The document is a court judgment from the Court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in the case of State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc. involving charges of rioting and arson. Four accused were charged but all were acquitted. The judgment provides details of the charges, evidence presented, and arguments of the prosecution and defense. It finds that the identification of the accused was not proven and acquits all accused persons.
पंजाब एंड हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने कड़े गैरकानूनी गतिविधि रोकथाम अधिनियम (UAPA Act) के तहत गिरफ्तार किए गए व्यक्ति को जमानत दे दी। कोर्ट ने यह यह देखते हुए उक्त व्यक्ति को जमानत दी कि पाकिस्तान के साथ संबंधों के आधार पर कथित तौर पर कुछ आतंकवादी कृत्यों को अंजाम देने की योजना बनाने के मामले में प्रथम दृष्टया कोई मामला नहीं बनता है।
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023 in Writ Petition Criminal No. 42 of 2023 in Abduction & Sexual Harassment case before Supreme Court of India
20201018 andheri mm court 20 tablighis acquitted(1)sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in Mumbai, India involving 10 individuals from Indonesia who were charged with violating lockdown orders issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution presented evidence from two witnesses, police officers who discovered the individuals at a local mosque on April 5, 2020, allegedly in violation of restrictions. The defense disputed the evidence and cited other court rulings that discharged defendants in similar cases. The judge considered the arguments from both sides to determine if the prosecution had sufficiently proven their case.
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
This document describes legal proceedings related to the bail application and writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao, an 81-year old undertrial prisoner accused of terrorism offenses. Rao has filed for bail and writ petitions on medical grounds citing his advanced age and health conditions. The document outlines the legal history of Rao's case and arrest, provides details of his medical conditions and treatment in prison, and describes the various bail applications and writ petitions filed seeking his release from custody on humanitarian grounds.
Gauri lankesh case final slp regarding accused number 6 (1)ZahidManiyar
The document appears to be a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a high court order related to the investigation and prosecution of a murder case. Specifically, it challenges an order that quashed the sanction order and supplementary charge sheet filed against an accused, Mohan Nayak, under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act for his alleged involvement in the 2017 murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The petitioner argues the high court failed to properly examine the relevant provisions and facts of the case in quashing the sanction order and invokes the court's jurisdiction to do justice in this high-profile murder case.
पंजाब एंड हरियाणा हाईकोर्ट ने कड़े गैरकानूनी गतिविधि रोकथाम अधिनियम (UAPA Act) के तहत गिरफ्तार किए गए व्यक्ति को जमानत दे दी। कोर्ट ने यह यह देखते हुए उक्त व्यक्ति को जमानत दी कि पाकिस्तान के साथ संबंधों के आधार पर कथित तौर पर कुछ आतंकवादी कृत्यों को अंजाम देने की योजना बनाने के मामले में प्रथम दृष्टया कोई मामला नहीं बनता है।
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023 in Writ Petition Criminal No. 42 of 2023 in Abduction & Sexual Harassment case before Supreme Court of India
20201018 andheri mm court 20 tablighis acquitted(1)sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in Mumbai, India involving 10 individuals from Indonesia who were charged with violating lockdown orders issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution presented evidence from two witnesses, police officers who discovered the individuals at a local mosque on April 5, 2020, allegedly in violation of restrictions. The defense disputed the evidence and cited other court rulings that discharged defendants in similar cases. The judge considered the arguments from both sides to determine if the prosecution had sufficiently proven their case.
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
This document describes legal proceedings related to the bail application and writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao, an 81-year old undertrial prisoner accused of terrorism offenses. Rao has filed for bail and writ petitions on medical grounds citing his advanced age and health conditions. The document outlines the legal history of Rao's case and arrest, provides details of his medical conditions and treatment in prison, and describes the various bail applications and writ petitions filed seeking his release from custody on humanitarian grounds.
Gauri lankesh case final slp regarding accused number 6 (1)ZahidManiyar
The document appears to be a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a high court order related to the investigation and prosecution of a murder case. Specifically, it challenges an order that quashed the sanction order and supplementary charge sheet filed against an accused, Mohan Nayak, under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act for his alleged involvement in the 2017 murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The petitioner argues the high court failed to properly examine the relevant provisions and facts of the case in quashing the sanction order and invokes the court's jurisdiction to do justice in this high-profile murder case.
The writ petition concerns a case of alleged child sexual abuse, forced hidden prostitution of minor girls, human trafficking, and illicit sex trade reported by the petitioner whistleblower to authorities. The petitioner reported the incident to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th April 2021. On 13th April 2021, an official from NCPCR responded requesting more details from the petitioner within 3 days to take immediate action. However, the petitioner alleges he was unlawfully detained by Delhi Police for blowing the whistle on the case and filing reports to rescue and rehabilitate the minor victims. He now seeks intervention from the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The petitioner, Naudeep Kaur, filed a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered against her and others for offenses related to rioting and assaulting police officers during a protest. [The court notes that] Two FIRs were registered for the same incident, and the petitioner was already granted bail in one case. While the prosecution claimed the protest turned violent, the petitioner argued she was peacefully protesting unpaid wages. Considering the petitioner has been in custody since January and the matter requires further investigation, the court granted her bail, but warned she must not violate any laws or create law and order issues.
