Delhi District Court
State vs Dishant Singh on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 254/2019
CNR No.DLSH01-003542-2019
State Versus Dishant Singh
S/o Malkhan Singh
R/o H. No.1092, Sector-4C,
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
.........Accused
FIR No.: 262/2015
Police Station: Shahdara
U/s 307/506 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
Date of institution of case : 19.12.2018
Date when the case was received by this Court : 28.05.2019
Date of reserving for order : 30.01.2026
Date of passing of Judgment : 03.02.2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.05.2015, on receipt of DD No.16A, SI Subhash alongwith Ct. Nanak Chand reached at F-19, Naveen Shahdara, NIPM Institute, Delhi where SI Subhash met with complainant Dimple Khanna, NIPM staff and beat staff.
SC No. 254/2019State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 1 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:03:30 +0530 Thereafter, complainant Dimple Khanna handed over the accused Dishant Singh to him who was overpowered by Ct. Gulab. The country made pistol which was snatched from Dishant Singh was also handed over to SI Subhash. On opening the country made pistol, it was found containing one live cartridge. Thereafter, SI Subhash had taken out the live cartridge from the pistol and prepared the sketch of pistol and live cartridge on a white paper and had taken its measurements. The country made pistol and live cartridge were seized by converting the same into pulanda. Seal of SK was affixed on the pulanda. Statement of complainant Dimple Khanna was recorded and in her statement she stated that she is running an institute in the name of NIPM at F-19, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi and working as Managing Director in the same. On 01.05.2015 at about 10.30 AM, a boy namely Dishant Singh entered her office who was earlier studying in NIPM Institute but he was in habit of drinking liquor and using filthy language due to which he was expelled from the institute. Dishant Singh just entered in her office and demanded his first year result from her on which complainant told him to wait as Manoj sir was coming who will give the result. Manoj Sir is the Principal of the Institute. In the meantime, Dishant Singh started abusing her and caught hold of her neck and he had taken out a country made pistol from his back and pointed the same on her for killing her and he uttered that she has spoilt his career by expelling him from the institute and today he will kill her. On this, complainant raised alarm for saving herself on which Suman Sinha sitting at a distance snatched the pistol from the hand of Dishant. Meanwhile, Manoj sir and other staff came there due to which Dishant Singh tried to run away. Staff officials caught Dishant Singh with SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 2 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:03:38 +0530 difficulty as he was struggling hard to escape due to which he had sustained few injuries. Thereafter, complainant had made a call at 100 number. Police officials reached at the spot and overpowered Dishant Singh. On the statement of complainant and recovery of country made pistol, FIR under section 307/506 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was registered against accused Dishant Singh.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under section 307/506 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act against accused Dishant Singh was filed. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 CrPC, committed the case to the Sessions court as the offence punishable under section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions court.
CHARGE
3. Charge under section 307/506 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was framed on 23.07.2019 against accused Dishant Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in total.
5. PW1 Dimple deposed that she was running an institute in the name of NIPM at Shahdara, Delhi and she was working as Managing Director in the said institute. She further deposed that on 01.05.2015 at about 10.30 am, she was present in her office of the said institute. One SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 3 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:03:46 +0530 of her employee Mr. Suman Singh was also present in the office but was sitting at some distance. At that time, the accused who was her ex- student, came in her office and demanded his first year mark-sheet from her. She further deposed that the accused had earlier misbehaved with her after consuming liquor and therefore, the Principal of the institute Sh. Manoj had asked her to not to deal with him. Accordingly, she asked him to wait for some time. On this, the accused used filthy language. She stood up and asked him to refrain but the accused caught the collar of her t-shirt and pushed her. Accused also caught her by her neck. She further deposed that accused took out the 'bandook' and pointed at her due to which she got perplexed. Mr. Suman saw it and came for her rescue. She further deposed that she raised a hue and cry hearing which many other persons came inside and tried to overpower the accused but accused was trying to escape. While controlling him, the accused fell down and probably had also sustained injury. In the meanwhile, Manoj also came and with difficulty the accused was caught. She further deposed that after controlling herself she called the police from her mobile phone. The PCR as well as the local police reached the spot and the accused was handed over to the police and the 'bandook' was also given to them. Thereafter, she told all the facts to the police and her statement was recorded which is proved as Ex.PW1/A. Police had taken her to GTB hospital where her MLC was prepared. She further deposed that accused was arrested by the police vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. Police prepared the site plan of the place of incident at her instance which is proved as Ex.PW1/C. The police had seized the gun recovered from the accused and on opening, found bullets inside it. Thereafter, police officials had wrapped it in a white SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 4 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:03:53 +0530 cloth. She further deposed that the accused was a student of their institute in the year 2014. Accused was earlier a good student but subsequently, on one or two occasions, he came in the class after consuming liquor and she instructed him not to come in the class after taking drinks. However, accused did not correct himself and continued appearing in the class after drinks and also misbehaved. Accordingly, she did not give him admission in the second year and rusticated him from the institute. The accused while pointing out the gun at her stated that his future got ruined because of her and therefore, he would kill her. Witness had correctly identified the accused in the Court. Witness also correctly identified the pistol as Ex.PW1/P1 and also identified the cartridge case as Ex.PW1/P2. She further stated that she had deposed in court on her own will and without any coercion, pressure or influence and had made the correct and true deposition. She further deposed that she has only stated in court whatever had happened at the time of incident and she had made the statement truly and voluntarily. This witness has not been cross examined.
