesses,sixeyewitnessesi.e.HCSatender(PW7),InspectorRahul Kumar(PW8),ASIUdaivirSingh(PW11),HCBalwant(PW14),SI Ravinder Kumar Tyagi (PW15) and Inspector Dharmender (PW22) deposedunequivocallythataccusedShahzadAhmadwasoneofthose twopersons,whofledawayfromthespot,usingothergateandfiring onthepolice. IagreewithLd.Addl.PP. Evenifnodescriptionof those two persons who fled away from flat No. 108 given by the witnesses,thisfacthasbeenwellprovedfromotherevidenceonrecord. Apartfromdepositionsofsaidwitnesses,thereareother circumstanceswhichfavourtheprosecutioni.e.recoveryofpassportof accusedShahzadAhmadfromsameflat,talkfromphoneregisteredin thenameofcooccupanti.e.AtifAmeenfromsaidflatwithfatherof accusedShahzadAhmadatlatter'sphoneandagainthereservationof railwayticketinthenameofaccusedShahzadAhmad,showinghimto leaveDelhion24.09.2008fromNewDelhiRailwayStationinatrain namely Kafiyat Express. When it is established on record that a reservationwasdoneabouttravellinginthenameofShahzadAhmad fromNewDelhiRailwayStationon24.09.2008showsthatsaidperson i.e.ShahzadAhmadwasinDelhiatleastonthatdayi.e.24.09.2008. I agree with Ld. Counsel alleging that even if it is provedthatsomeonetalkedusingmobilephoneofAtifAmeenwiththe
SC No. 42/10 30 of 46

father of accused Shahzad Ahmad, it cannot be presumed that said person was accused Shahzad Ahmadhimself. The accused gaveno explanationaswhotalkedwithhisfatheronsaidday,usingaphone fromflatNo.108.Itisnotpleaofaccusedeventhathisfatherhadany intimate relationship with Atif. This is a circumstance against the accused. Sofarasthefactthattherewasnoscopeofescapeby anypersonfromflatNo.108atthetimeofincidentisconcerned,itis notindisputethatL18,BatlaHouseisafourstoriedbuilding,having twoflats(infrontofeachother)oneachfloor.FlatNo.108,inwhich incidentinquestiontookplace,issituatedat4thfloor,whichistopfloor ofthebuilding.Inthisway,therearesevenotherflatsapartfromflat No.108.InspectorRahulKumar(PW8)statedtohavecheckedflatNo. 107i.e.flatadjoiningflatNo.108.EvenifitispresumedthatShahzad Ahmaddidnottakeshelterinthatflat,thereremainedsixotherflats, wheresheltercouldbetakenbyanyfugitive.Aminutiaofdeposition givenbyPW8makesitclearthatwhenhestartedtracingtwooffenders whofledaway,ACPSanjeevKumarYadavcameatspotandhei.e. PW8joinedACPSanjeevKumarYadavinfurtheroperation.Allthis makesitclearthatInspectorRahulKumar(PW8)didnotsearchsaid buildingthoroughly. Needlesstosaythataspercaseofprosecution, saidtwooffendersskippedusingthestairs,posingthemselvesaslocal

SC No. 42/10

31 of 46

residentsbeforethepolicepersonsdeployedthere.Althoughthereisno evidenceinthatregard,itiscaseofnonethatsaidtwooffenderswere known to the police persons,whoweredeployedat stairsor onthe groundfloorofthebuildingtosecureit. Itwasnotimprobablefora persontohavesafeexit,posinghimselfaslocalresident.Cogitatingall this,IdonotagreewithLd.DefenceCounsel,statingthattherewasno scopeforanyonetoescapefromsaidflat. (b)Prosecutioncouldnotexplaindelayinlodgingthe FIR. InformationabouttheincidentwasreceivedinPSJamia Nagarat11.13amthroughDDNo.10A,butrukkawassentat4.00pm andtheFIRinthiscasewasregisteredat4.15pm. DDNo.19Awas recorded in that respect. Inthisway,therewasdelayof about five hours. PSJamiaNagarisatadistanceofabout1kmfromthespot. AccordingtoLd.defencecounsel,fivehour'sdelaywasfataltothecase ofprosecution,Ld.Counselrelieduponfollowingcasesinthisregard; ArpanJoseph@CurrentKunjukunju&Ors.vs.StateofKerala (1973) 3 SCC 114, Saheb Rao & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC 794, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gyan Chand (2001)6SCC171,ThuliaKalivs.StateofTamilNadu(1972)3SCC 393andRavinderKumar&Anr.vs.StateofPunjab(2001)7SCC