1) The case involves State v. Tahir Hussain and others regarding FIR No. 80/20 filed at PS Dayalpur.
2) The court examined the charges and found that only Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) was triable by sessions court.
3) Upon reviewing the complaint and statement of the sole witness Jai Bhagwan, the court determined that his allegations of losing furniture worth Rs. 35,000 when his loaded vehicle was stopped and articles burnt did not show commission of an offense under Section 436 IPC.
4) Therefore, all accused were discharged for the offense under Section 436 IPC
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
The document appears to be a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding two criminal appeals (Crl.A.Nos.705 & 706 of 2020) challenging a lower court's order granting bail to two respondents (Allan Shuaib and Thwaha Fasal) accused of terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the respondents for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court heard arguments from the NIA and the respondents' lawyers regarding whether the lower court properly analyzed evidence and applied legal standards in granting bail.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
The document summarizes a court order from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding an application for bail (M.Cr.C. No. 10029 of 2021) filed by Sadakat. The court order grants Sadakat temporary bail on parity with two other co-accused, Prakhar Vyas and Adwin Anthony, who were previously granted temporary bail in the same crime case (Crime No.02/2021 registered at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore). The court maintained that the applicant is entitled to temporary bail in light of the Supreme Court's order granting bail to the main accused Munawar Faruqui in the same crime case.
1) The applicant Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim filed a bail application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking bail in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
2) It was argued for the applicant that he is the first offender and has been in custody since August 23, 2021. His custodial interrogation is no longer required.
3) The prosecution opposed the bail plea submitting that various identity cards of different names were recovered from the applicant. The court examined the facts of the case and granted bail to the applicant with various conditions.
Syed moiduddin and ors v state of maha and orssabrangsabrang
The applicants were seeking anticipatory bail in relation to charges filed against them for organizing a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act without obtaining prior permission. The court summarized the facts of the case from the FIR and arguments from both sides. It determined that custodial interrogation was not necessary as nothing needed to be recovered from the applicants. It also found insufficient evidence that vehicles were damaged during the protest. Considering this and that the applicants had complied with previous court conditions, the court confirmed the applicants' anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions, except for one applicant who had passed away.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case where he was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law and blackmailing her with photographs and videos of the assault. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that (1) contradictions in the complainant's statements is a matter for trial, and (2) the trial is at an advanced stage. However, the Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and instructed police to investigate further given the complainant's change in position.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
Petition for abuse of police power in W.P. CRL. 137 of 2021 before Supreme C...OmPrakashPoddar1
Hello everyone,
Tomorrow, 02.05.2022, I am going to appear before Supreme Court of India in the hearing of W.P. (CRL) 137/201 against pushing my whole families, siblings and their minor children into the International market of illicit sex trade/hidden prostitution by the nexus of state, mafia and international sex racketeers since 18 years.
If am being killed/murdered, No issue.
I appeal from all Social Workers to pursue this case in the larger public interest.
Find enclosed the soft copy of complete petition and impleadments/intervention applications in W.P. (Crl.) 137/2021 at my linked In profile.
Thanks & all the best for healthy India
The court heard arguments on an application for bail under Section 43(D) of the unlawful activities act filed for accused Nos. 1, 6, and 10. The court allowed the bail application and directed the prison superintendent to allow the applicant Sudha Bhardwaj access to 5 books per month but to carefully examine the books for objectionable content. The court also heard a request from accused No. 6 to provide clone/mirror copies of certain documents in evidence and adjourned the matter to a future date for further arguments on bail and for the prosecution to respond to providing document copies.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision case between the State of Uttar Pradesh and several opposite parties. The state filed a revision challenging an order that discharged the opposite parties from various charges related to kidnapping, rape, and assault of a woman. The court order summarizes the arguments from both sides and finds no error in the lower court's order discharging the opposite parties, as there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against them. The revision filed by the state is dismissed.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
The petitioners, Siddharth Varadarajan and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 153-B and 505(2) of IPC by the Rampur Police. The state was given 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit. The court also ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court until the next hearing on November 24th. The petitioners must also submit a self-attested computer generated copy of the Supreme Court order along with an identity proof.