6. PW2 ASI Rewa Dhar deposed that on 01.05.2015, he was posted at PS Shahdara and was the Duty Officer from 08:00 am to 04.00 pm and on that day, at about 12.50 pm, Ct. Nanak Chand came to the PS with a rukka sent by SI Subhash Kumar. On the basis of the said rukka, he registered FIR No.262/15, copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW2/A. He made endorsement on the rukka which is proved as Ex.PW2/B. He had also issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is proved as Ex.PW2/C. After recording the FIR, he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Nanak Chand for onward transmission to SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 5 of 30 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:04:01 +0530 SI Subhash Kumar. He had also recorded DD No. 16A dated 01.05.15 at 11.58 am. The DD No.16A is proved as Ex.PW2/D. He further deposed that the contents of the said DD were told to SI Subhash Kumar for necessary action. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
7. PW3 Retired SI Habib Ahmad deposed that on 29.12.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Shahdara and on that day, investigation of present case was marked to him. He had gone through the file. Case property was already sent to the FSL. FSL result was awaited at that time. He had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned court. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
8. PW4 Manoj Kumar deposed that in the year 2015, he was working as Principal of National Institute of Paramedical and Management, F-19, Naveen Shahdara, Near Welcome Metro station. He further deposed that complainant Dimple was working as MD (Managing Director) of National Institute of Paramedical and Management. He further deposed that on 01.05.2015 at about 10.30 AM, he was present in his office of National Institute of Paramedical and Management. On hearing the noise, he reached at the office room of complainant Dimple. Accused Dishant was quarreling with Dimple. He further deposed that Dimple was saying "pakdo pakdo". In the meantime, Suman Sinha, Marketing In-charge and other staff members came there. He alongwith other staff members apprehended the accused Dishant. During apprehension of accused Dishant, accused received injury. He further deposed that accused Dishant was having a country made pistol in his hand. Same was snatched from him by Suman Sinha.
SC No. 254/2019State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 6 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.02.03 KUMAR SETHI SETHI 17:04:07 +0530 Someone made a call to 100 number. After sometime, IO alongwith 2-3 police officials reached there. Suman Sinha handed over the country made pistol (katta) to the IO. IO had checked the said country made pistol and found one cartridge inside the same. IO prepared the sketch of said country made pistol and one cartridge. Same is proved as Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, said country made pistol (katta) was sealed with the seal of SK. Same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. After use, seal was handed over to the Ct. by IO. Accused was handed over to the IO. IO recorded the statement of the complainant Dimple. He further deposed that Dimple informed them that accused came to her office and strangulated her neck with intent to kill her. Accused entered in the office of Dimple on the pretext of asking about his mark-sheet. Dimple further informed them that accused pointed a Katta towards her. Later on, IO recorded his statement. He further deposed that accused Dishant was a student of their institute. Accused and his 3-4 friends used to misbehave with the class teachers in class room and one day accused abused the class teacher. Accused came in the class in drunken condition. He was warned for his conduct. He was rusticated for some days from the institute by Dimple. Witness correctly identified accused in the Court today. Witness also identified the country made pistol having a wooden butt as Ex.PW1/P1. He had also identified the cartridge case which was recovered by the police from inside the above said pistol as Ex.PW1/P2.
9. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW4 stated that he had been working in National Institute of Paramedical and Management for last 12-15 years. The said institute was approved by SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 7 of 30 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.03 SETHI 17:04:22 +0530 NIMS University, Jaipur. He did not remember as to whether accused Dishant had enrolled with them for diploma course or for degree course. He further deposed that at that time, approximately 50 plus students were enrolled with their institute i.e. National Institute of Paramedical and Management. He further deposed that the accused had not passed the course by the date of incident i.e. 01.05.2015. He deposed that accused used to come to institute in drunken condition. He denied the suggestion that accused was not carrying any country made pistol with him at the time of incident. He further deposed that there was no security guard posted on the date of incident in their institute. He did not remember whether accused had passed first year of three years diploma course. He further deposed that the accused did not make any telephone call to him informing that he required his mark-sheet. He denied the suggestion that accused was called by him in the institute to receive mark-sheet. He deposed that accused was carrying pistol at the time of alleged incident. He did not remember as to how many persons were present at the spot when he reached there. He deposed that he had seen the accused carrying country made pistol in his hand. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident as narrated by him in his examination-in-chief or that he deposed as heard by him from other persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW5 HC Gulab Singh deposed that on 01.05.2015, he was posted at PS Shahdara as Ct. and on that day, he was on patrolling duty in beat area of Naveen Shahdara. He further deposed that at around 10:30 AM when he was crossing from F-19, Naveen Shahdara. While patrolling, he heard noise (shor-sharaba) from F-19, where NIPM institute was SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 8 of 30 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:04:30 +0530 situated. He went inside the said institute and saw that one boy had been caught hold by the staff of said institute who was trying to run away. He also helped the staff in overpowering the said boy. On inquiry, name of that boy was revealed as Dishant Singh S/o Malkhan Singh. He further deposed that there was one staff namely Suman, however, he did not remember her complete name now, who handed over to him one country made pistol (desi katta). He further deposed that on inquiry, it was revealed that the accused had abused Dimple Khanna i.e. owner of the said institute and had caught her from her neck and pointed the country made pistol on her. It was also revealed that accused Dishant was the student in the said institute and he was rusticated as he had come to the institute in drunken condition earlier. Suman had snatched the said country made pistol from the accused. He further deposed that in the meantime, SI Subhash alongwith Ct. Nanak Chand came there as a call was already made on 100 number. Accused was handed over to the IO alongwith the country made pistol. IO recorded the statement of Dimple Khanna. IO checked the country made pistol and same was found containing one live cartridge in its chamber. IO prepared the sketch of country made pistol and the live cartridge on white paper and took its measurement. He further deposed that total length of the country made pistol (diagonally) was 26 cm. Length of barrel was 15 cm. Length of the butt was 9 cm and length of body was 9.3 cm. The live cartridge was of 6.7 cm long having the diameter of 1.4 cm. The bottom was engraved with S.K.F. & 315. On both side of butt, wooden strips were fixed. It was made of brass like metal. Sketch of country made pistol and live cartridge is proved as Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, IO kept the country made pistol and the cartridge in white cloth and SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 9 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.03 SETHI 17:04:37 +0530 converted the same into pullanda and sealed the pullanda with the seal of SK. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Nanak Chand. IO seized the pullanda and prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. Accused was personally searched. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW5/A. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that IO recorded the statements of staff Suman, Manoj and supplementary statement of complainant. Accused was taken to Police station and he was got medically examined and was sent to the lockup. Statement of PW5 was recorded by the IO. Witness correctly identified accused Dishant in the court. He had also identified the country made pistol and one fired cartridge in court. The country made pistol as Ex.PW1/P1 and the fired cartridge as Ex.PW1/P2.
11. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW5 stated that he could not recall what was the day on 01.05.2015. He further deposed that the institute was open on that day. There was no security guard at the gate of the institute. There were 3-4 staff members of the institute who had overpowered the accused. He further deposed that name of those persons were Suman Sahi, Dimple Khanna and Manoj. He had not seen any student there at that time. He did not notice if accused Dishant had sustained injury on his head. He further deposed that it is correct that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused was also having some injury. He voluntarily stated that accused might be having minor injury but the witness did not notice the same. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not disclose about the injury to the accused or that his medical examination was not SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 10 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:04:45 +0530 conducted regarding the injury sustained by him. He voluntarily stated that his medical examination was got done by the IO. He further deposed that it is correct that the incident had not taken place in his presence and he heard about the same from the staff members of the institute. He had not recorded the statements of the staff members regarding the incident. He voluntarily stated that IO had recorded the statements. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case in connivance with the staff of NIPM institute. He denied the suggestion that the version of the accused relating to the incident was not deliberately recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that the country made pistol having the cartridge were planted upon the accused in connivance with the owner of the institute to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. He further deposed in his cross examination that he met with only three persons i.e. Dimple Khanna, Manoj and Suman in the institute on the date of incident. He had not seen any student or other staff member in the institute on that day. He had not noticed if any of these three staff members had any injury. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