SC No. 42/10

32 of 46

690. On the other hand, as per Ld. Addl. PP, FIR was registered without much delay. In Arpan Joseph @ Current Kunjukunju&Ors.(Supra),itwasheldbytheApexCourtthatundue andunreasonabledelayinlodgingtheFIR,thereforeinevitablygives risetosuspicion,whichputsthecourtonguardtolookforthepossible motiveandtheexplanationforthedelayandconsideritafactonthe truthworthinessorotherwiseoftheprosecutionversion. Inthesame breath, their lordships observedthatintheiropinion,nodurationof timeintheabstractcouldbefixedasreasonableforgivinginformation ofacrimetothepolice.Thequestionofreasonabletimeismatterfor determinationbythecourtineachcase. InSahebRao&Anr.Case (Supra), the court was satisfied with the explanation given by the complainant that he was shocked and mentally unfit to lodge the complaint. Thecomplainantwasfatherofvictim,whowasanewly wedded wife. Dead body of that girl was recovered from her matrimonialhome,wherethecomplainanthadleftherjustadaybefore. Inthesecircumstances,itwasobservedbytheApexCourtthatitwas verynaturalforthefathertoloosehistranquilityofmind.Itwasnot unnaturalorunusualforsuchgriefstrickenfathertotelltothepolice thathewillgivecomplaintafterwards. Comingtocaseinhands,evenifpolicestationJamia
SC No. 42/10 33 of 46

Nagarwasatadistanceofabout1kmfromthespot,itisexplainedby the IO that he went to HolyFamilyHospital, whereInspectorM.C. Sharma was admitted and to AIIMS Hospital, where other injured/ deceased were taken. In myopinion,it wasnot unreasonableif IO opted to visit the injured in the hospital before registration of FIR, particularlywhentheinjuredisnonebuthisowncolleague. (c) Thepolicedidnotjoinanyindependentwitness despitethefactthattherewerecommercialshopsnearAbbasiChowk, wheretworaidingteamsmettogetheroranywitnessfromKhalilUl LalMosquewhichfellonthewayorevenanyresidentfromornear buildingL18,BatlaHouse,inwhichflatNo.108issituated. Ld. Addl. PP explained that the raiding party was in hurry to nab the suspects of serial blast. Moreover, majority of residents of that area are followers of the religion, as was of those suspects.Ifthepoliceofficerstriedtoinvolveanysuchlocalresident,it wouldhavecreatedsocialunrestinthatarea,causingfeartothelifeof thosepolicepersonseven.Asperher,citingproblemoflawandorder, DistrictAdministration,Ajamgarh(UP)didnotgrantpermissiontoa raiding party, to visit house of accused Shahzad Ahmad, situated at VillageKhalispur,Ajamgarh(UP). Noreligionprofessescrimesasitstradition,thenwhy thepolicefosteredabeliefthatitwillstircommunalviolenceifthey