The writ petition concerns a case of alleged child sexual abuse, forced hidden prostitution of minor girls, human trafficking, and illicit sex trade reported by the petitioner whistleblower to authorities. The petitioner reported the incident to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th April 2021. On 13th April 2021, an official from NCPCR responded requesting more details from the petitioner within 3 days to take immediate action. However, the petitioner alleges he was unlawfully detained by Delhi Police for blowing the whistle on the case and filing reports to rescue and rehabilitate the minor victims. He now seeks intervention from the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The petitioner, Naudeep Kaur, filed a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered against her and others for offenses related to rioting and assaulting police officers during a protest. [The court notes that] Two FIRs were registered for the same incident, and the petitioner was already granted bail in one case. While the prosecution claimed the protest turned violent, the petitioner argued she was peacefully protesting unpaid wages. Considering the petitioner has been in custody since January and the matter requires further investigation, the court granted her bail, but warned she must not violate any laws or create law and order issues.
1) The case involves State v. Tahir Hussain and others regarding FIR No. 80/20 filed at PS Dayalpur.
2) The court examined the charges and found that only Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) was triable by sessions court.
3) Upon reviewing the complaint and statement of the sole witness Jai Bhagwan, the court determined that his allegations of losing furniture worth Rs. 35,000 when his loaded vehicle was stopped and articles burnt did not show commission of an offense under Section 436 IPC.
4) Therefore, all accused were discharged for the offense under Section 436 IPC
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
The document appears to be a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding two criminal appeals (Crl.A.Nos.705 & 706 of 2020) challenging a lower court's order granting bail to two respondents (Allan Shuaib and Thwaha Fasal) accused of terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the respondents for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court heard arguments from the NIA and the respondents' lawyers regarding whether the lower court properly analyzed evidence and applied legal standards in granting bail.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
The document summarizes a court order from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding an application for bail (M.Cr.C. No. 10029 of 2021) filed by Sadakat. The court order grants Sadakat temporary bail on parity with two other co-accused, Prakhar Vyas and Adwin Anthony, who were previously granted temporary bail in the same crime case (Crime No.02/2021 registered at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore). The court maintained that the applicant is entitled to temporary bail in light of the Supreme Court's order granting bail to the main accused Munawar Faruqui in the same crime case.
1) The applicant Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim filed a bail application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking bail in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
2) It was argued for the applicant that he is the first offender and has been in custody since August 23, 2021. His custodial interrogation is no longer required.
3) The prosecution opposed the bail plea submitting that various identity cards of different names were recovered from the applicant. The court examined the facts of the case and granted bail to the applicant with various conditions.
Syed moiduddin and ors v state of maha and orssabrangsabrang
The applicants were seeking anticipatory bail in relation to charges filed against them for organizing a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act without obtaining prior permission. The court summarized the facts of the case from the FIR and arguments from both sides. It determined that custodial interrogation was not necessary as nothing needed to be recovered from the applicants. It also found insufficient evidence that vehicles were damaged during the protest. Considering this and that the applicants had complied with previous court conditions, the court confirmed the applicants' anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions, except for one applicant who had passed away.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case where he was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law and blackmailing her with photographs and videos of the assault. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that (1) contradictions in the complainant's statements is a matter for trial, and (2) the trial is at an advanced stage. However, the Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and instructed police to investigate further given the complainant's change in position.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
Petition for abuse of police power in W.P. CRL. 137 of 2021 before Supreme C...OmPrakashPoddar1
Hello everyone,
Tomorrow, 02.05.2022, I am going to appear before Supreme Court of India in the hearing of W.P. (CRL) 137/201 against pushing my whole families, siblings and their minor children into the International market of illicit sex trade/hidden prostitution by the nexus of state, mafia and international sex racketeers since 18 years.
If am being killed/murdered, No issue.
I appeal from all Social Workers to pursue this case in the larger public interest.
Find enclosed the soft copy of complete petition and impleadments/intervention applications in W.P. (Crl.) 137/2021 at my linked In profile.
Thanks & all the best for healthy India
The court heard arguments on an application for bail under Section 43(D) of the unlawful activities act filed for accused Nos. 1, 6, and 10. The court allowed the bail application and directed the prison superintendent to allow the applicant Sudha Bhardwaj access to 5 books per month but to carefully examine the books for objectionable content. The court also heard a request from accused No. 6 to provide clone/mirror copies of certain documents in evidence and adjourned the matter to a future date for further arguments on bail and for the prosecution to respond to providing document copies.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision case between the State of Uttar Pradesh and several opposite parties. The state filed a revision challenging an order that discharged the opposite parties from various charges related to kidnapping, rape, and assault of a woman. The court order summarizes the arguments from both sides and finds no error in the lower court's order discharging the opposite parties, as there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against them. The revision filed by the state is dismissed.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
The petitioners, Siddharth Varadarajan and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 153-B and 505(2) of IPC by the Rampur Police. The state was given 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit. The court also ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court until the next hearing on November 24th. The petitioners must also submit a self-attested computer generated copy of the Supreme Court order along with an identity proof.
Similar to delhi court acquittal delhi riots order.pdf (20)
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
1. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
DLNE01-000444-2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl.
No.
