Delhi District Court
State vs Veer Singh @ Veeru on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 1051/2018
State Vs : Veer Singh @ Veeru
FIR No. : 22/2018
U/s : 307/506/120-B of IPC & 25/54/59 of
Arms Act.
PS : Preet Vihar
CNR No.: DLET01-003913-2018
Date of Institution : 08.06.2018
Date of Judgment reserved on 14.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.05.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Offence complained of or
proved : 307/506/120-B of IPC &
25/54/59 of Arms Act &
174-A of IPC.
Name of the accused : (i) Veer Singh @ Veeru
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o F-153/1, Ramesh
Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
(ii) Surender Sodhi @
Shammi S/o Late Sh. Ram
Chand R/o D-33, Gali
Dharam Shala Wali, Main
Market, Shakarpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar
State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 1 of 70
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Both accused are
acquitted of all the
charges framed against
them.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Veer Singh @ Veeru and Surender Sodhi @ Shammi are facing trial for commission of offences u/s 307/34 & 506/34 of IPC. In addition, accused Surender Sodhi @ Shammi is also facing trial for commission of offences u/s 174-A of IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that :-
(a) On 14.12.2018, information regarding incident of firing at house no. 69, IInd Floor, Chitra Vihar, Preet Vihar, Delhi was received in police station Preet Vihar. The said information was recorded vide DD no. 7A and it was conveyed that brother of caller had been shot. The aforementioned information was transmitted to SI Ramesh Lal. Thereafter, SI Ramesh Lal alongwith Ct. Pawan went to the place of incident and met Smt. Alka Gupta i.e. wife of injured and she disclosed that Shammi and Javed, who were well known to her husband and son had turned up at their house at 6/6:15 AM. She opened the door and also served water to both of them. Then, she went to the room of her daughter Bhakti Gupta and after sometime FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 2 of 70 they heard sound of gunshot from the bedroom of her husband and she alongwith her daughter Bhakti ran to the said room and saw that her husband was lying drenched in his blood on the bed.
She also informed the IO that accused Shammi had pointed the revolver towards her husband and Javed was trying to protect him by intervening. Then, accused Shammi pointed the revolver towards her and fled away from the spot by giving threats to kill their entire family. Subsequently, her daughter Bhakti with the help of Javed took her husband to Max Hospital.
(b) In the meanwhile, Insp. Sanjeev Kumar Verma came to the spot and he informed the control room to send Crime Team at the spot and then he also went to Max Hospital. After sometime, the crime team of East District came to the spot and SI Ramesh Lal got the spot inspected. The crime team took photographs of the bedroom of Ravi Gupta. Blood stained bedsheet, stained electric heating pad and blood spilled on the floor were lifted and seized. The floor of the room had been cleaned with water. Moreover, no gunshot sign or empty cartridge was found at the spot.
(c) After the crime team left the spot, SI Ramesh Lal and Ct. Pawan went to Max Hospital and found that injured Ravi Gupta was under treatment. On his MLC, the doctor had reported that he was brought with alleged history of gunshot as given by the patient himself. The patient was also declared fit for FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 3 of 70 statement, but the opinion about nature of injury was reserved. SI Ramesh Lal recorded statement of Ravi Gupta in the hospital and the complainant stated that on 14.12.2018 at about 6/6:15 AM, Javed and Surender Sodhi @ Shammi who were already known to him and his son Shakti Gupta came to their house. His wife opened the door and went to other room where her daughter Bhakti Gupta was present with her minor child. Shammi and Javed came to his bedroom and his wife served water to them and went out. Accused Shammi told him that his nephew Veer Singh @ Veeru and son of complainant Shakti Gupta had an altercation with each other at BW Club situated in Surya Hotel, Delhi and he wanted to talk about it. Thereafter, accused Shammi took out a revolver from his pocket and fired a bullet upon him and accused started threatening to kill his entire family. Javed caught hold of Shammi and accused Shammi also pointed the revolver at his wife. His daughter Bhakti with the help of Javed brought him to Max Hospital and accused Shammi had shot him with intention to kill him.
(d) SI Ramesh Lal also met Javed in Max Hospital and he stated that he had also sustained injuries while he was trying to intervene and SI Ramesh Lal obtained his MLC bearing no. 7501/18. The doctors at Max Hospital handed over a sealed pullanda to him. On the basis of statement of injured and MLC offence u/s 307/506 of IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act was found FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 4 of 70 to have been committed. He sent Ct. Pawan to police station alongwith rukka for registration of FIR.
(e) During investigation, SI Ramesh Lal prepared site plan at the instance of Smt. Alka Gupta and he also seized blood stained bedsheet and heating pad. He also seized the blood stained clothes and slippers which were handed over to him by the hospital administration in sealed condition. He deposited the above-said articles in Malkhana and recorded statement of witness u/s 161 Cr. PC. SI Ramesh Lal also recorded supplementary statement of complainant Ravi Gupta, wherein he disclosed that Veer Singh @ Veeru i.e. nephew of accused Shammi was also accompanying accused Shammi at the time of incident.
(f) The injured was shifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. On 15.02.2018, DD no. 25B was received from Medanta Hospital and SI Ramesh Lal went there. The security staff of said hospital handed over sealed pullanda containing bullet recovered from the body of injured and a sample seal to him. He seized the same and prepared memo and deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS.
(g) IO placed mobile phone of accused on surveillance. He obtained CCTV footage of place of incident of BW Club, NFC and DVR of CCTV Camera installed outside the house of complainant and also took the footage of same in a CD.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 5 of 70
He sealed the said articles with seal of RL and deposited the same in Malkhana.
(h) From the call detail record, it was discovered that on the day of incident Surender Sodhi had called injured from mobile no. 9999156756 and he wanted to meet complainant for apologizing with respect to incident which had taken place between him and his son Shakti Gupta at BW Club, NFC.
(i) During investigation, accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was arrested from Sector-7, Chandigarh in a Mercedez car bearing No. DL-10CP-6999 and cash amount of Rs. 8.5 lakhs was also recovered from the said car. The car was found to be registered in the name of Roma International Company and the same had been returned to insurance company after an accident. Thereafter, it had been sold once or twice and a car dealer namely Karan Lakra stated that he had finally sold the car to Surender @ Shammi.
(j) The injuries sustained by complainant were declared life threatening. CCTV footage in CD and DVR were sent to FSL for opinion. The call detail record/CAF were obtained and chargesheet qua accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was filed in the court. Efforts were made to arrest accused Surender Sodhi @ Shammi and NBW's were issued by the concerned court. Subsequently, process u/s 82 Cr. PC was issued against accused Shammi.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 6 of 70
(k) On 02.07.2018, the court of Sh. Amit Arora, ld. ACMM, KKD declared accused Surender as proclaimed offender. On 09.01.2019, SI Shashank of PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi gave telephonic information in PS Preet Vihar that Surender had been arrested by the police officials of Special Cell in FIR no. 2/19 u/s 25 of Arms Act and he will be produced in the court. IO SI Ramesh Lal collected the photocopies of documents from SI Shashank of PS Special Cell and recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC. On 14.01.2019, accused Surender @ Shammi was produced in the court of ld. ACMM on the issuance of production warrants. IO took permission from the court and interrogated accused Surender and formally arrested him. On 15.01.2019 SI Ramesh Lal alongwith HC Prashant went to Central Jail, Tihar and interrogated accused Surender @ Shammi. Accused Surender @ Shammi disclosed that they had fled away on Mercedez car after commission of offence. He also disclosed that he had concealed the revolver used in commission of offence in a farm house between Chandigarh and Shimla Road and he had got the said weapon recovered to the police officials of Special Cell. SI Lalit moved an application and accused Surender was remanded to police custody for four days. The pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at his instance. The said accused made another disclosure statement and disclosed that on 04.01.2019 he was carrying a pistol with FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 7 of 70 five rounds i.e. when the police official had arrested him. At that time accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was standing near him and he handed over the revolver to him. Efforts were made to recover the weapon of offence, but it could not be recovered. The supplementary chargesheet was prepared and it was submitted in the court.
(m) FSL result vis-a-vis articles seized during investigation i.e. clothes of complainant, bedsheet and electric heat pad was collected and the supplementary chargesheet was filed in the court.
3. After completion of necessary legal formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C the case files were committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 04.09.2018 charge u/s 307/34 IPC & 506/34 IPC was framed against accused Veer Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.05.2019 charge u/s 307/34 & 506/34 of IPC as well as 27 of Arms Act and u/s 174-A IPC was also framed against accused Surender Sodhi @ Shammi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined 29 witnesses. The accused persons admitted the FSL report Ex. PX and PCR Form dated 14.02.2018 DD no. 7A as Ex. PY. The ld. Addl. PP for the State also gave a statement and dropped PW FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 8 of 70 Mohd. Azaz. A brief account of the depositions made by the witnesses of prosecution is reproduced herein below:-
Evidence of Complainant/Victim/Injured:-
5. PW-1 Ravi Gupta deposed that on 14.02.2018 at about 4.00 a.m., accused Surender Sodhi called him from the mobile phone of accused Veer Singh @ Veeru having number 9999156756 and told him that a quarrel had taken place between Veer Singh alongwith Surender Sodhi and his son Shakti Gupta and accused told him that he wanted to meet him at his house in order to settle the issue. Then, at about 6/6:15 am, accused Veer Singh @ Veeru alongwith accused Surender Sodhi and Javed came to his and rang the door bell. His wife opened the door as all of them were known to his family. After opening the door, his wife went to the room of his daughter and accused Veeru and Surender Sodhi alongwith Javed came inside his room and accused Surender Sodhi also touched his feet. In the meanwhile his wife came there and served water and then she went outside.