SC No. 42/10

34 of 46

invited local residents to joinaraid,toarrestanoffender,whowas belonging to their religion. It is equally true that having witnessed incidentsofclashesbetweendifferentreligions,wayasapprehendedby Ld.Addl.PP,thefearofpolicebeingtargeted,cannotbeabnegated outrightly. Even otherwise,publicapathyinjoininginvestigationof heinous offences even of general concern as a witness, have been highlightedbythemediaaswellasbythehighercourts,timeandagain. Keepinginmindallthistrendofgeneralpublic,inmyopinion,ifthe policecouldnotjoinanypublicpersononthewaytospot,sameisnot fatal to the case of prosecution. Although Inspector Rahul Kumar (PW8) told to court that he asked 67 passerby persons to join the raidingparty,afterapprisingthemabouttheraid,butallofthemleft away after telling their genuine excuses and without disclosing their namesandaddresses. ThisassertiondidnotappealtoLd.Addl.PP even. (d) Ld. Defence counsel took me through the postmortemreportsofMd.AtifAmeenandMohd.Sajidstatedtohave died in that operation. As per Ld. Counsel although he does not representsaidpersonsbutasbothofthemdiedinthesameincident,it was for the prosecution to explain injuries on the bodies of said deceased.AsperpostmortemreportEx.PW19/A(belongingtoMohd. AtifAmeen)ithasbeenopinedthat'allofinjuriesfoundontheperson

SC No. 42/10

35 of 46

ofsaiddeceasedwereproducedbyfirearm/ammunitionexceptinjury no.7,whichwasproducedbybluntforceimpact,byobjectorsurface. Atserialno.7,onereddishbrownabrasionofsize1.5X1cmoverouter andanterioraspectofrightkneecaphasbeenmentioned.Similarly,in postmortemreportEx.PW19/B(belongingtoMd.Sajid)itisopinedby thedoctor,whoconductedpostmortemthatinjuriesmentionedatserial no.13and14wereproducedbybluntforceimpactonsurfaceorby object.Theseinjuriesarementionedasanabrasion4X2cm,redin colour,overbackofchest.......andlacerationofsize3.5X2cmmuscle deeppresenthorizontallyoverfrontorrightleginthemiddle.Asper Ld.Counsel,therewasnootherwaytoreceiveinjurybythesepersons except in cross firing by the police. Prosecution led no evidence to explain how aforesaid injuries were caused to deceased Mohd. Atif AmeenandMohd.Sajid.Aboutinjuriesotherthanbulletinjuriesfound onthepersonofdeceasedMohd.AtifAmeenandMohd.Sajid. It is explained by Ld. Addl. PP that it has come on recordfromthestatementsofeyewitnessesmentionedabovethatboth ofsaidAtifAmeenandMohd.Sajidfelldownonthegroundafterbeing hitbybullets,firedbypoliceinselfdefence.Inthiswaytheseinjuries werecaused,whensaidpersonsfelldownonthefloor.Ifindweightin theexplanationgivenbyLd.Addl.PP. (e)InjuryonthepersonofMd.AtifAmeenmentionedat

SC No. 42/10

36 of 46

Sr.No.7ofhispostmortemreport(Ex.PW19/A)isanabrasionathis kneecap.Similarly,injuriesNo.13and14(asperpostmortemreport Ex.PW19/B)areanabrasionoverbackofchestandalacerationover frontofrightleg.Suchinjuriesaremoreoftenwhenapersonhaving losthissenses,fallsonhardsurface.Injuriesonthepersonsofsaid deceasedarethuswellexplained. (f)ItiscontendedbyLd.Defencecounselthatprosecution failed to prove that accused Shahzad was sharing common intention withcoaccused.Evenaspercaseofprosecutionwhenfiringwasstill goingon,twoofoccupantsincludingaccusedShahzadfledaway.Inthis way,evenifitispresumedthatShahzadwasthereheleftthespotmid streamandhencecannotbeheldresponsiblefortheactdonebyothers inhisabsence. As per Ld. Addl. PP accused shared intention with co offendersinattackingthepoliceparty,whoreachedthereinorderto investigate case of serial blasts. It was not of much importance that accusedwentawayinbetweenandhisaccomplicescarriedfurtherthe intendedact.Ld.Addl.PPrelieduponfollowingcasestosubstantiate herplea: a.SurendraChauhanVs.StateofMadhyaPradesh,(2000)4SCC110 b. Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai & Another Vs. The State of Bombay,AIR1960SC889