HEADINGS Page Nos.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 1-2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 3-4
3 Charges 5-6
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 6-9
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10
6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 10-11
APPRECIATION OF LAW, FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 12
8 Identification of accused 12-17
9 Conclusion and Decision 17
Page 1 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
2. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
Sessions Case No. : 42/2021
Under Section : 147/148/149/188/380/427/436 IPC
Police Station : Gokalpuri
FIR No. : 83/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-000444-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
V E R S U S
1. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ @ SHANU
S/o. Mohd. Rashid,
R/o. H.No. A-528, Gali No.22,
Phase-10, Shiv Vihar, Delhi.
2. MOHD. SHOAIB @ CHHUTWA
S/o. Sh. Islam,
R/o. H.No. 93, Gali No.5/2,
Behind Rajdhani School,
Babu Nagar, Delhi.
3. SH. SHAHRUKH
S/o. Sh. Salauddin,
R/o. B-262, Gali No.7, Babu Nagar,
Near Shiv Mandir, Delhi.
4. SH. RASHID
S/o. Sh. Riyajuddin,
R/o. A-22, Gali No.1, Chaman Park,
Shiv Vihar Tiraha, Delhi.
…..Accused Persons.
Complainant: SH. RAVI SHANKAR
S/o. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
R/o. A-95, Gali No.8, Govinda
Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.07.2020
Date of reserving order : 14.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2022
Decision : All accused are acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused)
Page 2 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
3. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
J U D G M E N T
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. The above named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by
the police for having committed offences punishable under
Section 147/148/149/188/380/427/436 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 02.03.2020, FIR was
registered at PS Gokalpuri pursuant to receipt of a written
complaint, dated 29.02.2020 from one Sh. Ravi Shankar, S/o. Sh.
Naresh Kumar, R/o. A-95, Gali No.8, Govinda Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi. Complainant alleged that on 24.02.2020, at about
14:00 hrs., he had gone to attend one marriage ceremony.
Thereafter, he received one call from his neighbours about riots
near his shop of cold drink and some cloth works, situated at A-
53, Chaman Park, Shiv Vihar Tiraha, Main Johripur Road. On
26.02.2020, complainant went to his aforesaid shop and found
shutter of his shop in broken and burnt condition. Complainant
also found all his articles kept in the shop as well as his vehicle
make and model Bajaj G.C. bearing registration no.DL-1LH-
4228, meant for supplying cold drinks, parked at Jagat Parking,
Shiv Vihar Tiraha, Main Road, in burnt condition. This complaint
was marked to Insp. Bineet Kumar Pandey for necessary action.
On 01.03.2020, Insp. Bineet Kumar Pandey endorsed the
complaint for DO to register a case under Section
147/148/149/427 IPC and to hand over further investigation of
the case to SI L.N. Sharma.
Page 3 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
4. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
3. During investigation, SI L.N. Sharma prepared site plan at the
instance of complainant. On 07.03.2020, SI L.N. Sharma called
crime team and got inspected the spot. During investigation,
complainant handed over two photographs and one CD
containing video of his burnt shop. Police also collected ash from
the burnt shop of complainant and after discussion with senior
officers, Section 436 IPC was added in the present case.
Thereafter, on 06.04.2020 further investigation of the present
case was assigned to SI Satyadev, who recorded statement of
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During further investigation,
SI Satyadev formally arrested accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @
Shanu, Mohd. Shoaib @ Chhutwa, Shahrukh and Rashid @ Raja
from Mandoli Jail, Delhi, on 25.04.2020. During further course
of investigation, Section 188 IPC was added in the present case.
4. After completion of investigation, on 25.07.2020 a chargesheet
was filed by SI Dinesh Kumar, before Duty ACMM (North East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against aforesaid four accused
persons. Thereafter, on 13.12.2020, ld. CMM (North East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, took cognizance of offences
punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/427/436 IPC. Vide
this order, ld. CMM (North East) declined to take cognizance of
offence under Section 188 IPC, for want of complaint under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, case was committed to the
Sessions Court on 12.01.2021. On 27.09.2022, first
supplementary chargesheet was filed by SI Satyadev Panwar
before this court along with a complaint under Section 195
Cr.P.C.