Accused Surender told him that quarrel had taken place between him and his son and thereafter Surender Sodhi went inside the attached bathroom. After coming out of the bathroom, accused Surender Sodhi shot him from a revolver and the bullet hit on his right shoulder. In the meanwhile, accused Veer Singh said 'Khatam kar do saale ko' and Javed caught hold of Surender Sodhi and tried to stop him. Once again accused Surender Sodhi tried to fire upon him. After hearing sound of fire, his wife and FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 9 of 70 daughter came inside his room. Accused Surender Sodhi pointed revolver towards his wife and stated that 'Aaj tumhare pure parivar ko khatam kar dunga'. Then, accused Surender Sodhi set himself free from Javed and ran away alongwith accused Veer Singh. Thereafter he was shifted to Max Hospital by his daughter and Javed. Police came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PWI/A. He further stated that accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi had come to his house on the pretext of compromising the matter, but both of them wanted to finish him and his family. He deposed that on the previous night, accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi gave beatings to his son Shakti Gupta at Surya Hotel, NFC club. He identified photographs of his house i.e. place of incident Ex. PW2/A (colly). He also correctly identified the clothes etc which he was wearing at the time incident i.e. one pair of slippers, one small towel, one underwear and one lower i.e. Ex. P1 (colly). He further identified the bed sheet which was lying on the bed on the day of incident Ex. P2 and electric heating pad Ex. PW3. He also correctly identified both accused in the court. Evidence of Other Eye-Witnesses:
6. PW-5 Ms. Alka Gupta i.e. wife of complainant deposed that on 14.02.2018, at about 6.15 am, she was present at her house alongwith her husband and her daughter Bhakti Gupta.
She heard the door bell of her house and upon checking the camera connected with the door bell she noticed that accused FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 10 of 70 Veer Singh alongwith Surender Sodhi and Javed were present there. Since all of them were already known to her and her family, she opened the door. Then, accused Veer Singh, Surender as well as Javed entered in the bed room of her husband and she served water to all of them. Her husband Ravi Gupta was present in that bedroom and was using electric heating pad. Thereafter, she went inside the room of her daughter. After 3/4 minutes, she heard the sound of firing of bullet. She alongwith her daughter rushed towards the bed room of her husband and noticed that her husband was lying in the pool of blood on the double bed and accused Surender Sodhi was standing there by pointing a gun towards her husband. After seeing her, accused Surender Sodhi pointed gun towards her. Javed was trying to stop accused Surender Sodhi. After pointing gun towards her, accused Surender Sodhi shouted "tujhe jaan se maar dunga". Accused Veer Singh was also standing there and he was also having a pistol in his hand. Accused Surender Sodhi freed himself from Javed and threatened her by saying "tere saare parivar to khatm kar dunga". Accused Veer Singh also threatened them by saying "tujhe to baad meing dekh lunga". Thereafter, accused Surender Sodhi and Veer Singh fled away from the spot. However, Javed remained there and he helped them. Her daughter Bhakti Gupta and Javed took her husband to MAX Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. She remained alone at the house and she became nervous upon seeing blood on the floor FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 11 of 70 and tried to mop the floor with the help of wiper. After sometime, police officials came to her house and they took photographs of her house Ex. PW2/A (colly). Police officials seized the electric heating pad and bed sheet of double bed of their bedroom. Thereafter, police officials recorded her statement. She identified bed sheet Ex. P-2 and electric pad Ex. P-3 and also correctly identified both accused in the court.
7. PW-7 Ms. Bhakti Gupta i.e. daughter of complainant deposed that on 14.02.2018, she was present in her room in their house no. 69, IInd Floor, Chitra Vihar, Delhi. At about 6.15 am, she heard the door bell and her mother opened the door of house and came back to her room and told her that accused Veer Singh alongwith Surender Sodhi and Javed had come to their house. All of them had gone to the room of her father. After 2-3 minutes, they heard sound of firing of bullet from the bedroom of her father. She alongwith her mother immediately rushed to the bedroom of her father and noticed that her father was lying in the pool of blood on his bed and accused Surender Sodhi was standing there by pointing a revolver towards her father. Accused Javed was trying to stop accused Surender Sodhi. Accused Veer Singh was also standing there alongwith a pistol. Accused Surender Sodhi pointed out his revolver towards her mother and "Pure Pariwar Ko Jaan Se marne Ki Dhamki Di'. Accused Veer Singh also told her mother that "Tujhe to Mein Baad Me Dekh Lunga". Accused Veer Singh FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 12 of 70 and Surender Sodhi ran away from the spot while threatening to kill the whole family. She made a call at 100 number and informed the police about the incident. She with the help of Javed took her father to Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. Later on her father was shifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon on the same day. IO recorded her statement on the same day at Medanta Hospital. She also deposed that if Javed would not have been there, accused Veer Singh and Surender would have killed her family. She correctly identified accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi in the court.
Other Public Witnesses:-
8. PW-15 Shakti Gupta deposed that on 13.02.2018 he went to Cannaught Place and met his friend Javed. From there, both of them went to Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-02. At about 12:00 am, they went to BW Club, Surya Hotel and saw accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi present there as he already knew them. Accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi confronted him by saying that he had made several complaints against them and then both of them threatened him. He got scared and called police at 100 number, however, since they were present in the basement of the hotel, the phone call did not connect. Javed remained there and he ran away from there. He reached NFC Police Station and complained to police that the criminals who had already attacked upon them earlier were present in Surya Hotel. The police told him to go back and stated that they would FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 13 of 70 come to the same hotel a little later and also stated that they would catch them red handed. He went back to BW Club, Surya Hotel. Accused Veer Singh and Surender were already present in the lobby of the club. Accused Veer Singh caught hold of him from his hair and Surender Sodhi started beating him. Surender Sodhi also gave a blow of his forehead on the bridge area of his nose due to which he started bleeding. Police officials were present there and they intervened and saved him. He called his father Sh. Ravi Gupta and narrated the incident to him. Thereafter, accused Surender Sodhi called his father and apologized for the incident. He again received call from his father and his father asked him not to press complaint against both accused as they were criminal elements and since accuesd Veer Singh was seeking forgiveness they should not proceed further with the complaint. thereafter he left the hotel and went to the house of his friend Jonny at Safdarjung Enclave and slept there. On the next morning at about 10:30/11:00 am he received a call from his sister Ms. Bhakti Gupta that Shammi, Veeru and Javed had come to their house in the morning and had shot a bullet on his father. He rushed to Medanta Hospital from there. There he came to know that Javed had tried to save his father from accused Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi. He correctly identified accused Veer Singh in the court.
9. PW-11 Sh. Karan Lakra deposed that in the year 2017, he was running a showroom of sale of used cars at shop FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 14 of 70 no. 3 and 4 with the name and style of Car X Change at Karkardooma Village. In the month of April/ May, 2017 he had purchased Mercedez Benz car bearing no. DL..6999 from RK International through brokers Anwar Saifi, Sayad and Rashid after making payment of Rs. 10 lacs. He had sold the aforesaid car to Surender Sodhi for a consideration of Rs. 11.50 lacs approximately. He had handed over all the papers pertaining to the aforesaid car to Surender Sodhi. He informed Surender Sodhi that the aforesaid vehicle had met with an accident. The said car was registered in the name of Roma International Pvt. Ltd. He identified accused Surender Sodhi in the court. He also identified car in the photographs i.e. Ex. PW11/A.
10. PW-14 Sh. Parvez Alam deposed that on 01.02.2017, he alongwith Mohd. Aijaz had purchased Mercedez car bearing no. DL10CB6999 from Future General Insurance Company and it was registered in the name of Roma International Company, Wazipur Industrial Area. He purchased the said car through worker Shahnawaz for consideration of Rs. 5,35,000/-. He had sold the said car to one Sazid Saifi who belonged to Meerut for a consideration of amount of Rs. 5, 45,000/-. Sazid Saifi had repaired the car and sold the same to Karan. IO had issued notice to him to provide the details/papers of aforesaid car and he had handed over the letter and documents Ex. PW14/A to the IO. He correctly identified the photograph of the said car as Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW14/P1.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 15 of 70
11. PW-17 Mohit Sharma i.e. Manager, BW Club, Surya Hotel deposed that on 22.02.2018, at the request of IO he showed the CCTV footage of front portion of bar of the club as well as of the entry gate to the IO. After watching the footage, IO asked him to give copy of CCTV footage vide notice Mark PW17/A. Thereafter, he gave the video of CCTV footage of the particular timings in a pendrive to the IO. IO seized the aforesaid pendrive vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. He also gave a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW17/C to the IO.
12. PW-27 Pawan Singh i.e. Nodal Officer, Vodafone proved CAF of the mobile no. 9999156756 (alongwith DL and copy of sim card) and CDR as Ex. PW27/A. He also stated that the said number was issued in the name of Harshit Saxena. He also proved forwarding letter issued by Israr Babu as Ex. PW27/B. He identified signature of Israr Babu on the aforesaid documents and letter.
13. PW-16 Harshit Saxena deposed that the Vodafone mobile number 9999156756 was registered in his name at his address. He had given the said sim for use to his friend Veer Singh @ Veeru and his friend was using the said sim.
14. PW-28 Surender Kumar i.e. Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved the CAF of mobile no. 9313305232 and CDR (from 13.02.2018 to 21.03.2018) as well as certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW28/A (colly). He also stated that FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 16 of 70 as per CAF the aforesaid number was issued in the name of Mr. Ravi Gupta.
Medical Evidence :-
15. PW-12 Dr. Azhar Perwaiz i.e. Sr. Consultant, GI Surgery, Medanta Hospital deposed that after going through operation theatre record, discharge summary and in patient file record of patient Ravi Gupta, he had given the opinion regarding the nature of injury as 'life threatening if not treated'. He proved the said opinion Ex. PW12/A and also proved the aforesaid medical record of patient Ravi Gupta as Ex. PW12/B.
16. PW-13 Dr. Bharti i.e. JR, Max Hospital deposed that on 14.02.2018 at about 7:10 am one injured Ravi Gupta was brought to the hospital. She examined the said injured and prepared his detailed MLC i.e. Ex. PW13/A.