12. PW6 ASI Sudhakar deposed that the remaining investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO in March 2019. The main charge-sheet had already been filed in the present case by previous IO. The previous IO had sent one country made pistol and one live cartridge recovered from the possession of accused Dishant Singh to FSL vide RC No. 16/21/16. He further deposed that on receipt of FSL result in the police station, the SHO handed over the same to him SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 11 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:04:52 +0530 with directions to prepare a supplementary charge-sheet and file the same before the Court. Thereupon, he applied for and received sanction u/s 39 Arms Act which was approved by the then Addl. DCP-I, Shri Ved Prakash Surya vide order No. 1269/SO/ADDL.DCP-I/ SHAHDARA-DISTT dated 25.03.2019. The sanction is proved as Ex.A2. The FSL report No. FSL2016/F-3636 Dated 30.06.2016 prepared by Dr. M.P. Waghmare is proved as Ex.C1. He prepared the supplementary challan on the basis of FSL result and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act and filed the same before the concerned Court on 26.03.2019. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
13. PW7 Insp. Subhash Kumar deposed that on 01.05.2015, he was posted at PS Shahdra as SI and on that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith Ct. Nanak Chand from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. During his emergency duty, DD No.16A was received regarding quarrel with one lady at F-19, Naveen Shahdara. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Nanak Chand reached at the spot where complainant Dimple Khanna and her staff and our beat staff met them. Complainant Dimple Khanna was director of NIPM Institute. Beat Staff produced accused Dishant whom they had apprehended. He made inquiries from complainant Dimple about the incident and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. One Suman Sinha who was the staff member of Dimple Khanna produced a country made pistol which was recovered from accused Dishant. On checking the said country made pistol, one live cartridge was found. On the basis of statement of complainant, he prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Nanak Chand for getting the FIR registered and he SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 12 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:04:58 +0530 accordingly, left for spot. Rukka is proved as Ex.PW7/Pl. He kept the country made pistol and live cartridge on a white paper and prepared its sketch Ex.PW4/A. Meanwhile, Ct. Nanak Chand returned to spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over same to him. Thereafter, he seized the country made pistol and live cartridge vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. At the instance of complainant, he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/C. He interrogated accused Dishant and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A. Accused Dishant was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW7/P2 respectively. He recorded supplementary statement of Dimple Khanna and statement of public witnesses Suman Sinha and Manoj. The accused was taken to police station. After medical examination, accused was kept behind lockup and case property was deposited in Malkhana. He recorded the statement of Ct. Gulab (beat staff) and Ct. Nanak Chand and on the next day, accused was produced before Court concerned and was sent to JC. During investigation, exhibits were sent to FSL for examination. Thereafter, he got transferred from PS Shahdara and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). Witness correctly identified accused Dishant in the court. Witness had also identified the country made pistol as Ex.PW1/P1 and the test fired cartridge as Ex.PW1/P2. The opportunity to cross examine the witness was closed as ld. Counsel for accused was not available on the said day. Thereafter, application under section 311 CrPC moved on behalf of accused was allowed and PW7 Insp. Subhash Kumar was recalled for his cross examination.
14. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW7 SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 13 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.03 SETHI 17:05:06 +0530 deposed that he had reached the spot at about 11:50 AM. He went to the spot on his personal motorcycle and had left the PS at about 11:39 AM. He denied the suggestion that accused Dishant was not carrying any country made pistol and therefore, no such pistol was found by him at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that the pistol and live cartridge allegedly recovered and seized by him is planted weapon. He denied the suggestion that he made a false case and planted the weapon against accused at the instance of complainant Dimple Khanna. He deposed that he remained at the spot till 03:30-04:00 PM. He deposed it is correct that accused Dishant was injured when he first saw him at the spot. On inquiry, he came to know that accused suffered the said injury when accused was trying to flee away from the spot. He did not come across any CCTV camera at the spot. He denied the suggestion that there was a CCTV camera and the footage thereof was deliberately not seized by him. The site plan Ex.PW1/C was prepared at the instance of complainant, however, he did not receive her signatures on the same. He denied the suggestion that he did not prepare the site plan at the instance of complainant but while sitting in the PS and therefore, it did not bear her signatures. He denied the suggestion that no such incident as alleged by complainant ever took place. He further denied the suggestion that complainant got the accused implicated in the present case due to previous issues/disputes of complainant with accused. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
15. Accused Dishant had admitted the genuineness of medical examination report of complainant/Dimple Khanna dated 01.05.2015 SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 14 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:05:14 +0530 and sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act dated 25.03.2019 as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively under section 294 CrPC on 24.04.2023.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