Page 4 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
5. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
CHARGES :-
5. On 26.08.2021, charges were framed against aforesaid four
accused persons for offences punishable under Section
143/147/148/454/435/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, in
following terms: -
“That from the afternoon till the late evening of
24.02.2020, in the area of Chaman Park, Shiv Vihar Tiraha,
main Johripur Road, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094, within the
jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, all of you being from a particular
community along with your other associates (unidentified)
formed an unlawful assembly, the object whereof was to cause
maximum damage to the property and persons belonging to the
other community and committed criminal trespass, arson in the
shops, houses and other properties of the persons from other
community and also put on fire their vehicles by the use of force
or violence in prosecution of the common object of such
assembly and thereby committed offences punishable under
Section(s) 143/147/148 read with Section 149 IPC and within
my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at
Shop No.A-53, Chaman Park, Shiv Vihar Tiraha, main Johripur
Road, Delhi-94, you all being members of the said unlawful
assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your
other associates (unidentified) committed lurking house-trespass
by breaking open the shutter of said shop belonging to
complainant Ravi Shankar, S/o. Shri Naresh Kumar, to commit
offences and thereafter committed mischief by fire or explosive
substance with the intent to destroy the aforesaid shop of
complainant and thereby committed offences punishable under
Section(s) 454/436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within
my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, at time unknown, at
Jagat Parking, Shiv Vihar Tiraha, main Road, Delhi-94, you all
being members of the said unlawful assembly in furtherance of
your common object alongwith your other associates
(unidentified) committed mischief by fire or explosive substance
by putting on fire Bajaj G.C vehicle bearing Regn. No.
DL1LH/4228, belonging to said complainant, which at the
relevant time was lying parked in the aforesaid parking and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 435 IPC
read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.”
Page 5 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
6. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
6. Thereafter, on 06.10.2022, additional charge was framed against
aforesaid four accused persons for offence punishable under
Section 188 IPC, in following terms: -
“That, on 24.02.2020 from afternoon till late evening,
in and around the area of Chaman Park, Shiv Vihar, main
Johripur Road, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094, within the
jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, you all accused persons being
member of an unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates
(unidentified) were present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of
the common object of an unlawful assembly and in violation of the
proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr.PC by the competent
authority/DCP, North East vide order dated 24.02.2020 bearing
no.10094-170 X-1, North East, Delhi dt.24.02.2020, which was
duly announced in all the localities of District North East
including area of PS Khajuri Khas, thereby you both committed
offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my
cognizance.”
7. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case, as per
following descriptions: -
Sl. No. &
Name of
Witness
Role of witness & Description
of documents
Proved
documents/
case properties
PW1/ Sh.
Ravi Shanker
He was the complainant in the
present case. PW1 had given a
complaint in PS and identified his
signature at point A on the same.
He did not see the incident at his
shop and hence, he did not
identify any accused.
Ex.PW1/A
(complaint of
PW1);
Ex.PW1/B (site
plan);
Ex.PW1/C &
Ex.PW1/D
(memos of
collection of
sample of ash)
& DVD)
PW2/Sh.
Bobby
He was owner cum landlord of the property and had
given his shop bearing no.A-53, Chaman Park, Shiv
Vihar Tiraha, Main Johripur Road, to PW1 on rent.
PW3/ASI
Ram Dass
He was witness to formal arrest of
all four accused persons by IO/SI
Ex.PW3/A to
Ex.PW3/D
Page 6 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
7. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
Sl. No. &
Name of
Witness
Role of witness & Description
of documents
Proved
documents/
case properties
Satyadev at Mandoli Jail, in the
present case. PW3 identified his
signature at point A on their arrest
memos.
(arrest memos of
Sharukh, Mohd.
Shoaib, Rashid
and Mohd.
Shahnawaz @
Shanu,
respectively)
PW4/HC
Mahesh
He made entry regarding deposit
of pullanda by SI L.N. Sharma at
PS in register no.19 vide entry
no.124, on 07.03.2020.
The said pullanda was sent to FSL
Rohini vide RC No. 166/21/21 on
07.09.21 and deposited by Ct.
Pushkar in FSL vide FSL No.
8799/ Chem./2936/21.
Ex.PW4/A
(relevant extract
of entry made
by PW4)
PW5/Ct.
Mohit
He took photographs at the spot
of crime on 07.03.2020, on the
pointing out of IO. PW5 produced
certificate under Section 65-B of
I.E. Act, in respect of photographs
and identified his signature at
point A on the same.
Ex.PW5/A
(colly) (two
photographs
taken by PW5)
&
Ex.PW5/B
(certificate
under Section
65-B of I.E. Act)
PW6/ASI
Mahavir
On 07.03.2020, he was posted as
Finger Print Proficient in Mobile
Crime Team, North-East District,
Delhi. On that day, PW6
inspected the spot of incident i.e.
A-53, Chaman Park and prepared
the report. PW6 identified his
signature at point A on the same.
Ex.PW6/A
(inspection
report
prepared by
PW6)
PW7/HC
Hari Babu
On 25.02.2020, he along with Ct. Vipin and other
police staff, were on patrolling duty in Bhagirathi
Vihar and Chaman Park area. PW7 witnessed arson
at shop no. A-53 by mob at 02:00 PM on Johripur
Page 7 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
8. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
Sl. No. &
Name of
Witness
Role of witness & Description
of documents
Proved
documents/
case properties
Shiv Vihar Road.
PW7 identified only Shahnawaz before the court and
deposed that he was taking medicine for memory
loss.