SC No. 42/10

37 of 46

c.KrishnanandAnr.Vs.State(representedbyInspectorofPolice)&O. Ayyar Thavar and Another Vs. State (Represented by Inspector of Police),(2003)7SCC56. True, as it was held by the Apex Court in Surendra Chauhan'scase(Supra) theessenceofSection34issimultaneously consensusofthemindsofpersonsparticipatinginthecriminalaction tobringaboutaparticularresult. Tomymind,commonintentioncontinuestilltheintended act is accomplished. All of persons who hobnobbed to hatch a conspiracy,willbeheldliablefortheactsdonebyeachofthem,evenif anyoneorsomeofthemleftthesceneofoccurrenceinbetween,unless itisestablishedthattheactusrieusensuedintheirabsencewasnever conceivedtogether.IfaccusedShahzadjoinedcoaccusedinattacking thepoliceparty,itwasnotofmuchsignificancethathefledawayin between and his accomplices continued the act, designed by them together.Itisnotpleaofanyonethatcooffendersdidactwhichwasnot intendedbythem. (g)Themembersofraidingpartyarestatedtohavefiredat theoccupantsofflatNo.108intheirselfdefence.AsperLd.Defence counsel, pleaofselfdefencewasavailableonlytothepersonswho are facing trial as accused and not to persons, who are merely witnesses.
SC No. 42/10 38 of 46

IamnotinconsonancewithLd.Defencecounselinthis regard.Iamunabletofindoutanyprovisionintheentirependactifthe pleaofselfdefenceisrestrictedtopersons,whoaremadetofacetrial. Itdependsuponthefactsofeachcase.Aspercaseofprosecution,on thebasisofasecretinformation,policepartyenteredinsideflatno.108 toapprehendsomesuspectsofDelhiBlasts.Theoccupantsofthatflat startedfiringonthepoliceparty.Themembersofpolicepartyfiredin selfdefence.Thereisnosurprisethatinsuchfactsthepoliceofficers, whofiredontheoccupantsofsaidflat,arenotarraignedasaccused. Apparentlytheywereactinginselfdefence. (h)Ld.Defencecounselhasobjectionaswhythepassport of accused Shahzad if recovered from flat no. 108 was made case propertyofsomeothercase.Asperhim,thatpassportwasnotavalid passport. Whatsoifvalidityofpassporthadexpired.Theaccused wasnottoshowavalidpassporttoenterthatflat.Asdiscussedearlier, whenaccusedfailedtogiveanyexplanationaswhyhispassportwas lyingthere,itraisesapresumptionagainsttheaccused.Similarly,said passport was picked by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (ACP) who was investigatinganothercase.ItisnotofmuchimportancethatsaidIO madeiti.e.passportofaccused,casepropertyinhiscase.Therecovery ofpassporthasbeenwellprovedfromtheevidenceasdiscussedabove.

SC No. 42/10

39 of 46

(i)ItisdeposedbySh.SauravKulshrestra,thethenMM, SouthEast (PW58) on an application filed by IO accused Shahzad Ahmad refused to participate in TIP and hence no TIP could be conducted. AsperSh.SatishTamta,Advocate,theaccusedrefusedto participateinTIPashisphotowasalreadytherewiththepolicehaving been affixed on his passport. Needless to say that in his statement recordedbyLd.MM,theaccusedrefusedtoparticipateinTIPstating thathisphotographsweretakenbypolice,whenhewasintheofficeof ATS,Lucknow.Accuseddidnotadduceanyevidencetoprovesaidfact. EvenifpassportofaccusedwasseizedbySanjeevKumarYadav,ACP, thereisnoevidencetoshowthatphotoofaccusedwasshowntothe witnessesotherthanACPSanjeevKumarYadav. (J) Md. Saif (one of occupants of flat no. 108) was apprehended by police from that flat. As per Ld. Defence counsel, prosecutiondidnotciteMd.Saifasitswitnessanddidnotexaminehim in the court. All this ensues an adverse inference against the prosecution. I agree with Ld. Defence counsel. Even as per case of prosecution,Md.Saifsurrenderedbeforethepoliceaftercomingoutof toiletsofsaidflat.Inthisway,Md.Saifwasanimportantwitnessmay beaneyewitnessofincidentandifprosecutiondidnotexaminehimas