16. Statement of accused Dishant under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further stated that he was not carrying any Arm at the time of incident and that the 'bandook' in question was planted by one Abhinav Thakur who was the student of the complainant. He also stated that the complainant was not taking any action against unauthorized activities going on in the campus and therefore, he and some of his friends had decided to leave the institute. Upon hearing this, the complainant got upset and asked him to leave the institute after examinations. Accordingly, the accused appeared for the exam. He got a call from the Institute to collect the result. On the fateful day, he went to the Institute where he was told to wait for Mr. Manoj who came after 30-45 minutes. He took the accused inside the cabin of the complainant where he was told that he was lowering the reputation of the institute. He was beaten by Mr. Manoj and some students. The complainant told him that he would implicate the accused in a false case and accordingly, police was called. It is stated that he was not carrying any pistol and the same was planted by Mr. Manoj in connivance with police officials. Accused had opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. DW1 Karanjeet Singh deposed that he had joined a course of Lab Technician at NIPM Institute situated near Welcome Metro station SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 15 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:05:21 +0530 about 10 to 11 years ago. He further deposed that accused Dishant Singh was his neighbor. He deposed that they had studied together at Chaudhary Jaswant Lal Public School, Punjabi Bagh Club Road, Delhi till Matriculation. Accused Dishant had also joined the same course in the same batch. He further deposed that there was a student namely Abhinav Thakur in the same batch/class. Once the said Abhinav Thakur had shown them a document boasting that he had a case going on against him. He further deposed that Abhinav Thakur had also brought a country made pistol in the institute on a couple of occasions and showed the same to them. Accused Dishant made a complaint against Abhinav Thakur to the owner of the institute namely Dimple, who is also the complainant of the present case. No action was taken and the complaint was ignored. He further deposed that somebody made false allegations against accused Dishant that he had attended the institute in inebriated condition once. Later he came to know that the Institute was not authorized. He decided to leave the institute. He further deposed that 4 to 5 other students also decided to leave the institute as neither he nor they intended to continue their studies in an unauthorized institute. Accused Dishant also wanted to leave the institute, however, he had paid the complete annual fees in advance. He was told to complete one year in the institute and seek admission in the second year in some other college/institute. Accused Dishant was called in the institute for collecting his mark-sheet around 1st or 2nd May, 2015. He further deposed that he was accompanying Dishant. DW1 remained outside the institute as he had already left studies in the said institute. He told Dishant to get his work done and return. After about one hour, he observed that one PCR entered the institute. He saw that accused SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 16 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:05:28 +0530 Dishant was brought out by the police officials. Dishant was handcuffed and had injury on his head. He called the elder brother of accused Dishant whose name is Rahul and told him as to what had happened in the institute. Rahul reached the institute and they came to know that Dishant had been taken to the police station and they accordingly went there.
18. During cross examination of DW1 by ld. Addl. PP for the State, he deposed that he was residing at the aforesaid address since the year 2006. He deposed it is correct that he did not enter the institute. He further deposed that it is correct that he did not know as to what exactly happened inside the institute. He did not remember the mobile number of brother of accused Dishant namely Rahul. He was not having any document or ID-card or mark-sheet issued by NIPM Institute. He was not carrying any photograph with accused Dishant which was ever taken in the institute. He denied the suggestion that he never got admission in NIPM. He denied the suggestion that he was never the batch-mate of accused Dishant Singh. He did not make any PCR call when he allegedly saw that his friend was injured. He denied the suggestion that he did not make any PCR call as he never accompanied accused Dishant to the institute. He never made any complaint to any authority informing that his friend Dishant had been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not know if any such complaint was made by brother of accused Dishant. He denied the suggestion that he was an interested witness being the old friend of accused Dishant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
SC No. 254/2019State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 17 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:05:34 +0530
19. DW2 Dishant deposed that he had taken admission in NIPM Institute situated at Naveen Shahdara for the batch 2014-2015 for the course of DLMT (Diploma in Medical Lab Technician). There was one Abhinav Thakur in their batch and Abhinav Thakur used to bring illegal weapons/pistol in the institute. He had complained about the same to Dimple Ma'am who was the Managing Director of the institute at that time. However, she ignored the said complaint and called his parents and told them that he used to consume liquor. Later, he came to know that the said institute was unauthorized. He and his 4-5 friends/batch- mates decided to leave the institute. He went to Dimple Ma'am for the said purpose and she told him that he may leave the institute after the exams which were scheduled next month. However, his other friends left the institute immediately. He appeared in exams and thereafter, left the institute. Thereafter, he called Dimple Ma'am 2 or 3 times and asked for his mark-sheet to which she stated that she shall call him as and when his mark-sheet is available with the institute. On the day of incident i.e. on 01.05.2015 in the morning, he received a call from Dimple Ma'am who asked him to reach institute for getting his mark- sheet. He alongwith his friend Karan went to the institute for getting the mark-sheet. Dimple Ma'am asked him to wait for one Manoj Sir who would come and hand over his mark-sheet to him. After about 35-40 minutes, Manoj Sir came and took him to his cabin. There, Manoj Sir held him from his collar and told him that he and his friends were damaging the reputation of institute and he shall teach him a lesson. In the meantime, 3-4 boys of that institute came from behind and started beating him. He further deposed that Manoj Sir and Dimple Ma'am also extended beatings to him alongwith those 3-4 boys. Blood started SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 18 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.03 SETHI 17:05:44 +0530 oozing out of his head. He further deposed that Dimple Ma'am called Abhinav Thakur and took a weapon from him and planted the same upon him. When police was called in the institute, Dimple Ma'am told them that the said weapon was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, he was taken by the police officials to the PS. He was arrested after registration of FIR. He further deposed that the allegedly recovered country made pistol was not recovered from his possession.