PW8/SI
L.N. Sharma
He was initial IO and on 02.03.2020, he was handed
over copy of FIR and original rukka in this case by
ASI Rakesh Kumar in the PS. On that day, PW8
prepared site plan at the instance of complainant i.e.
PW1/Sh. Ravi Shanker.
FIR is Ex.A-1 and certificate under Section 65-B of
I.E. Act is Ex.A-2 (admitted documents).
On 07.03.2020, PW8 called crime team at the place
of incident i.e. A-53, got inspected the same and
received SOC report from crime team. PW8 lifted
burnt articles from the burnt shop, prepared two
pullandas, sealed them with seal of 'LNS' and seized
them vide memo Ex.PW1/C. PW8 also identified his
signature at circle X on the same. PW8 also seized
two photographs and one DVD of video pertaining to
burnt shop of PW1.
PW8 identified his signature at circle X on site plan
(Ex.PW1/B), seizure memo related to both pullandas
(Ex.PW1/C) and seizure memo related to CD as well
as photograph (Ex.PW1/D).
On 19.03.2020, on the instructions of SHO, PW8
handed over the case file to MHC(M).
PW9/Ct.
Vipin
In February 2020, he was posted in PS Gokalpuri.
He was on duty with PW7 near Shiv Vihar Tiraha.
PW9 witnessed pelting stones and arson by the mob
in the nearby houses and shops, in the area of
Chaman Park, in late night hours of 24.02.2020.
PW9 also witnessed setting on fire a Bajaj Goods
Carrier, which was standing in front of shop in
property no. A-49A, Chaman Park, Delhi, by the said
mob. PW9 also witnessed setting on fire the shop in
the name of “Sharma Hardwares and Electricals” in
Page 8 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
9. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
Sl. No. &
Name of
Witness
Role of witness & Description
of documents
Proved
documents/
case properties
A-49A, Chaman Park.
PW9 also witnessed setting on fire the property no.
A-53, which was adjacent to A-49. There was shop
of cold drink in property no. A-53.
PW9 had seen all accused persons in that mob and he
identified accused persons before the court.
PW10/SI
Satyadev
On 06.04.2020, on the direction of SHO, he was
handed over case file for further investigation. PW10
examined HC Hari Babu and Ct. Vipin in the case.
PW10 formally arrested accused Shahnawaz @
Shanu on 24.04.2020 and accused Shahrukh, Shoaib
and Rashid on 25.04.2020, at Mandoli Jail. PW10
identified his signature at point X on Ex.PW3/D and
at circle X on Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter,
case file was handed over to MHC(R).
PW11/Insp.
Dinesh
On 14.07.2020, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in
PS Gokalpuri. On that day, on the directions of
Inspector (Investigation) case file of this case was
handed over to him for preparing chargesheet in this
case and to file the same before the court.
PW11 prepared chargesheet, which was filed before
the court on 23.07.2020.
PW12/HC
Pradeep
In February 2020, he was posted at PS Gokalpuri, as
reader to SHO.
On 24.02.2020, he received copy of order under
Section 144 Cr.P.C., issued by DCP (N/E), through
Dak. Copy of same is Ex.A-3 (Admitted document).
On the direction of SHO, PW12 announced
proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area of
PS Gokalpuri, through loud speaker.
A complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C was made by
the DCP/NE against all accused for violation of
aforesaid order, which is Ex.A-4 (Admitted
document).
Page 9 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
10. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 CR.P.C.
8. Accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu, Mohd. Shoaib @
Chhutwa, Shahrukh and Rashid @ Raja, denied all the
allegations and pleaded innocence, taking plea that they were not
present at the spot and they have been falsely implicated in this
case. Accused persons did not opt to lead any evidence in their
defence.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION
9. I heard ld. Special PP and ld. counsels for accused persons. I
have perused the entire material on the record.
10. Sh. Z. Babar Chauhan, ld. counsel for accused Mohd.
Shahnawaz @ Shanu argued that PW7/HC Hari Babu is not
credible witness. He further argued that PW7 did not identify this
accused in other case due to long lapse of time and in this case
PW7 took plea of memory loss. Ld. counsel further argued that
PW9/Ct. Vipin is the only witness of identification, who is a
tutored witness, as during his testimony, PW9 could not tell that
when he was examined for the first time by any IO. Ld. counsel
argued that this witness was cited in multiple cases. He further
argued that PW9 gave statement on 07.04.2020 before IO, though
he remained on duty for whole period till 07.04.2020 after riots.
PW9 participated in all briefing in the police station, still he did
not give his statement earlier before IO that he knew and
identified this accused in the mob. Ld. counsel further argued that
case law of Masalti & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133,
applies in this case.
11. Sh. Salim Malik, ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Shoaib @
Page 10 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
11. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
Chhutwa, Shahrukh and Rashid @ Raja, argued that there are
certain contradictions in the statement of PW7 and PW9. He
further argued that PW7 stated about gathering of around 500-
600 persons, whereas PW9 stated about gathering of 50-60
persons, in the mob. Though, PW7 and PW9 were present
together allegedly at a distance of 50-60 meters from the mob.