17. PW-26 Dr. Sanjay Durani i.e. M. S. Medanta Hospital deposed that Foreign Body Handover Form dated 14.02.2018 Ex. PW26/A was prepared by Dr. Kapil. He identified signature of Dr. Kapil on the said form. He also stated that as per Ex. PW26/A a bullet was recovered during surgery from the body of patient Ravi Gupta. He also proved the treatment papers of patient as Ex. PW26/B. Expert Evidence:-
18. PW-25 Dr. Puneet Puri Asst. Director, FSL, Rohini deposed that on 30.05.2019, one sealed parcel sealed with the FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 17 of 70 seal of DSP was marked to him for examination. Seals on the parcel were intact. On opening the parcel, one deformed lead bullet was taken out and it was marked as Ex. EB1. He examined the said bullet and prepared his detailed report Ex.
PW25/A. He also deposed that the deformed bullet was corresponding to the bullet of .32 inch cartridge. The bullet marked Ex. EB1 was a part of ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. The exhibit was then resealed with the seal of PP FSL DELHI.
Evidence of Police Witnesses:-
19. PW-4 ASI Sohanbir Singh deposed that on 14.02.2018 at about 11.20 am, he received ruqqa from Ct. Pawan and made endorsement i.e. Ex. PW 4/A on it and got the FIR Ex. PW4/B registered through W/Ct. Nitu of CEPA.
20. PW-2 ASI Sanjeev deposed that on 14.02.2018, he alongwith SI Rajiv reached at H.No. 69, II Floor, Chitra Vihar, Delhi and met IO Ramesh Lal alongwith other police officials.
He took photographs of the spot i.e. Ex. PW2/A from different angles. He also proved negatives of said photographs as Ex. PW 2/B.
21. PW-3 SI Rajeev Kumar deposed that on 14.02.2018, on receipt of information from control room, he alongwith his crime team reached at H.No. 69, II Floor, Chitra Vihar, Preet Vihar, Delhi and met IO/SI Ramesh Lal. Finger print expert tried FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 18 of 70 to find chance prints, but the same could not be found. ASI Sanjeev (Photographer) took photographs of the spot from different angles. IO seized the blood stained bed sheet and one heating pad (having blood stains). Thereafter, he prepared detailed SOC report Ex.PW 3/A.
22. PW-6 HC Tara Chand deposed that on 14.02.2018, he was posted in crime team as a finger print proficient. On receiving call from control room, he alongwith his crime team headed by SI Rajeev Kumar reached at H.No.69, 2nd floor, Chitra Vihar, Preet Vihar, Delhi. ASI Sanjeev was the photographer. He inspected the spot and tried to find chance print, but he did not get any chance print over there. I/C Rajeev Kumar prepared scene of crime visit report Ex.PW3/A.
23. PW-8 HC Rajbeer, PW-9 HC Kapil and PW-10 SI Abodh Kumar deposed that on 21.03.2018, they went to Sector 7, Panchkula, Chandigarh in search of accused persons namely Surender Sodhi and Veer Singh as their mobile phone locations were found at Sector 7, Panchkula. They were present at Sector 7, Panchkula and in the meanwhile a secret informer informed SI Abodh that accused Veer Singh was purchasing a flat in Chandigarh and he was about to come near Mandir. After sometime a Mercedez came there and stopped near Mandir and accused Veer Singh came out of the car and one Rajesh (property dealer) was also seated in the car. Information was given to FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 19 of 70 Police Post Sector 7, Panchkula. Cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs was recovered from the possession of accused Veer Singh. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi and custody of accused Veer Singh and case property were handed over to SI Ramesh. Accused Veer Singh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/B. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Veer Singh i.e. Ex. PW8/C. Cash of Rs. 8.50 lacs was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. Car DL10CB6999 was also seized vide memo Ex. PW8/E. Accused Veer Singh was asked about Rs. 8.50 lacs and Mercedez car but he did not give any satisfactory answer. On 22.03.2018 accused Veer Singh was further interrogated and his supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW8/F was recorded. They also proved pointing out memo of place of occurrence as Ex. PW8/G. They identified accused accused Veer Singh in the court.
PW-10 SI Abodh also identified the aforesaid car bearing no. DL-10CB-6999 in the photographs alongwith copies of order dated 21.05.2s019 and 25.05.2019 i.e. Ex. PW11/A.
24. PW-18 Insp. Shashank deposed that on 04.01.2019, investigation of the case FIR No. 2/19 u/s 25/54/59, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road, New Delhi was marked to him. He reached the spot i.e. Moti Nagar, Punjabi Bagh Fly Over, Ring Road, Delhi and met SI Lakhan, HC Ajay and Ct. Sandeep. SI Lakhan FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 20 of 70 handed over a sealed property with the seal of the Spl Cell NDR-5 alongwith seizure memo and sketch of the pistol/magazine and live round to him. SI Lakhan also handed over custody of accused Surender Sodhi to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Lakhan. He arrested accused Surender Sodhi vide memo Mark PW18/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Mark PW18/B. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Surender Sodhi Mark PW18/C. Accused Surender Sodhi also made disclosure regarding his involvement in the present case. He also proved copy of seizure memo Mark PW18/D and copy of sketch Mark PW18/E. He also proved copy of FIR No. 2/19 u/s 25/54/59, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Mark PW18/F. He further deposed that on 09.01.2019, he informed Duty Officer of PS Preet Vihar about arrest of accused Surender Sodhi in FIR No. 2/19 of of PS Special Cell vide DD No. 27-B of PS Preet Vihar as he was wanted in the FIR of the present case. IO of the present case recorded his statement and he handed over the copy of arrest related documents to the IO.
25. PW-19 ASI Ajay deposed that on 04.01.2019, SI Lakhan Singh received secret information regarding whereabouts of accused Surender Sodhi. Thereafter, he alongwith alongwith SI Lakhan Singh, HC Rakesh and other police officials went to Punjabi Bagh Fly Over, Ringh Road. SI Lakhan requested public persons to join investigation but no one agreed. After some time FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 21 of 70 a person came from Ring Road side towards Punjabi Bagh Fly Over and at the pointing of secret informer, he himself and SI Lakhan apprehended accused Surender Sodhi. SI Lakhan conducted casual search of accused Surender Sodhi and a pistol alongwith five live cartridges were recovered from him. SI Lakhan sent information and FIR No. 2/19 of PS Special Cell was registered against accused Surender Sodhi. IO seized the aforementioned weapons and cartridges and prepared seizure memo Mark PW18/D. SI Lakhan prepared rough sketch of the pistol and live cartridges Mark PW18/E. Further investigation of case was assigned to SI Shashank who came to the spot. SI Lakhan handed over the custody of accused, recovered pistol and live cartridges as well as prepared documents to SI Shashank. SI Shashank prepared site plan at the instance of SI Lakhan. SI Shashank recorded disclosure statement of accused Surender Sodhi i.e. PW18/C and arrested accused Surender vide memo Ex. PW19/A. IO also conducted personal search of accused Surender vide memo Ex. PW19/B. Accused Surender had disclosed about his involvement in the present case.
26. PW-20 ASI Anjay Singh deposed that on 09.01.2019, he received information from Special Cell, South Range regarding arrest and production of accused Surender Sodhi in case FIR No. 2/19 of PS Special Cell in Patiala House Court. The information was transmitted to SI Ramesh Lal and FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 22 of 70 SHO PS Preet Vihar. He recorded said information vide DD entry No. 27B dated 09.01.2019 Ex. PW20/A.
27. PW-21 HC Prashant deposed that on 15.01.2019, he alongwith IO SI Ramesh Lal went to Tihar Jail and met accused Surender Sodhi. IO SI Ramesh Lal interrogated accused Surender Sodhi and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW21/A and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/B.
28. PW-22 HC Manoj i.e. MHC (M) deposed that on 21.02.2019, he handed over sealed exhibits to IO SI Ramesh Lal vide RC No. 130/21/19 dated 21.02.2019 Mark PW22/A for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini. On the same day IO handed over the acknowledgment Mark PW22/B to him.
29. PW-23 SI Lalit deposed that on 16.01.2019, case file of the present case was marked to him. On that day, he went to the court and moved an application for extension of J/C remand of accused Surender Sodhi. On 19.01.2019, accused Surender Sodhi was remanded to police custody for four days. On 20.01.2019, he interrogated accused Surender Sodhi and recorded his supplementary statement Ex.PW23/A. On the same day i.e. 20.01.2019 he alongwith Ct. Rajbir, Ct. Kapil and accused Surender Sodhi went to H.No. 69, Chitra Vihar, Delhi. Accused Surender Sodhi led them there and at his instance he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW23/B. He also prepared site plan at the instance of accused Surender Sodhi i.e. Ex. PW23/C. In the next two days he tried to search accused Veer Singh FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 23 of 70 @Veeru but he could not be found. On 23.01.2019, accused Surender was remanded to judicial custody. He handed over the case file to main IO of the case i.e. SI Ramesh Lal.
30. PW-29 HC Pawan deposed that on 14.02.2018 on receipt of DD no. 7-A, he alongwith IO SI Ramesh Lal went to the spot i.e. A-69, Second Floor, Chitra Vihar and met Smt. Alka Gupta W/o Sh. Ravi Gupta who informed them that her daughter Bhakti with the help of Javed had taken her injured husband to Max Hospital. In the meanwhile, Insp. Sanjeev also came at the spot and called crime team and himself left for Max hospital. Crime team came to the spot and took photographs. No chance print or finger prints were found at the spot nor any empty cartridge of the bullet was found there. They noticed that there were blood stains on a heating pad and bed sheet and some blood on the floor had been cleaned up with water and wiper. IO directed Smt. Alka Gupta not to open the room where incident had taken place. Then he alongwith IO went to Max hospital and collected MLC of injured Ravi Gupta. IO recorded statement of Ravi Gupta and prepared tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS Preet Vihar, after getting the FIR registered he returned back to spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO.
