Delhi High Court
State (Gnct) Of Delhi vs Sarwar Siddiqui on 17 February, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. L.P. No. 48/2008
% Date of Order : February, 17, 2009
STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Addl.
Standing Counsel.
VERSUS
SARWAR SIDDIQUI .....Respondent
Through : Nemo.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused.
The plea of alibi has been held to be successfully established.
Even the conduct of the star witness of the prosecution, Rais
Ahmed Khan PW-7 has been found to be suspicious.
2. The date was 28th November, 2002. Wife of Rais
Ahmed Khan PW-7 was shot dead in her house. Rais Ahmed
Khan PW-7 received a superficial injury: the result of a bullet
hitting the right forearm.
3. We note that the injury on Rais Ahmed Khan is akin
to an injury where a bullet grazes past the right forearm.
4. In his testimony, Rais Ahmed Khan PW-7 deposed
that on the date of the incident he and his wife were in their
house and on the roof Sarwar Siddiqui, the accused, was playing
with his son. This was disturbing their sleep. He made a
request to the accused to refrain from making a noise at which
accused took out a country made pistol and fired a shot which
hit his wife. The accused fired another shot at him. He
sustained a bullet injury on his right forearm and fled. The
accused followed him. After covering some distance, he looked
behind and found that the accused had stopped chasing him.
He took a cycle rickshaw and reached Lion's Hospital near New
Friends Colony, where he was medically examined. That he
learnt about his wife expiring at the hospital.
5. With reference to the distance travelled by Rais
Ahmed Khan PW-7 from his house till the hospital, the learned
trial Judge has found that Rais Ahmed Khan had to cover a
distance of nearly 1 km. Learned trial Judge has found it is
strange that Rais Ahmed Khan never raised a hue and cry of his
wife being shot at. The learned trial Judge has found it a strange
conduct of Rais Ahmed Khan of not informing anybody, even at
the hospital, that his wife was shot at.
6. The injury on Rais Ahmed Khan was so superficial
that it could not have made him unconscious. Indeed, he was
not unconscious as is evident by the fact that he claims to have
run a short distance and hired a rickshaw to reach the hospital.
7. With reference to the plea of alibi, learned trial Judge
has believed the testimony of DW-1 Satya Narayan Soni, a
health worker in District Hospital Jhabua (MP) who produced the
record of the District Hospital Jhabua (MP) which shows that the
accused was admitted at the hospital on 24.11.2002 and was
discharged on 29.11.2002. The medical record Ex.DW-1/A was
produced.
8. The second defence witness, Dr.L.S. Rathore, then
working as a medical specialist at District Hospital Jhabua (MP)
deposed that he was working in the hospital in question and had
treated the accused for five days from 24.11.2002 to
29.11.2002. He deposed that he had treated Sarwar Siddiqui as
per the daily note sheet maintained by him. He affirmed that
the daily note sheet Ex.DW-1/B was signed by him.
9. The learned trial Judge has noted that the said
medical record shows that the accused was suffering from
falsiferam malaria, which could be fatal to life.
10. The learned trial Judge has held that there was no
reason to disbelieve the record maintained by a Government
Hospital.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing of
the petition today has drawn our attention to Ex.DW-1/B wherein
it appears that the date 24.11.2003 has been corrected to
24.11.2002.
12. Learned counsel urges that it is apparent that the
accused managed a late admission, a year after the incident and
by making interpolation showed as if the admission was on
24.11.2002, whereas the fact was that the date of admission
was 24.11.2003.
13. It is true that the year 2003 has been corrected to
read 2002, but it appears that the same is not an interpolation
but is a contemporaneous correction, for the reason the daily
medical sheet (Page 125 of the petition paper book) shows that
the doctor concerned has not only written the day, month but
even the year; the year being 2002.
14. It is trite that where the learned trial Judge considers
the evidence and acquits the accused, the presumption of
innocence is reinforced.
15. Unless there is perversity in the appreciation of
evidence or where material evidence is ignored or mis-read, it
would be impermissible for the Appellate Court to re-read the
evidence.
16. We have gone through the impugned decision. We
have briefly noted hereinabove the strange conduct of the
husband of the deceased. We have noted hereinabove the
evidence relating to the plea of alibi, held successfully
established.
17. We are satisfied that the learned trial Judge has
correctly considered the broad contours of the case of the
prosecution and has considered the defence.
18. We find no infirmity with the impugned decision.
19. No case is made out to grant leave to appeal.
20. The petition is dismissed.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(ARUNA SURESH)
February 17, 2009 JUDGE
vk