SC No. 42/10

40 of 46

awitness,itcanbepresumedthatsaidwitnesswouldnothavedeposed infavourofprosecution. (k)ItispointedoutbySh.SatishTamta,Advocatethatas percaseofprosecution,theoccupantsofflatno.108includingaccused ShahzadwereactivemembersofIndianMuzahiddinbutthisfacthas notbeenprovedonfile. True,thereisnoevidenceonrecordtoestablishthatfact. Atthesametime,thiscourtcannotbeexpectedtoendeavouringiving anyfindingaboutsaidfact.Forthepurposeofdecisionofthiscaseit hardly matters as to whether accused was affiliated to Indian Muzahiddinornot. I do not find myself in agreement with Ld. Counsel for accusedcontendingthatintheabsenceofindependentpublicwitnesses accused cannot be convicted on the basis of testimony of police officials.Ifindforceinmyopinionfromacasetitledas AherRaja KhimaVs.StateofSaurashtraAIR1956SC217whereitwasheld by the Apex Court that the presumption that a person acts honestly appliesasmuchinfavourofaPoliceOfficerasofotherpersons,andit is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefore. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the Magistratesnorgoodtothepublic.Itonlyrunsdowntheprestigeofthe policeadministration.
SC No. 42/10 41 of 46

A case titled as Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1983 SC 873 where it was observed by the SupremeCourtofIndiathatevidenceofaPoliceOfficerlayingtrapif foundreliablecanbeacceptedwithoutcorroboration. A case titled as Chandra Shekar Vs. State 1986 (2) Crimes419 whereitwasobservedthatincapitaloffencesinhighly urbanized areas where it is becoming difficult to involve public witnesses and eyewitnesses it will be dangerous not to rely on the relation witnesses and police witnesses provided such witnesses are confirmed to be truthful considering the peculiar facts and circumstancesofthatcase. Similar was position in case in hand. Due to exigency police could not join any public present near the spot. Moreover witnesses of this case were not the witnesses of investigation rather victimsandhenceeyewitnessesofincident.Ifindnoreasontodiscard theirtestimony,asawaif. Although it is not claimedbyLd.Defence Counsel that Inspector M.C. Sharma died on being fired by police party, it is explainedbyLd.Addl.PPthatallsixmembersofpolicepartywere togetherwhentheyenteredinsideFlatNo.108andtheyweretogether whenfacedfiringfromoccupantsofthatflat. ItwasInspectorM.C. Sharmawhowasaheadofallofteammembers,whileenteringinside
SC No. 42/10 42 of 46

saidflat.PostmortemreportofInspectorM.C.Sharma(Ex.PW19/C) isevidentthatalltheinjuriesfoundonhispersonwereeitherinfrontof himorininsides.Noinjuryfoundonhisposterior,showsthathefaced thebulletsfromhisfrontsideandnotfrombackside.Inthisway,itis clearthatInspectorM.C.Sharmasufferedbulletinjuriesonbeingfired bytheoccupantsoftheflatandnotbythemembersofraidingparty. Section 37 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 obligeseverypersontoassistthepoliceingettinganyoffenderarrested. Itspeaksas: Section37EverypersonisboundtoassistaMagistrate orpoliceofficerreasonably,demandingasaid: (a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other personwhomsuchMagistrateorpoliceofficerisauthorizedtoarrest. (b)............................ (c).............................. TriteittosaythatpolicepartyhadgonetoFlatNo.108to apprehendsuspectofDelhiSerialBlast,FIRsinrespectofwhichhad alreadybeenregistered. Fromthedepositionofwitnesses,whowere members of raiding party particularly the eye witnesses i.e. HC Satender(PW7),InspectorRahulKumar(PW8),ASIUdaivirSingh (PW11),HCBalwant(PW14),SIRavinderKumarTyagi(PW15)and InspectorDharmender(PW22),itiswellprovedthatinspiteofassisting