IO prepared site plan at the instance of Smt. Alka Gupta. He sealed the bed sheet and heating pad with the seal of RL and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/C. IO FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 24 of 70 recorded statement of Smt. Alka Gupta. In his evidence, the witness identified bed sheet and electric heating pad which were recovered from the spot i.e. Ex.P2 & P3 respectively. Evidence of Investigating Officer:
31. PW-24 Retd. SI Ramesh Lal i.e. IO of the case deposed that on 14.02.2018, on receipt of DD no.7 regarding incident of firing of bullet, he alongwith Ct. Pawan Kumar went to 69, Chitra Vihar, Delhi and met Smt. Alka W/o Sh. Ravi Gupta who narrated the incident to him and stated that Surender Sodhi @ Shammi and Javed had come to their house at about 6/6:15 AM and Surender Sodhi had shot her husband and threatened to kill all of them. She also stated that her daughter Bhakti Gupta and Javed had taken Ravi Gupta to Max Hospital, Patpargunj. Insp. Sanjeev Kumar also came to the spot and he called the crime team. He alongwith Ct. Pawan remained at the spot. He saw that Smt. Alka Gupta had cleaned the floor by wiping the blood which had spilled on the floor. After sometime police officials of crime team came to the spot and took photographs. They also lifted finger print impressions from the spot. He instructed the crime team to go to attached bathroom where co- accused Surender Sodhi had loaded his revolver. The said officials also inspected the outside part of the house and the area where switch of door bell was affixed. The crime team also lifted fingerprint impressions from the main door of house and FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 25 of 70 the switch of door bell. Crime team officials instructed him to take the bed sheet and electric heating pad from the room. He instructed Ms. Alka Gupta not to enter in the said room. He alongwith Ct. Pawan went to Max Hospital, Patpargunj and he obtained MLC of Ravi Gupta. He also recorded statement of Ravi Gupta Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW24/A on it. In the meanwhile, he met Javed in the hospital who informed that he too had sustained injuries while he was trying to intervene. MLC of Javed had also been prepared, but Javed stated that he did not want any action with respect to injuries sustained by him. Dr. Bharti handed over a sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of Max Hospital containing the clothes of injured to him. The said pullanda was not properly sealed at that time and the hospital authorities asked him to collect it later on. He prepared rukka and sent Ct. Pawan to PS for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. house of complainant at Chitra Vihar. He played the CCTV footage of camera installed outside the house, but it was not in working condition. There was another camera installed at the entrance of ground floor of the block. Two persons were seen going inside the said block, but their faces were not clearly visible in the said footage. Ct. Pawan came to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of Ms. Alka Gupta i.e. Ex.PW24/B. He prepared pullanda of bedsheet FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 26 of 70 and electric heating pad and sealed the same with the seal of RL and seized it vide memo Ex.PW24/C. He recorded statement of Ms. Alka Gupta u/s 161 Cr.PC. He again went to Max Hospital, Patpargunj and met Javed who told him that injured Ravi Gupta had been shifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. The hospital officials handed over the pullanda containing clothes of Ravi Gupta to him which was seized vide memo Ex. PW24/D. He recorded statement of Javed u/s161 Cr.PC in the hospital. He directed Ct. Pawan to take Javed to police station for the purpose of interrogation. Thereafter, he went to Medanta Hospital at Gurugram and met Ms. Bhakti Gupta and Sh. Shakti Gupta who informed that Sh. Ravi Gupta was being taken to ICU. He recorded statement of Ravi Gupta u/s 161 Cr.PC and he stated that Veer Singh @ Veeru was also involved in the offence. He recorded statement of Ms. Bhakti Gupta u/s 161 Cr.PC and she also named Veer Singh @ Veeru in it. He also recorded statement of Sh. Shakti Gupta u/s 161 Cr.PC. He again went to the spot and inquired from the neighbours and checked CCTV cameras installed near the house of complainant. He went to gate no. 3 of the colony, but he did not find anyone there. Crime Team of Shakarpur came to the said area with respect to some other incident and upon seeing him, they stopped there. The Incharge of Crime Team handed over his report to him. He recorded statements of photographer, finger print expert as well as FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 27 of 70 incharge of crime team u/s 161 Cr. PC. He returned back to PS and deposited the case properties in malkhana.
He further deposed that on 15.02.2018, he received information from Medanta Hospital vide DD No. 25-B that a bullet had been taken out from the body of Ravi Gupta during his operation at Medanta Hospital. He went to Medanta Hospital and went to security control room. The officials of the hospital handed over a sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of Medanta Hospital to him. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW24/E. On the same day, he along with special staff searched for both accused, but they were not found. At night, he went to the locality of the complainant and met security guard Suraj Bhan and enquired from him. There was Arogya Hospital adjacent to gate no. 3 of the aforementioned locality and it had a CCTV camera installed outside which covered the main gate no. 3 of the locality. He examined the footage of CCTV camera of said hospital as well.
The witness also deposed that on 21.02.2018, he called Ms. Bhakti Gupta daughter of complainant for handing over the DVR and CD of the footage of the CCTV camera installed outside their house. He sealed the DVR and CD with the seal of RL and prepared seizure memo Ex. PW24/F. He brought Ms. Bhakti Gupta and Shakti Gupta to PS. Javed was already present in PS. The SHO and ACP enquired from all three of them FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 28 of 70 and thereafter all three of them left the PS. He deposited the case property in malkhana of PS. He moved an application/proforma for placing several mobile phone numbers on surveillance. He also kept searching for both the accused in various parts of Delhi/NCR. On 21.03.2018 at about 5:00 am, he was present in PS and SI Abodh alongwith Ct. Rajveer and Ct. Kapil brought accused Veer Singh to PS from Chandigarh. He produced accused Veer Singh before the SHO. Accused Veer Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/B. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Veer Singh Ex.PW8/C. The police party also produced a car of make Mercedez bearing Reg. No. DL 10 CB 6999 and cash amount of Rs. 8.5 lakhs which was recovered from the said car. Two property dealers namely Deepak Garg and Rajesh Kumar were also present alongwith accused Veer Singh @ Veeru and they insisted that he should issue a receipt of cash to them. He prepared seizure memo of cash Ex.PWB/D. The said property dealers also signed on the seizure memo of cash. He prepared seizure memo of the car Ex.PW8/E. Accused Veer Singh was produced in the concerned court and was remanded to one day police custody. He took accused Veer Singh to the spot and prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW8/G. He also recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW8/F of said accused.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 29 of 70
He took accused Veer Singh to various places for making efforts to arrest accused Surender Sodhi but he was not found anywhere.
He also deposed that during investigation, he obtained RC of the aforementioned Mercedez car which was registered in the name of Roma International company. He also met director of said company namely Sh. Naresh Gupta who told him that he had returned the car to company as it had met with an accident. Later on it was found that scrap dealers namely Parvej and Mohd. Ajaj had purchased the aforesaid car from company for Rs. 5, 35,000/- and they sold the said car on the same day to another scrap dealer who had got the vehicle repaired and sold it to Karan Lakra. Karan Lakra had sold the car to accused Surender Sodhi. However, the RC of the car remained in the name of Roma International. He sent information regarding recovery of cash from accused Veer Singh to Income Tax Department. Accused Surender Sodhi could not be arrested despite best efforts. NBWs of accused Surender Sodhi were issued by the court on his application. He took CDR of the mobile phones from which both accused Veer Singh @ Veeru and Surender Sodhi had conversation with Ravi Gupta before the incident. Accused Veer Singh was using a mobile phone having no. 9999156756 which was issued in the name of Harshit. He went to house of Harshit and enquired from him and he disclosed that he had given the same to accused Veer Singh as he was his FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 30 of 70 friend. He also took CAF of the mobile no. of Ravi Gupta and in the CDR it was found that both of them had conversation with each other. Upon completion of investigation, he presented chargesheet against accused Veer Singh. Accused Surender Sodhi could not be arrested on the NBW's issued by court. He filed application for issuance of process u/s 82 and 83 of Cr.PC against him. Despite execution of the process as mentioned above, accused Surender Sodhi could not be arrested and he was declared absconder by the court. He wrote an application to PHQ for issuance of suitable award for arrest of accused Surender Sodhi. He presented chargesheet for offence u/s 174-A IPC against accused Surender Sodhi even before he was arrested.
He deposed that on 09.01.2019 information vide DD No. 27-B was received from Special Cell, Southern Range, Lodhi Road in PS that accused Surender Sodhi had been arrested in FIR No. 2/19 u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act of PS Lodhi Road, Special Cell. It was also informed that accused Surender had confessed about the commission of offence in this case. On the same day, he went to PS Lodhi Road, Special Cell and obtained all the documents from SI Saran. He recorded statements of all the police officials of the aforementioned case of PS Special Cell.
On 14.01.2019, he filed an application in the concerned court for issuance of production warrants of accused Surender. On 15.01.2019, he alongwith Ct. Prashant went to Jail FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 31 of 70 No.1, Tihar Jail and enquired from accused Surender. After obtaining permission from the concerned Jail Superintendent, he arrested accused Surender and prepared arrest memo Ex.PW21/A. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Surender Ex.PW21/B. During interrogation in Tihar Jail No.1, accused Surender disclosed that another case of FIR No. 442/18, PS Shakarpur under MCOCA Act was pending against him. He informed duty officer of PS Shakarpur. He gave an application to the superintendent of said jail for producing accused Surender Sodhi in concerned court. He made entry regarding arrest of accused Surender in the arrest register of Police Station. He recorded statement of Ct. Prashant u/s 161 Cr.PC.