20. During cross examination of DW2 by ld. Addl. PP for the State, he deposed that he was not carrying his ID-card of Institute. He did not remember the mobile number of Dimple Ma'am from which she made a call to him on that day. He further deposed that he was not carrying his written complaint which he had given to Dimple Ma'am against Abhinav Thakur. He volunteered that he had verbally complained about Abhinav Thakur to Dimple Ma'am. He denied the suggestion that he had never made a complaint against Abhinav Thakur to Dimple Ma'am. He further deposed that he was not carrying any document in respect of Abhinav Thakur being the student of above said institute. He did not make any complaint regarding the beatings he allegedly received at the hands of Dimple Ma'am, Manoj Sir and other students, before any authority till date. His parents had also not filed any such complaint. He denied the suggestion that Dimple Ma'am did not call Abhinav Thakur to the institute on the day of incident or that they did not take the alleged weapon from him or that the weapon was not planted upon him and was recovered from his possession. He further denied the suggestion that he had hurled abuses to Dimple Ma'am or that he had caught hold of her from neck or that he had taken out a country made SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 19 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:05:50 +0530 pistol from his back or that pointed the same towards her with intention to kill her. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
21. Written arguments also filed on behalf of complainant. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused Dishant have been heard. Material on record perused and submissions considered.
ARGUMENTS
22. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the story of the prosecution has been proved by way of depositions of prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record. With the assistance of ld. Counsel for the complainant it has been argued that the benefit of PW1 not being cross examined on part of the accused despite opportunity should accrue to the prosecution. PW1 has categorically identified the accused and the case property. Her testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of PW4 Manoj and PW5 HC Gulab Singh. The FSL report Ex.C1 confirms that the weapon is a functional firearm. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that the accused had filed quashing petition before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in which he had categorically sought forgiveness from the complainant. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2022. It is further argued that the accused has himself admitted his presence at the spot of the incident on the day of incident but a concocted false story. It has been lastly argued that the motive of the offence i.e. revenge for rustication, the preparation for the offence i.e. carrying loaded gun and the attempt to commit the offence i.e. threatening the complainant by pointing the SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 20 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:05:57 +0530 gun at her, all have been proved.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no recovery has been effected from the accused. The pistol in question was allegedly snatched from the accused by one Suman who handed it over to the police. The said Suman never came to court for giving his deposition despite several efforts and opportunities. It is also argued that despite repeated attempts, the defence counsel was not given a chance to cross examine the complainant which is a fatal flaw in the case of prosecution itself. It is also submitted that there are glaring discrepancies in the depositions of various witnesses. For instance, PW Manoj had submitted that the accused had sustained injuries during the process of his apprehension. On the other hand, the complainant stated that the accused received injury on falling down. In contrast, PW5 HC Gulab Singh who had reached the spot immediately after the incident did not notice any injury on the accused. Likewise, the complainant stated that there were many other persons inside the room at the time of the incident. Whereas, PW5 stated that he only met three persons i.e. complainant Dimple, one Manoj and one staff member Suman. Therefore, it is argued that the benefit of doubt in the case of prosecution ought to accrue to accused and he ought to be acquitted.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24. This court finds that the version of the prosecution was replicated in the order on charge passed on 23.07.2019. As per this version, accused Dishant had gone to NIPM institute on 01.05.2015 at about 10.30 am. The complainant, who was Managing Director of the SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 21 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.03 SETHI 17:06:03 +0530 Institute, was present at her office with her staff when the accused entered her room. He had earlier been a student of the institute but was rusticated as he was found consuming liquor and abusing. On entering the office, the accused demanded his first year result. The complainant asked him to wait for the Principal. However, the accused started abusing the complainant and caught her by her neck. He also pointed a country made pistol at her, alleging that she had rusticated him and ruined his career. Therefore, he would not spare her. The complainant was saved when she raised a hue and cry and the accused was overpowered by other staff members and handed over to the police.
Injuries and Nature thereof:
25. At the very outset, a bare perusal of the MLC of the complainant shows that she has suffered an abrasion over the left side of the neck having size of 2 cm by 0.1 cm. However, the remaining case of the prosecution depends entirely on the oral testimony of the witnesses and the case property i.e. the Arm.
Motive:
26. The motive behind the incident is alleged to be revenge for rustication of the accused by the complainant. The entire case of the prosecution centers around this motive. However, strangely, the complainant has not presented any document to show that the accused was ever rusticated from the institute. Even the IO has not collected any document from the institute in support of the prosecution version that the accused was used to coming to the institute in drunken condition or had abusive behaviour or that any action was taken against him for the SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 22 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:06:09 +0530 same. It is quite unlikely that no such record would have been available with the institute specially when they had to resort to a step as stern as rustication. In the absence of anything to show the same, the entire narrative of the prosecution /complainant regarding the reasons for commission of the offence falls flat on its face.