Ld. counsel further argued that all story was prepared afterwards
and the case is not proved beyond doubts.
12. Per contra, Sh. Nitin Rai Sharma, ld. Special PP for State
argued that PW1/Sh. Ravi Shanker proved burning of his shutter
and shop. He further argued that PW2/Sh. Bobby proved letting
out this shop to PW1. Ld. Special PP further argued that PW7
and PW9 are witnesses to identification of accused persons. He
further argued that PW7 proved incident of shop A-53, though
due to memory loss, he did not identify accused properly. He
further argued that PW9 also proved incident and identity of
accused correctly and defence did not suggest that accused were
not present there. He submitted that PW9 gave undisputed
description of Shahnawaz and his nearby shops. He further
argued that presence of PW7 and PW9 at the spot was very much
plausible and they are natural witnesses. He further submitted
that testimony of police witness should not be discarded or
looked at with suspicion.
13. In support of his contentions, ld. Special PP relied upon certain
case laws, which are as follows: -
(a) Parmod Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 6 SCC
588.
(b) Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 554.
Page 11 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
12. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
UNLAWFULASSEMBLY & RIOTS
14. The testimonies of PW7 and PW9 refer to a mob assembled near
Chaman Park, Johripur Shiv Vihar Road. They deposed that this
mob indulged into vandalism and arson in that area. They also
deposed that this mob set ablaze the shop in property no. A-53 on
that road. PW9 also deposed that this mob was pelting stones.
Such testimony of these two witnesses was not specifically
disputed by the defence. Defence has not taken plea that there
was no unlawful assembly or that no incident of riot had taken
place at all. Testimony of PW1, PW5, and PW8 mentions the
damage to the property/shop of PW1 and such fact was not
disputed by defence also. The combined effect of these evidence
proves that an unlawful assembly was formed, which indulged
into vandalism and arson in that area on 24.02.2020 during noon
time and onwards.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
15. The foremost question is that whether accused persons named
herein were also involved in the aforesaid incident, as member of
above-mentioned unlawful assembly? For this purpose,
prosecution produced PW7 and PW9 before the court. Out of
these two witnesses, PW7 though vouched about being on duty
with PW9 in the area of Chaman Park and Johripur Road, but he
could not identify all accused before the court. It was mentioned
by the court that same witness was examined in other case
bearing FIR no. 40/20, just before examination in this case. In
that case, PW7 stated that he could not identify any of the rioters
Page 12 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
13. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
due to long lapse of mind. The accused in FIR 40/20 were the
same persons. PW7 thereafter, took plea that he was suffering
from memory loss and was also taking medicine for the same. He
was cross examined by ld. prosecutor, wherein he admitted the
suggestion that he was unable to identify four rioters correctly
because of memory loss. Thus, for whatever reasons PW7 did not
identify the rioters, it is for sure that identification of one of the
accused by him in this case, is also not safe to be relied upon.
16. In these circumstances, PW9 remains the only witness, to prove
the identity of the accused persons as member of the mob
responsible for incident in question. On perusal of his testimony,
I find that he simply stated that he had seen the accused persons
in the mob, which was pelting stones and indulging into arson in
the nearby properties in the area of Chaman Park. He stated that
he new the accused persons since prior to such incident, as he
had been beat constable of that area.
17. Though defence claimed that PW9 was a planted and tutored
witness, however, before dealing with such argument, I shall deal
with the argument that test referred in the judgment passed in the
case of Masalti (supra) applies to the facts and circumstances of
this case. In the case of Masalti, hon’ble Supreme Court dealt
with a case of multiple murder by an unlawful assembly. The
court while dealing with the aspect of identification of members
of that mob, made certain observations regarding test of
consistent testimony by four witnesses as applied by High Court.
The relevant part of the same is as follows: -
Page 13 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
14. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
“16. Mr Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High
Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that
under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a
single witness would be enough to convict an accused person,
whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not
trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. That,
no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with
evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a
large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is
usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained
only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who
give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may
be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can
be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not
think any grievance can be made by the appellants against the
adoption of this test. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to
say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their
cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if
the said test had not been applied, they might as well have been
convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that
matters and not the number of witnesses who give such
evidence. But sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one
which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present
case.”
18. The test mentioned in the case of Masalti, was deliberated upon
by Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Ramlal Devappa Rathod, (2015) 15 SCC 77, and the court
made following observations: -
“24. The liability of those members of the unlawful assembly
who actually committed the offence would depend upon the
nature and acceptability of the evidence on record. The difficulty
may however arise, while considering the liability and extent of
culpability of those who may not have actually committed the
offence but were members of that assembly. What binds them
and makes them vicariously liable is the common object in
prosecution of which the offence was committed by other
members of the unlawful assembly. Existence of common object
can be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances.