On 01.02.2019, he again took the file from SI Lalit Kumar. On the same day he went to NFC club and met Mr. Mohit who was the store manger of the club. He handed over notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to said store manager i.e. Ex.PW17/A. He checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the lobby of club for the intervening night of 13/14.02.2018. He took CD of the said CCTV footage from the store manager and took it into possession vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW17/B. He also obtained certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act of said Mohit. He deposited the exhibits seized in FSL, Rohini. He deposited the acknowledgment and RC of the same with MHC (M) of police station. He also got the photographs of the spot developed from FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 32 of 70 the office of Crime Branch in PS Farsh Bazar. He also obtained the form of call made at 100 number from PHQ. SI Abodh handed over interrogation report of accused Veer Singh @ Veeru to him. He prepared charge-sheet and filed it in the court. He correctly identified accused Veer Singh and Surender in the court. He also identified bed sheet and a electric heating pad Ex.P2 & P3 respectively. He also identified photographs of the car no. DL 10 CB 6999 of make Mercedez Benz i.e. Ex.PW18/A. Admission/ Denial of Documents:-
32. Vide their separate statements u/s 294 Cr. PC , both accused persons admitted the documents i.e. (i) FSL report dated 28.06.2019 Ex. PX and (ii) PCR Form dated 14.02.2018 DD no. 7A as Ex. PY.
Statement of Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC:-
33. In their respective statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, both accused i.e. Veer Singh and Surender Sodhi denied all the incriminating evidence. They took plea that they have been been falsely implicated in this case as the daughter in law of complainant had got friendly with accused Surender Sodhi due to which they were nursing a grudge against them.
Both accused opted to lead defence evidence. Defence Evidence:-
34. Accused Veer Singh examined Sh. Ajit Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. as DW-1. The said witness FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 33 of 70 proved the location chart of mobile no. 9999156756 for the period from 13.02.2018 to 21.03.2018 as Ex. DW1/A. He also proved certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
DW1/B. The said witness deposed that location of aforementioned mobile number on 14.02.2018 at 6:03 AM was H. No. B-40, Anchal Showroom, Amar Colony, Delhi. As per entry on CDR Ex. DW1/C the cell ID/ Tower no.
404113003237478 was used on the aforementioned mobile and as per location chart Ex. DW1/A the address of aforementioned cell ID was H. No. B-40, Anchal Showroom, Amar Colony, Delhi.
DW-1 further deposed that as per record location of aforementioned mobile number on 14.02.2018 at 6:11:59 am was D-58, Defence Colony, Delhi. As per entry at point Y on CDR Ex. DW1/C the cell ID/Tower no. 404113003264257 was used on the aforementioned mobile number and as per location chart Ex. DW1/A the address of aforementioned cell ID was D-58, Defence Colony, Delhi. The witness further deposed that as per record, location of aforementioned mobile number on 14.02.2018 at 5:56:42 AM started from E-IV/40, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and it ended at H. no. B-40, Anchal Showroom, Amar Colony. As per entry at point Z on CD Ex. DW1/C, the call commenced at Cell ID/Tower no.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 34 of 70 404113003254148 and it ended at cell ID/Tower no. 404113003237478.
35. DW-2 Vinod Kumar, Asst. Ahlmad in the court of Ld. ACJM, East District proved the copy of chargesheet of case pertaining to FIR no. 8/12 of PS Preet Vihar titled as State Vs. Veer Singh @ Veeru & Ors as Ex. DW2/A. Arguments:
36. I have heard the final arguments advanced by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, ld. counsel for complainant and the ld. Defence counsel for both accused. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for both accused and the citations relied upon by the ld. Counsels for both the parties.
37. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution has successfully established the guilt of both accused. He argued that as per case of prosecution, on the night of 13.02.2018 both accused had an altercation with Shakti Gupta i.e. son of complainant Ravi Gupta at BW Club, NFC and Shakti Gupta informed his father (i.e. complainant Ravi Gupta) about the incident. On the morning of 14.02.2018 accused Surender Sodhi called Ravi Gupta from the mobile phone of accused Veer Singh and stated that he wanted to apologize for settlement of the matter. At about 6/ 6:15 AM both accused alongwith Javed went to the house of complainant i.e. 69, IInd Floor, Chitra Vihar, Preet FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 35 of 70 Vihar, Delhi. PW-1 / complainant Ravi Gupta, PW-5 Alka Gupta and PW-7 Bhakti Gupta have specifically deposed about the incident and their testimonies corroborate each other. The doctors i.e. PW-12 Dr. Azhar Perwaiz and PW-13 Dr. Bharti have specifically proved that injuries sustained by victim were dangerous and life threatening. The offence u/s 174-A IPC is also proved against accused Surender Sodhi. Thus, he argued that both accused may be convicted of the offences charged against them.
38. Ld. counsel for complainant while assisting the ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that it is the settled proposition of law that testimony of injured has to be accorded greater weightage as there is an unbuilt guarantee that the injured will not falsely implicate someone at the behest of the actual offender. He further argued that the minor discrepancies in the depositions of injured and other eye-witness cannot be the ground to ignore their depositions which is otherwise reliable. He argued that the family members of the injured are the natural witnesses and their depositions corroborate with that of complainant. He placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P Vs. Naresh & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 674 of 2006 and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U. P, Crl. Appeal no. 507/13. Thus, he argued that the guilt of both accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 36 of 70
39. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that both accused have been falsely implicated. The case of prosecution has not been proved against either of the accused and it is marred with serious contradictions. He also argued that the falsity of case of prosecution itself is highlighted from the fact that accused Veer Singh was not named in the FIR by the complainant nor PW-5 Alka Gupta informed the IO i.e. PW-24 Ramesh Lal (when she met him for the first time) that accused Veer Singh was present at the time of incident. Both of them consistently stated that accused Surender Sodhi alongwith Javed had come to their house. He further argued that the most important fact of the case which totally falsifies the case of prosecution is that the complainant was admittedly residing in a gated colony which had barriers at the entrance and exit gates, there were security guards posted at the entrance and exit gates and same were also covered with CCTV cameras. However, cross-examination of IO SI Ramesh Lal categorically shows that the none of the accused persons had visited the said colony. He argued that PW-24 Ramesh Lal, PW-15 Shakti Gupta, PW-23 SI Lalit and PW-10 SI Abodh admitted that the house of complainant was situated in gated colony and its entrance and exist gates were having fixed gates which were covered by CCTV cameras. The IO SI Ramesh Lal in his cross-examination deposed that he had checked all the CCTV cameras including the FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 37 of 70 ones at the entry and exit gate and other places which led to the residence of complainant and yet neither of the accused persons were seen in the CCTV footages. IO also deposed that he had checked the CCTV cameras of Arogya Hospital which was adjacent to the entry and exit gate of the colony of complainant as well, but there also accused persons were not seen in the CCTV footages. IO SI Ramesh Lal also deposed that he had enquired from the security guards posted at the entry and exit gates, but they also stated that they did not see accused persons in the colony. As per case of prosecution the accused persons had come on a mercedez car, but it was not seen in any of the CCTV footages. Therefore said CCTV footages were intentionally not brought on record as it would have falsified the allegations of the complainant.
He argued that video of camera installed outside the house of complainant showed that only two persons had come inside the house, but their faces were not seen in the CCTV camera. The said act was intentional in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. Even the date and time of the aforementioned CCTV footage has not been proved on record and it is a fictitious piece of evidence.
He also argued that IO SI Ramesh Lal was hand in gloves with the complainant and he had connived with complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. He was FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 38 of 70 admittedly IO of another case which was registered at the complaint of Ravi Gupta against accused herein in FIR no. 8/12 u/s 307 IPC. In the said matter, the court had directed police to take necessary action u/s 182 IPC against complainant. He also filed copy of order passed by the court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, ld. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, East, KKD, Delhi dated 22.02.2017.
He argued that IO had issued notice u/s 170 of Cr. PC to Shakti Gupta as well as Javed, but he could not give any explanation for issuance of notice to them. The said fact rather shows that the feet of two persons which were visible in CCTV camera installed outside the house complainant were of Shakti Gupta and Javed and since they were the suspects, therefore, IO had issued notice u/s 170 Cr. PC to them at earlier point of time.
The ld. defence counsel further argued that IO SI Ramesh Lal had enquired from the neighbours of complainant, but none of them had heard the sound of gunshot. As per evidence on record neither the wife of complainant nor his daughter raised any hue and cry or asked for help from neighbours. The said conduct is highly improbable as in such circumstances normally family members would raise hue and cry or call the neighbours etc for help to save their family members.
He argued that IO SI Ramesh Lal and PW-6 HC Tara Chand specifically stated that IO had directed the crime to FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 39 of 70 lift finger print impressions from everywhere in the house which included door bell, glass in which water was served to accused, table as well as from the washroom. However, yet no fingerprint impression of the accused persons were found. Even the gun powder residue was not found at the spot which shows that no incident of shooting had taken place at the spot as alleged.
Ld. Defence counsel also argued that the complainant and his family had previous enmity with both accused because daughter-in-law of complainant namely Chavi Arora, had developed an affair with accused Surender Sodhi due to which their relations had got strained and both parties had initiated several complaints against each other. Hence, the prosecution version that the wife of the complainant simply opened the door on seeing the accused persons is totally unbelievable, as in such circumstances, no reasonable or prudent person would open the door upon seeing persons with such inimical relations at the door.
Ld. defence counsel also argued that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 Ravi Gupta, PW-5 Alka Gupta and PW-7 Bhakti Gupta which are as follows:
(a) PW-1 Ravi Gupta stated that accused Veer Singh had shouted "khatam kardo sale ko", whereas, he did not depose that Veer Singh was carrying a pistol. However, PW-5 Alka FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 40 of 70 Gupta deposed that accused Veer Singh was also carrying a pistol and he pointed at her.
(b) PW-1 Ravi Gupta deposed that he told the wife about the call received by him from his son and from Surender Sodhi, whereas, PW-5 Alka Gupta deposed that she was not aware with whom her husband had telephonic conversation between 4 AM till the time of incident.
(c) PW-1 Ravi Gupta deposed that his wife told him about arrival of accused persons before opening the door. PW-5 deposed that she did not inform anyone and simply opened the door.