Intention:
27. The intention behind alleged commission of offence is to be discerned from the conduct of the accused and the testimony of witnesses regarding such conduct. In this regard, it is observed that the complainant had stated that the accused pointed a country made pistol at her. It is her version that she got perplexed. It is also her version that Mr. Suman saw this and came to her rescue. The complainant's testimony is not clear regarding whether the accused was trying to or about to fire the weapon or how exactly Mr. Suman 'rescued' her. She has merely stated that while pointing out the gun at her, the accused had stated that he would kill her. In this regard, the testimony of other witnesses including PW4 is quite useless as he has categorically stated that the complainant informed him that the accused had pointed the katta towards her. This clearly means that the PW4 did not see the accused pointing the country made pistol at the complainant or extending any threats to her.
28. The best witness to have deposed regarding what had actually transpired would have been Mr. Suman Sinha, who according to the complainant was sitting at a distance and came to her rescue. It is her version that after Mr. Suman Sinha rescued her and other persons also SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 23 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:06:17 +0530 came inside trying to overpower the accused, only then PW4 Manoj also came and the accused was caught. On the other hand, PW4 has stated that it is he who reached the office of the complainant and saw the accused 'quarreling' with her. It is then that he states that Suman Sinha and other staff members came there and Suman Sinha snatched the pistol from the accused. (Thus, according to this witness, when Suman Sinha came and when he was also present in the room, the accused was not pointing the gun at the complainant. Thus, when the gun was allegedly snatched from the accused it was not pointed at the complainant. If one was to harmoniously construe the testimony of the complainant and PW4, one would reach a very strange conclusion that as per the complainant, the accused pointed the gun at the complainant but stopped doing so before PW4 arrived as he was only later on told by the complainant about the gun being pointed at her). It is very important to note here that the said Suman Sinha who is stated to have rescued the complainant, snatched the pistol and handed over the same to the police could never be produced as witness by the prosecution despite efforts being made to serve him through the SHO PS Shahdara as well as the DCP concerned. The witness was ultimately dropped vide order dated 12.12.2024 by the Predecessor of the court. This court is of the opinion that in view of the difference in the narratives given by the complainant and PW4 as well as the complete absence of the central character of the prosecution story namely Suman Sinha, no clear intention to commit any offence is discernible as there is no clear narrative regarding what actually transpired and what was the actual conduct of the accused at that time.SC No. 254/2019
State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 24 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:06:24 +0530 Weapon of Offence (recovery thereof):
29. The star witness that could have appeared on behalf of the prosecution to prove the recovery of the weapon of offence is again the said Suman Sinha who could not be produced before the court. It is this person who allegedly snatched the weapon of offence from the accused and handed over it over to police. This person appears to be an employee of the complainant. It is not the case of prosecution that he is a person trained in combat or having expertise in any use of Arms. The version of the prosecution has to be taken with a pinch of salt as it is quite unnatural for a person without any kind of training to be able to or even try to snatch a loaded pistol from a person who is allegedly about to fire the same. The natural reaction of a layman not used to such scenario could probably be quite different. Even otherwise, the discrepancies already pointed out above cast a shadow of doubt over the alleged recovery of the country made pistol from the accused. The absence of testimony of witness Suman Sinha strengthens this doubt further.
Public Witnesses (absence thereof):
30. While generally the absence of public witnesses is not fatal to the case of prosecution in isolation, in the present case such absence is rather conspicuous. On checking the calendar of the year 2015, it is found that the date of the incident i.e. 01.05.2015 was a Friday. The time of the incident was at about 10.30 am. There is nothing on record to show that the said day was a Holiday. As per PW4, more than 50 students were enrolled in the institute at the time of his deposition. At least a few students would also stand enrolled at the time of the SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 25 of 30 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.03 SETHI 17:06:32 +0530 incident. However, none were met by the investigators or identified. As per PW1/complainant, 'many other persons' had come inside her room to overpower the accused. Yet, PW5 only met three persons i.e. Suman, Dimple and Manoj. He did not see any student there at that time. PW Manoj is the Principal of the institute owned by complainant Dimple. It is of little surprise that he has deposed in favour of the complainant.
Further, the interest of the complainant, as per her own version, does not align with that of the accused due to previous acrimony. In these circumstances, the absence of public witnesses not only appears strange from the given circumstances but also darkens the cloud of doubt already shadowing the prosecution version.
Other inconsistencies:
31. Quite apart from the above are various other discrepancies that cannot be lost sight of. PW Manoj deposed that injury was caused to the accused in the process of his being apprehended. On the other hand, the complainant deposed that the accused got injured because he fell down.