SC No. 42/10

43 of 46

thepoliceinapprehendingsuspectsifcrime,theoccupantsofthatflat includingaccusedShahzadAhmadfiredatpoliceparty.Itisalsowell established on record that Inspector M.C. Sharma and HC Balwant, members of raiding party suffered bullet injury on being fired by occupantsofthatflatincludingaccusedShahzadAhmad. Fromthe depositionofDr.SanjeevLalwani(PW27)andpostmortemreport(Ex. PW19/C), it is clear that Inspector M.C. Sharma died due to bullet injuriessufferedinthatincident.Similarly,HCBalwantalsosuffered bulletinjuryinthatincidentandasperMLC(Ex.PW19/E)injurieson thepersonofHCBalwantweregrievousinnature.Again,itisproved fromthedepositionofwitnessesdiscussedabovethatHCRajbirwas firedatbythesameoccupantsincludingaccusedatleasttwice. Two bulletswere found stuck in hisbullet proofjacket. Inthisway,the assailants including accused Shahzad Ahmad tried to kill said HC Rajbir. It did not remain in dispute that all of said victims are officersofDelhiPoliceandhencepublicservants. Theywenttoflat No.108,whileinvestigatingacasei.e.indischargeoftheirpublicduty. Duringdeliberations,Ld.DefenceCounselcontendedthat whenInspectorM.C.Sharmafelldownonthegroundonbeingfiredat, itwouldhavebeenthenaturalresponseofothermembersofraiding partytorecedefromthatplace,butinspiteofgoingback,themembers

SC No. 42/10

44 of 46

ofraidingpartyproceededintheirventuretoconfronttheassailants. AsperLd.Counsel,thisbehaviourwasagainsthumannature. Apartfromaforesaidfact,itagitatesinmymindthatthe incidentinquestionwasnotasuddenconfrontationbetweenpoliceand theassailants.Thepolicehadalreadyaninformation,receivingwhich, araidingpartywasformedwellinadvance.Despiteallthis,Inspector M.C.Sharmadidnotwearanybodyprotectiondevicei.e.bulletproof jacket.Moreover,atleasttwomembersofraidingpartywerehavingno weaponwiththem,despiteknowingthefactthattheymayfacefiring. It is not clear whether it was merely a misadventure or lack of professionalism in Delhi Police or scarcity of weapons with Delhi police. Whatsoeveritmaybe,itdidnotgiveanylicencetothe occupants of a flat to fire at police persons who came there to investigateacase,merelybecausetheywereunarmedornotwearing anybulletproofjacket.Theywereexpectedtoassistthepoliceandnot toattackthem. AccusedisthusconvictedforoffencepunishableU/s 186/353/333/307/302/34IPC. Fromthestatementsofsamewitnessesasmentionedabove earlier,itisprovedonrecordthataccusedShahzadwashavingfirearm inhishand,whenhefledawayfromflatNo.108mentionedabove. Thoughheisallegedtohavedisclosedtothepolicethathethrewthat

SC No. 42/10

45 of 46

weaponinGangNehar,butsamecouldnotberecovered.Theaccused isthusconvictedforoffencepunishableU/s27/54/59Actandagainfor destructionofevidenceforoffencepunishableU/s201IPC. AccusedShahzadAhmadwasalsochargedfortheoffence ofnotappearingbeforethepolice/courtdespitehavingproclamation issued in that regard. Prosecution failed to prove that any such proclamationwaseverissued. Accusedisthusacquittedforoffence punishableU/s174(A)IPC.

Announcedinopencourt(RAJENDERKUMARSHASTRI) todayi.e25thJuly2013 Addl.SessionsJudge02:SouthEast SaketCourt:NewDelhi

SC No. 42/10

46 of 46