As regards the alleged incident which took place outside a club at NFC, he argued that the prosecution has not proved any complaint of the said incident nor any MLC of Shakti Gupta was prepared. As per deposition of PW Mohit and IO SI Ramesh Lal the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was handed over by the IO to PW Mohit who simply signed on it. The cross-examination of PW Mohit shows that he had never been in control of the system from which alleged footage was obtained. The said CCTV footage was not sent for forensic examination. The call record of complainant Ravi Gupta does not show that he had received any call from his son Shakti Gupta on the night of incident. Hence, the said facts clearly proved that the entire story was concocted.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 41 of 70
The ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that the complainant, his wife and his son had previous criminal antecedents. The complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he had faced a trial for offence u/s 302 of IPC and even his wife was involved in a criminal case of cheating.
He also argued that the weapon of offence was also not recovered in the present case and the said fact also proves that the case of prosecution is false and fabricated. The lack of gun powder residue at the alleged scene of crime also makes the case of prosecution qua usage of weapon completely doubtful.
He argued that there is unexplained delay in registration of FIR. As per case of prosecution the offence was committed between 6:15 AM and 6:30 AM, whereas, the FIR was registered at 11:30 AM. The said time duration gave ample opportunity to the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. He also argued that as per PCR form Ex. PY the information given was that "brother of caller had been shot", but as per case of prosecution the said call was made by daughter of complainant. The said PCR form also discloses that it was informed to police that the injured had been shot by a relative of injured. It further shows that the information was passed to police at 7:03:13 AM, whereas, as per prosecution the incident had taken place at about 6:25 AM.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 42 of 70
He further argued that the location of mobile phone of Veer Singh shows that he was not present near the place of incident at the relevant time. DW-1 Ajit Singh proved the location chart of said mobile phone which shows location of accused between Lajpat Nagar and Defence Colony and after 7:55 it was on roaming within Haryana. The said location chart had also been withheld by the prosecution intentionally so as to falsely implicate accused.
Lastly, he argued that the proceedings proceedings u/s 82 & 83 of Cr. PC were intentionally carried out at the wrong address. The police officials were well aware that the accused was residing at house no. 56, Jaganath Vihar, Shri Ram Chowk, Panipat, Haryana. The police had also filed a chargesheet against him earlier by mentioning the said address. The cross- examination of IO SI Ramesh Lal shows that he also knew the correct address of accused Surender Sodhi and yet he withheld that said address and thereby got the accused Surender Sodhi declared as a P.O. at wrong address.
Ld. defence counsel relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178, Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365, Nand Lal & Ors Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2023) 2 SCR 276.
Thus, he argued that both accused may be acquitted.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 43 of 70
40. In rebuttal, the ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the accused Veer Singh was named by the complainant on the same day and PW-7 Bhakti Gupta in her cross-examination also stated that she had made a call to police at 6:25 AM and named accused Veer Singh in the said call as well, but no suggestion was given to her that the said fact was the wrong assertion. He further argued that the injured as well as eye- witnesses who had undergone the trauma of such an incident can naturally skip mentioning the name of an accused in their statement.
He further argued that the accused persons who had planned to commit an offence would not enter their names in the registers at the entrance of the colony. It is also not unlikely that such persons would conceal their presence.
He argued that the minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case must be discarded in light of the testimonies of the injured and other eye-witnesses which are consistent. He argued that the incident took place in the morning of Month of February when the neighbours of the locality would have been inside their houses and therefore it is not unnatural for anyone of them to have not heard the sound of gunshots. He further argued that as per evidence on record lot of persons had visited the spot prior to arrival of police, therefore, the chances of FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 44 of 70 finger print impressions of either of the accused not being available at the spot is quite natural.
He argued that the contents of DD entry cannot taint the depositions of complainant. As regards the cleaning of blood from the spot is concerned, he argued that PW-5 Smt. Alka Gupta had cleaned the blood and she explained that she could not see the blood in the house. He argued that in such circumstances lot of persons behave differently and it cannot be termed as intentional attempt to tamper the crime scene. He further argued that the motive for false implication raised by accused persons is on the allegation that Ms. Chavi had developed affair with accused Surender Sodhi, but they did not produce the said witness in defence. He submitted that the mobile phone locations of accused can be on account of the fact that he would have left the mobile phone at some other place before carrying out the offence.
As far as declaration of accused Surender Sodhi being a proclaimed offender is concerned, he argued that accused has not brought any evidence that he had sold the house at Shakarpur Main Market. Thus, the said argument is devoid of merits.
Lastly, he argued that the guilt of both accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they may be convicted of the charges framed against them.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 45 of 70
41. The ld. Addl. PP for the State adopted the rebuttal arguments of ld. Counsel for complainant.
Appreciation of Evidence vis-a-vis Allegations of Commission of Offences by Accused:
42. I have considered the submissions and combed through evidence on record very carefully.
43. At the outset, it is required to be noted that section 101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 mandates that the burden of proving existence of any fact lies on the party which desires that a court should give a judgment on the basis of existence of the said facts. In Sharad Briduchand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the burden of proving its case in a criminal trial always lies on prosecution and the said burden does not get reduced on account of weakness of the defence of an accused person.
44. The case of prosecution begins with the allegation that an altercation took place between both the accused i.e. Surender Sodhi and Veer Singh as well as son of complainant namely Shakti Gupta on the night of 13.02.2018 at BW Club, NFC. Though the said incident does not have the direct bearing on the subject matter of charge framed against the accused persons, but as per prosecution the said incident was the trigger for commission of offence as alleged.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 46 of 70
45. PW-15 Shakti Gupta in his examination in chief deposed that on the night of 13.02.2018 he went to BW club, Surya Hotel at about 12 AM and there both accused confronted him and threatened him due to which he tried to call the police at 100 number. Then, he ran to NFC Police Station and made a complaint, but police officials asked him to go back to the hotel and they will come there in a little while. Hence, he again came back to the hotel, where accused Veeru and Shammi committed assault on him in the lobby of hotel in the presence of police officials.
46. Besides the oral statement of PW Shakti Gupta, the prosecution did not produce any complaint given to police or DD entry made in police station NFC in that regard. As per the oral statement of PW Shakti Gupta accused Shammi gave a blow of his forehead on the bridge area of his nose due to which he started bleeding, but in his cross-examination he stated that he was neither taken to the hospital nor his MLC was prepared. He also failed to tell the name and IO of the police officials who had allegedly come to Surya Hotel at the time of said incident.
47. The prosecution examined PW-17 Mohit who was the Purchase Manager in BW Club, Surya Hotel on 22.02.2018. The aforesaid witness in his cross-examination admitted that he was employed as a Store Manager and there was IT Team in the hotel which was responsible for maintenance and operation of all FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 47 of 70 the computer related issues as well as DVR etc. He further stated that IO had handed over the printed form of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act on which he had signed as per directions of the IO and the IO had filled the entries in it in his presence. The said statement of the witness is also corroborated by the cross-examination of IO PW-24 SI Ramesh Lal conducted on 05.04.2025 who also stated that he had handed over the performa of the certificate to the witness.
48. The aforementioned testimony of PW-17 Mohit shows that he was not in any way incharge of the system from which the alleged footage was taken in pendrive. The original DVR had not been seized by IO. The said pendrive was also not sent for forensic examination for the reasons best known to IO. Hence, it has to be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the copy of CCTV footage of the night of 13.02.2018 (stated to have been taken from Surya Hotel).
49. As per case of prosecution and depositions of PW-15 Shakti Gupta and PW-1 complainant Ravi Gupta, Shakti Gupta had informed his father about the incident on his telephone. The complainant in his cross-examination conducted on 20.01.2020 stated that Shakti Gupta had informed him about the aforementioned incident at about 3 AM. PW-15 Shakti Gupta in his cross-examination stated that he was using mobile number 9999999298 in the year 2010. Besides that the prosecution has FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 48 of 70 not brought any material on record to show the mobile number from which Shakti Gupta had called his father on the intervening night of 13.02.2018 and 14.02.2018. The call detail record of Sh. Ravi Gupta proved on record by the prosecution as Ex. PW28/A (colly) shows that he did not receive any call from the mobile no. 9999999298 on the morning of 14.02.2018. Infact it shows that on the said day the complainant had received two calls from number 8076873867 and 1426BA643C1E07 at 4:40:59 and 4:40:58 with duration of 0 seconds each.
50. Thus, it has to be said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an incident had taken place between accused persons and Shakti Gupta on the night of 13.02.2018 or the fact that Shakti Gupta called his father and informed him about the said incident.
51. However, in my considered opinion the failure of prosecution to prove the aforementioned fact beyond reasonable doubt does not make the case of prosecution doubtful vis-a-vis allegations of commission of offence by accused persons as alleged and the said facts will have to be assessed separately.
52. Now coming to the main issue at hand i.e. vis-à-vis the allegations of commission of offence of shooting the complainant inside his house by both accused, it has to be noted that prosecution relied heavily on the depositions of complainant PW-1 Ravi Gupta, his wife- PW-5 Smt. Alka Gupta and his FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 49 of 70 daughter- PW-7 Ms. Bhakti Gupta. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that as per prosecution version, the aforementioned incident was also witnessed by another independent person namely Javed, but he could not be examined as he had passed away.
53. It is the settled proposition of law that evidence of an injured witness has to be accorded greater weightage and a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his/ her presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
In Abdul Sayeed V State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 50 of 70 in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.
Again in State of Uttar Pradesh V Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, evidentiary value to be attached to the statement of an injured witness was expressed in the following words:-
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
54. As far as the probative value to be attached to the testimonies of complainant PW-1 Ravi Gupta and the other two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-5 Smt. Alka Gupta and PW-7 Ms. Bhakti FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 51 of 70 Gupta, it is necessary to note that the defence has sought to impeach their credibility on two accounts; (a) the name of accused Veer Singh Veeru was added subsequently as an afterthought; & (b) no incident as alleged had taken place and even accused Surender Sodhi was falsely implicated.