In star contrast to the above, PW5, who was apparently the first police official to reach the spot did not notice any injury on the accused altogether. The presence of PW5 at the spot right at the time of incident also appears to be a rather interesting coincidence. By stroke of luck, he appears to have been patrolling just outside the institute when the accused allegedly chose to attempt shooting the complainant. There was no security guard present. As per PW5 himself, there were only three persons present there apart from the accused. Yet, he could discern that there is something wrong inside the institute while patrolling on the road itself. At one point of time, in his testimony, PW5 has even SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 26 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:06:38 +0530 referred to the missing witness Suman as 'her', perhaps due to the name this witness holds, which raises doubt as to whether PW5 even knew that the missing witness Suman is a male or a female or even met such a person at all. The complainant allegedly made PCR call. However, this call form was never produced or proved. The CDR of the complainant and the accused were never examined to see if the presence of accused at the time of the incident at the institute was an outcome of any previous communication between them. These discrepancies prove to be important pieces missing in the picture that the prosecution wants to paint.
Offence of Criminal intimidation:
32. The prosecution seeks to take advantage of the fact that the complainant was never cross examined on part of the defence.
However, given the observations made above, this fact only further dilutes the case of the prosecution as cross examination of a complainant is one of the most cardinal rights to which an accused is entitled and one, the deprivation of which, vitiates the fairness of a trial. Now it is noteworthy that PW1 was examined in chief on 06.09.2019 and her cross examination was deferred at request of ld. Counsel for the accused who sought adjournment on personal ground. Vide order dated 07.03.2020, it has been recorded that PW1 has been cross examined and discharged. However, cross by Mr. Rakesh Chander Aggarwal, the then ld. Counsel for the accused is Nil despite opportunity being given. An application was moved by the subsequent ld. Counsel for the accused under section 311 CrPC later on but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2024 by the Ld. Predecessor with the observations that the SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 27 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:06:45 +0530 previous counsel did not avail an opportunity to cross examine the witness when granted and rather sought adjournment for pursuing a quashing petition. It is further observed by the Ld. Predecessor that no such quashing petition was ever moved as per the record of the present case. It was also opined that the application had been moved after four years of closure of opportunity despite the fact that the then counsel had been representing the accused for more than two years. It goes without saying that no one can take advantage of his own wrong and the accused, under normal circumstances, would not be given the benefit of avoiding cross examination of a witness. However, the present case appears to be different. It is the previous counsel for the accused who did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity and the subsequent counsel who moved the application for recalling the witness too late. Ordinarily, the mistakes of counsel ought not to prejudice an accused. Be that as it may, subsequently it was also learnt that a quashing petition had also infact been moved on behalf of the accused before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the same was subsequently withdrawn. A fact which has been heavily relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the complainant while assisting the ld. APP. Nevertheless, it is too late in the day to turn back the wheels of time as this court has inherited this matter only at the stage of final arguments only after this case acquired the distinction of being one of the oldest matters pending before this court. Even otherwise, judicial propriety required that the reasoned decision of the Ld. Predecessor rejecting the application for recalling the complainant for cross examination may not be interfered with. However, on account of the glaring discrepancies enumerated above, the absence of the testimony of the complainant SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 28 of 30 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:06:53 +0530 being tested on the anvil of cross examination only strengthens the case of the defence and renders the prosecution story incomplete, hard to believe and full of holes creating doubt, the benefit of which ought to accrue to the accused. On account of these doubts, the court is constrained to disregard the sole piece of medical evidence showing an abrasion on the neck of the complainant as proof of intimidation as this piece of evidence cannot be chosen to be considered in isolation. It has to be seen in the light of the testimony of the complainant which has already been rendered doubtful in view of the glaring discrepancies pointed out above and on account of lack of cross examination. Thus, like other offences with which the accused is charged, it is doubtful if the offence of criminal intimidation also ever took place.
33. The reliance on the quashing petition being filed alongwith final arguments on part of the ld. Counsel for the complainant appears to be misplaced as the same merely refers to the accused seeking forgiveness.
It is not known what exactly is he seeking forgiveness for. The quashing petition has been withdrawn without any comments on its merits. This petition has not been put to the accused in his cross examination even when he dared to forego the immunity granted to him by law and take to the witness box. Thus, this quashing petition cannot be taken as an extra judicial confession by any stretch of imagination.
Conclusion:
34. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances present on record, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Dishant Singh was SC No. 254/2019 State vs. Dishant Singh FIR No. 262/2015 PS Shahdara Page No. 29 of 30 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.03 17:07:01 +0530 involved in commission of offences with which he is charged and the benefit of all the doubts plaguing the prosecution story ought to accrue to the accused. The accused accordingly stands acquitted of all charges.
35. File be consigned to Record Room.Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH Announced in open Court KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
on the 3rd February 2026 SETHI 2026.02.03
17:07:08 +0530
(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
Addl. Sessions Judge-05
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 254/2019
State vs. Dishant Singh
FIR No. 262/2015
PS Shahdara
Page No. 30 of 30