For example, if more than five persons storm into the house of
the victim where only few of them are armed while the others
are not and the armed persons open an assault, even unarmed
persons are vicariously liable for the acts committed by those
armed persons. In such a situation it may not be difficult to
ascertain the existence of common object as all the persons had
Page 14 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
15. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
stormed into the house of the victim and it could be assessed
with certainty that all were guided by the common object,
making every one of them liable. Thus, when the persons
forming the assembly are shown to be having same interest in
pursuance of which some of them come armed, while others may
not be so armed, such unarmed persons if they share the same
common object, are liable for the acts committed by the armed
persons. But in a situation where assault is opened by a mob of
fairly large number of people, it may at times be difficult to
ascertain whether those who had not committed any overt act
were guided by the common object. There can be room for
entertaining a doubt whether those persons who are not
attributed of having done any specific overt act, were innocent
bystanders or were actually members of the unlawful assembly.
It is for this reason that in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR
1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226 : (1964) 8 SCR 133] this
Court was cautious and cognizant that no particular part in
respect of an overt act was assigned to any of the assailants
except Laxmi Prasad. It is in this backdrop and in order to
consider
“whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were
merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a
matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the
common object of the assembly”,
this Court at SCR pp. 148-49 in Masalti [Masalti v. State of
U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 observed that his participation as a
member of the unlawful assembly ought to be spoken by more
than one witness in order to lend corroboration. The test so
adopted in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202
was only to determine liability of those accused against whom
there was no clear allegation of having committed any overt act
but what was alleged against them was about their presence as
members of the unlawful assembly. The test so adopted was not
to apply to cases where specific allegations and overt acts
constituting the offence are alleged or ascribed to certain
named assailants. If such test is to be adopted even where there
are specific allegations and overt acts attributed to certain
named assailants, it would directly run counter to the well-
known maxim that “evidence has to be weighed and not
counted” as statutorily recognised in Section 134 of the
Evidence Act.”
19. In the same case, Supreme Court explained the nature of cases
wherein test mentioned in the case of Masalti, can be applied,
while making following observations: -
Page 15 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
“26. We do not find anything in Masalti [Masalti v. State of
U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226 : (1964) 8 SCR
133] which in any way qualifies the well-settled principle that
the conviction can be founded upon the testimony of even a
single witness if it establishes in clear and precise terms, the
overt acts constituting the offence as committed by certain
named assailants and if such testimony is otherwise reliable.
The test adopted in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965
SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226 : (1964) 8 SCR 133] is required to
be applied while dealing with cases of those accused who are
sought to be made vicariously responsible for the acts
committed by others, only by virtue of their alleged presence as
members of the unlawful assembly without any specific
allegations of overt acts committed by them, or where, given the
nature of assault by the mob, the Court comes to the conclusion
that it would have been impossible for any particular witness to
have witnessed the relevant facets constituting the offence. The
test adopted in Masalti [Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC
202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226 : (1964) 8 SCR 133] as a rule of
prudence cannot mean that in every case of mob violence there
must be more than one eyewitness.”
20. In the present case, PW9 only stated that he knew some members
of the mob and he named them before IO and before the court.
However, PW9 did not state about any overt act of the accused
persons. Though, above mentioned observations of Supreme
Court, make it clear that for inviting liability by virtue of Section
149 IPC, it is not required to prove overt act on the part of every
member of the mob, but at the same time rule of prudence has
been spoken about, for fastening vicarious liability with aid of
S.149 IPC. That rule of prudence is the genesis of test mentioned
in the case of Masalti. In that case also, it was approved as a
mark of precaution, rather than laying it down as a hard and fast
rule.
21. In the present case, PW9 stated that incident at Shop A-53 took
place after midnight, though PW7 mentioned the time of around
2 PM. There is mark difference in the testimony of these two
Page 16 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
17. CNR No. DLNE01-000444-2021
State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc.
SC No. 42/2021, FIR No. 83/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Judgment dated 18.11.2022
witnesses, regarding the number of persons assembled at that
place. Keeping in view such varying account of same facts, I find
it desirable to apply the test of consistent testimony of more than
one witness, in present case also. Applying that test, I hold that
sole testimony of PW9 cannot be sufficient to assume presence of
accused persons herein in the mob, which set ablaze shop A-53
and the goods carrier, both belonging to PW1. In such situation,
accused persons are given benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
22. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I
find that charges levelled against the accused persons in this case
are not proved beyond doubts. Hence, accused Mohd. Shahnawaz
@ Shanu, Mohd. Shoaib @ Chhutwa, Shahrukh and Rashid @
Raja, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this
case.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 18.11.2022 ASJ-03 (North- East)
(This order contains 17 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Page 17 of 17 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PRAMACHALA
Date:
2022.11.18
14:42:39
+0530