55. So far as the first line of argument is concerned, as per case prosecution set out in the chargesheet and also seen from the depositions of IO PW-24 SI Ramesh Lal, the IO i.e. SI Ramesh Lal had met Smt. Alka Gupta at the house of complainant upon receiving DD No. 7A and there she disclosed that accused Surender Sodhi had come to their house along with Javed and he had shot the complainant. Thus, at that time she did not utter the name of accused Veer Singh @ Veeru in her first narration of the facts given to the IO.
56. Further, as per case of prosecution, after meeting Smt. Alka Gupta and inspection of the spot by crime team, IO Ramesh Lal went to Max Hospital and recorded statement of complainant Ravi Gupta i.e. Ex. PW1/A. Perusal of said statement Ex. PW1/A also shows that he did not state that accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was also involved in the offence in any manner and the said statement was completely silent vis-à- vis involvement of accused Veer Singh @ Veeru.
57. Admittedly, the involvement of Veer Singh @ Veeru was disclosed by the complainant when IO went to Medanta FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 52 of 70 Hospital and recorded his supplementary statement. The prosecution has not specifically divulged the time which had lapsed during recording of first statement of complainant i.e. Ex. PW1/A and his supplementary statement. Besides the aforementioned fact, the perusal of PCR form Ex. PY and DD no. 7A shows that the name of accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was also not disclosed in the first information that was given to police by the caller who made called at 100 number.
58. The most important fact which is required to be pointed out is that the IO SI Ramesh Lal collected video of CCTV camera installed outside the entrance of the block in which house of complainant is situated. The perusal of aforementioned video shows that the focus of said camera was not towards the face/ upper body of persons entering inside the house, but it was pointing downwards. The prosecution has also relied upon the said video and admittedly as per said video only two persons are seen entering in the house of complainant and even their faces are not visible in the video.
59. The aforementioned video footage is totally contradictory to the subsequent statements of complainant and statements of his wife Alka Gupta and daughter namely Bhakti Gupta. The prosecution has not been able to explain that if two persons were seen entering in the house of complainant, then how the third person had entered in the house of complainant.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 53 of 70
60. Though, it is settled proposition of law that FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the events and under certain circumstances the victim may not be able to disclose all the facts including the name/s of assailant/s, but in the peculiar facts of the case at hand, the complainant/ injured was admittedly fully conscious when IO recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. As per deposition of IO SI Ramesh Lal, the complainant had read over the contents of his statement Ex. PW1/A and then he had signed it.
61. It is further pertinent to mention that there are contradictions in the deposition of PW Ravi Gupta and Smt. Alka Gupta vis-a-vis role played by accused Veer Singh. PW-1 Ravi Gupta in his deposition stated that accused Veer Singh had shouted "khatam kardo sale ko", whereas, he did not depose that Veer Singh was carrying a pistol. However, PW-5 Alka Gupta deposed that accused Veer Singh was also carrying a pistol and he pointed the same at her.
62. Accused Veer Singh also led defence evidence in the form of evidence of Nodal Officer. Admittedly, case of prosecution is that accused Veer Singh was using mobile phone having number 9999156756. Prosecution examined PW-27 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, VI Ltd. who proved that mobile number 9999156756 was issued in the name of Mr. Harshit Saxena. The prosecution also examined PW-16 Harshit Saxena FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 54 of 70 who deposed that the said phone was given by him to accused Veer Singh @ Veeru and he was using the same.
63. DW-1 Ajit Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that at the time of alleged commission of offence the mobile phone of accused Veer Singh was present in the area of Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar and Defence Colony at 6:03 AM and 6:11 AM respectively. The said facts also point in the direction that accused Veer Singh @ Veeru was not present at the alleged place of incident at the time and date as alleged.
64. Ld. counsel for complainant had argued that the injured had made the statement alleging role of accused Veer Singh on the same day and the accused who had planned to commit an offence may not carry his mobile phone at the time of commission of offence. However, in my considered opinion, since the prosecution itself relied on the fact that accused was using the aforementioned mobile phone and as per prosecution he had called the complainant from the same mobile phone, therefore, the prosecution cannot turn back to say that he might have left the phone at some other place. The investigating officers also did not collect any evidence to substantiate that accused Veer Singh was not using the aforementioned mobile phone at the relevant time.
65. Hence, in such circumstances, I do not find force in the aforementioned argument of ld. Counsel for complainant to FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 55 of 70 the effect that accused Veer Singh may have left his mobile phone. It is the duty of prosecution to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances as mentioned above such as - only two persons having entered in the house of complainant (being visible in the video of CCTV camera installed outside his house); the original call made to police at 100 number; the first narration of the facts by Smt. Alka Gupta to the IO SI Ramesh Lal; contradictions in the depositions of victim and his wife vis-a-vis accused Veer Singh; and the plea of alibi of accused as proved on record, create serious doubt qua the authenticity of deposition of PW Ravi Gupta, his wife Alka Gupta and PW-7 Smt. Bhakti Gupta vis-à-vis presence of accused Veer Singh at the time of alleged commission of offence.
66. Now, coming to the second limb of the argument of the defence that the entire case of prosecution is false and baseless, at the cost of repetition it is necessary to reiterate that as per law laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh V Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 (ibid), the evidence of an injured witness has to be given due weightage, but at the same time it is also the settled proposition of law that the court has to discard such evidence if serious doubt is casted qua the truthfulness of victim. Absence of Accused Persons in CCTV Cameras:
67. The first and foremost thing i.e. required to be borne in mind is that the testimony of complainant, his wife Alka Gupta FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 56 of 70 and daughter Bhakti Gupta are totally contradictory to the evidence of IO SI Ramesh Lal vis-a-vis the fact that the accused persons were not seen in any of the CCTV footages of all the cameras installed at the entry/ exit gates, in the passage leading to house of complainant as well as in the cameras installed at the building of Arogya Hospital which was adjacent to entry /exit gate of the colony where complainant resided.
68. Although, the victim and his wife and daughter deposed that accused Surender Sodhi @ Shammi as well as Veer Singh @ Veeru had come to the house of complainant on the morning of 14.02.2018 at about 6/6:15 AM, but at the same time it is necessary to note that as per contents of chargesheet, IO had tried to find the videos from the CCTV footage of the cameras installed as mentioned above. Later on, in his cross-examination, IO SI Ramesh Lal deposed that besides the entry / exit gates, there was no route or road to have access in the locality of complainant and the CCTV cameras installed at the gates captured everyone who entered and exited the colony. He further deposed that he had seen the videos/ footages of all the cameras which were installed at the said gates as well as at other places inside the colony, but he did not see accused persons entering or exiting the colony in any of the CCTV footages. He also deposed that he had examined the CCTV footage of the cameras FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 57 of 70 installed on the way leading to house of complainant and even in those videos, the accused persons were not seen.
69. IO SI Ramesh Lal in his examination also stated that he had obtained CCTV footages in pendrives and then he took those pendrives to the office of Special Staff of Delhi Police and examined them by zooming the videos and yet none of the accused were seen in it.
70. The above-mentioned testimony of IO SI Ramesh Lal in the above-mentioned context is corroborated by the deposition of PW-29 HC Pawan i.e. the police official who had accompanied the IO. HC Pawan also reiterated the same facts that the CCTV cameras installed at the gates captured everyone entering and exiting the colony and the CCTV cameras were also installed inside other places in the colony of complainant. He also deposed that IO SI Ramesh had seen the footages of CCTV cameras in his presence which included the CCTV footage of entry / exit gates and other roads leading towards residence of complainant.
71. Thus, it has been proved on record that there were only fixed entry and exit gates which had CCTV camera coverage, but neither of the accused were seen entering or exiting from the locality of complainant. It has also been proved on record that they were also not seen entering or exiting the colony in the CCTV cameras installed at Arogya Hospital or in the FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 58 of 70 CCTV cameras installed within the colony leading to the house of complainant.
72. It is a matter of common sense that if the accused persons had come to the house of complainant as alleged by the complainant, his wife and his daughter, then there was no way that they could not have been seen in the CCTV cameras installed at the entry/ exit gate or cameras of the hospital adjoining to entry / exit gate or in the cameras installed at places leading to house of complainant.
73. Further, PW-5 Smt. Alka Gupta had deposed that she saw accused persons in the screen of camera when they rang the door bell, but the chargesheet as well as deposition of IO is silent with regard to the fact that the video of aforementioned door bell was recorded in the DVR installed at the house of complainant or not.
74. It has already been mentioned above that admittedly the CCTV camera installed outside the block of the house of complainant did not capture the face of the two persons who allegedly came to the house of complainant. Therefore, in the end it has to be concluded that the oral evidence of complainant Ravi Gupta, his wife Alka Gupta and his daughter Bhakti Gupta is contradictory to the scientific / other reliable source of evidence i.e. CCTV Cameras.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 59 of 70
75. IO SI Ramesh Lal further deposed that he did not find the Mercedez car bearing no. DL-10CP-6999 (in which accused persons are alleged to have come to the house of complainant) in any of the footages of CCTV cameras installed inside the colony of complainant.
76. If the accused persons would have entered in the house of complainant, there was no way their pictures would not have been captured in the CCTV cameras which were not only on the entry and exit gates, but were all around in the colony of complainant.
77. It has been said that a man can lie, however, scientific evidence would not lie. The above-mentioned contradictions cannot in any manner be termed as minor inconsistencies because it makes the entire case of prosecution highly doubtful. Hence, the absence of accused persons being seen in the above-said video footages cannot be given a lesser weightage than oral averments of victim and other witnesses.
78. The aforementioned videos of CCTV cameras were not seized by IO during investigation and consequently they were not produced in the court. In this regard, in similar circumstances while discussing the importance of video footages of the incident in question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178 held that, "21....... Since CCTV cameras were installed in FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 60 of 70 prominent places, CCTV footage would have been best evidence to prove whether the accused remained inside the room and whether or not they have gone out. CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence which would have indicated whether the accused remained inside the hotel and whether they were responsible for the commission of a crime. It would have also shown whether or not the accused had gone out of the hotel. CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case.
22. In his evidence, PW-1 has stated that he monitors the affairs of the hotel on CCTV while sitting in reception. PW-1 further stated that he saw the CCTV footage at the relevant time and on the fateful night no person was having ingress or egress to the said room. PW-13-Dharambir Singh, investigating officer, also stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night on CCTV but he has not recorded the same in his case diary as nothing substantial emerged from the same.
23. The trial court as well as the High Court ignored this crucial aspect of non-production of CCTV footage. The trial court as well as the High Court relied on the oral testimony of PW-1-Ram Singh, hotel manager, that no one entered Room No. FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 61 of 70 459 between the relevant period on the intervening night of 3.2.2010 and 4.2.2010 which is based on the CCTV footage. Courts below accepted the version of PW-1 and PW-13 to hold that there was no relevant material in the CCTV footage to suggest that a third person entered the hotel room. The trial court and the High Court, in our view, erred in relying upon the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-13 who claim to have seen the CCTV footage and they did not find anything which may be of relevance in the case."
79. Thus, the above-mentioned fact casts a serious dent on the prosecution version and it also goes on to throw serious doubt qua the veracity of prosecution witnesses. Security Guards Not Having Seen Accused On the Day of Incident:
80. IO PW-24 SI Ramesh Lal and PW-29 HC Pawan deposed that IO had enquired from the security guards and had even checked the entry / exit register. As per deposition of IO, the entry or exit of the accused persons on the day of incident was not recorded in the said register. Moreover, as per deposition of IO, he had enquired from the security guard namely Suraj Bhan (who was deputed on duty in front of house of complainant) by showing the photographs of accused persons and yet the aforesaid security guard stated that he did not see any of the accused persons on the day of incident. The said statement FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 62 of 70 of IO also goes on to show that the accused persons were not even seen by the security guard at the entry / exit gate or by the ones who were deputed on duty in front of house of complainant.
81. The aforementioned facts when seen in light of the fact that as per IO accused persons were not seen in the CCTV cameras installed all around and inside the colony of complainant make a huge dent on the truthfulness of prosecution version. Lack of Finger Print Impressions/ Chance Print and Gun Powder Residue at the Spot:
82. As per IO SI Ramesh Lal, HC Pawan and the officials of crime team examined as witnesses by the prosecution, the finger print impressions were lifted from all the possible spots at the house of complainant, however, upon checking the finger print impressions of any of the accused persons were not found to be there at the spot. The aforementioned officials further deposed that the crime team also tried to find gun powder residue at the spot, but it was not found there.
83. In normal circumstances, whenever the incident involves gunshot injury to the victim, some gun powder residue is always left at the spot. In the present case as per prosecution version PW-5 Alka Gupta had washed the scene of crime out of nervousness and therefore there is likelihood of gun powder residue being washed away. However, the prosecution has not FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 63 of 70 been able to explain the reason as to why no empty case of bullet / cartridge was found at the spot.
84. The complainant as well as other witnesses simply deposed that the accused persons fled away from the spot after shooting the victim, but none of them stated that accused persons had picked up the empty shell/ case before fleeing away. The absence of empty shell / case of bullet at the spot has not been explained by the prosecution nor any evidence has been led that a specific kind of weapon was used in the commission of offence in which empty shell / case does not come out of the weapon upon firing of bullet. The said facts when in seen in totality also cast aspersions on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Tampering of The Scene of Crime; Previous Enmity & Role of IO:
85. As per case of prosecution as well as according to deposition of IO and HC Pawan, the scene of crime had already been cleaned with water and wiper before they reached at the spot. Even after that, the IO left scene of crime open and unattended even though he had got the information that bullet injury had been caused at the scene of crime. There is no fathomable reason for the IO who have left the scene of crime open and unattended in such circumstances. Hence, the sanctity of scene of crime stood diluted due to such lapses which also in FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 64 of 70 some ways creates an element of doubt that the scene of crime may have been fabricated as well.
86. Admittedly both the parties had filed several criminal cases/ complaints against each other which included allegations of commission of heinous offences. It is also an admitted fact that the present complainant had earlier alleged that both accused had fired gun shot at his house and then they fled away by assuming that it had hit the complainant. The accused has produced the certified copy of the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, ld. Special Judge (PC Act). In the said revision petition, it was held that the oral allegations of complainant (complainant herein as well) and his wife did not appear truthful in light of the scientific evidence and the ld. trial court did not have any reason to believe about commission of offence u/s 307/34. The ld. Sessions Court also made observation that there was no basis for the IO to have come to conclusion that accused persons had even acted in rash or negligent manner. It also considered the report of police that none of the neighbours had heard the sound of firing of gunshot (as in the present case). Hence, ultimately the revision petition was allowed and even the initiation of proceedings u/s 182 against complainant were recommended.
87. The aforesaid order although relates to a different set of facts, but it reflects that serious allegations levelled by the FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 65 of 70 complainant against the same set of accused persons were found to be false and untruthful by a court of competent jurisdiction even earlier.
88. The aforesaid fact also gains importance in the present case because in his cross-examination IO admitted that he was the IO of the aforementioned case as well. The said fact when coupled with the fact that IO did not produce videos of CCTV cameras installed in the colony which infact did not show accused persons entering in the same colony casts even more serious doubt qua the correctness and truthfulness of the investigation conducted in this case. Hence, the cleaning of scene of crime after the incident and it being left unattended by the IO also leads to a possibility of fabrication of the scene of crime.
Neighbours Not Having Heard the Sound of Gunshot:
89. The IO did not join any public witnesses or neighbours in the investigation of this case. He deposed that he had made enquiries from the neighbours, but none of them had heard the sound of gunshot. IO further stated that he was informed by PW Bhakti Gupta and Smt. Alka Gupta that they had not contacted any of the neighbours.
90. The incident had occurred on a winter morning, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the neighbours did not hear the sound of gunfire or the shouts of the complainant and his FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 66 of 70 family members. In normal circumstances, the sound of gunshot firing or hue and cry of the neighbours do not go unnoticed. The house of complainant was situated in a residential area, therefore, the aforementioned conduct cannot be termed as natural. Non-Recovery of Weapon of Offence:
91. In the present case, the weapon of offence could not be recovered. It is a settled proposition of law that non recovery of weapon of offence is not always fatal to the case of prosecution. In Lakshmi Vs. State reported in (2002) 7 SCC 198, it was held that, "It is not an inflexible rule that weapon of assault must be recovered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept as a general and broad proposition of law that in case of non-recovery of the weapon of assault, the whole prosecution case gets torpedoed.
92. In the present case, the fired bullet was recovered from the body of complainant. The same could have been matched with the actual weapon of offence and the same would have been a strong piece of evidence in this case. However, in absence of recovery of weapon of offence, the said evidence i.e. recovery of bullet from the body of deceased does not offer any scientific evidence which could point towards involvement of any of the accused.
93. Hence, in view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that depositions of complainant and other FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 67 of 70 eye witnesses cannot be relied upon in view of the major contradictions and discrepancies mentioned above. Offence 174-A IPC - by accused Surender Sodhi @ Shammi:
94. As per case of prosecution, accused Surender Sodhi was intentionally evading his presence and despite issuance his NBW's and execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC he failed to appear in the court and then he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 02.07.2018.
95. In this regard, it is necessary to note that as per case of prosecution, NBW's of accused Surender Sodhi and consequently process u/s 82 Cr. PC were issued at his address i.e. D-33, Gali Dharamshala Wali, Shakarpur, Delhi. However, the accused has produced copy of chargesheet pertaining to FIR no. 8/2012 of PS Preet Vihar i.e. Ex. DW2/A. Perusal of said document shows that police officials of PS Preet Vihar had themselves filed the chargesheet against accused Surender Sodhi by mentioning his address as H. No. 56, Jagannath Vihar, Panipat, Haryana. It shows that the police officials of PS Preet Vihar were aware of the address of accused at Panipat. Accused has also filed copy of documents mark PW1/DA to PW1/DH i.e. copies of kalandara, complaints given to police by the accused, copy of petition filed by the accused, copy of FIR's to show that the police officials were well aware that he was resident of H. No. 56, Jaganath Vihar, Panipat, Haryana.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 68 of 70
96. The ld. counsel for complainant had argued that since accused did not produce any document to show that he had sold the house at Shakarpur or had parted with possession thereof, therefore, his guilt stands proved. However, I do not agree with the aforementioned argument. It is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. The prosecution cannot set up reverse onus on the accused to establish his innocence. The documents proved on record by accused show that the police officials were aware about his address at Panipat, Haryana and yet the IO did not consider it appropriate to mention the other address of accused Surender Sodhi on the NBW's or in the application for issuance of process u/s 82 Cr. PC.
97. As mentioned above, the role of investigating officer in the present case does not appear to be free from doubt. Hence, in such circumstances, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove its case on this account as well. Conclusion:
98. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to prove that accused Surender Sodhi and Veer Singh @ Veeru had committed offences u/s 307/34 & 506/34 IPC. It has also failed to prove that accused Surender Sodhi had also committed offences u/s 27 of Arms Act or u/s 174-A of IPC.
FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 69 of 70
99. It is the settled proposition of law that benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused. Accordingly, both accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
100. Both accused had furnished bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr. PC.
101. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 19.05.2025 (Sushant Changotra) ASJ (FTC) / East KKD Court/ Delhi Digitally signed by SUSHANT SUSHANT CHANGOTRA CHANGOTRA Date:
2025.05.20 17:09:49 +0530 FIR No. 22/2018 PS Preet Vihar State Vs Veer Singh @ Veeru & Anr. Page no. 70 of 70