Delhi District Court
State vs Prithvi on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
PRITHVI FIR No.466/15
Police Station: RANHOLA
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.57299/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-002003-2015
3. Date of Institution 24.09.2015
4. Date of Commission of 19.06.2015 offence
5. Name of the accused Prithvi S/o Sh. Kunwar Singh R/o H. no. E-53, Gali no.4 Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 302 IPC Section 27 Arms Act
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 25.09.2025 judgment POOJA TALWAR
9. Final order Conviction Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR
10. Date of such judgment 18.10.2025 Date: 2025.10.18 12:34:16 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 1 of 55 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD no.9A the police team reached the place of incident, where one Rajender Joshi was present and he disclosed that on 19.06.2015 at around 6.15 am he alongwith Pradeep was coming in the auto. One Mama Tyagi and a lady too boarded the same. On the way one Sultan also boarded the auto. All of them deboarded the auto. At around 6.30 am one Prithvi, who was known to him, reached there. He had a desi katta in his hand. He started abusing Pradeep and a scuffle ensued between them. Suddenly Prithvi fired at Pradeep. When he fell down he again hit him with the leg and gave another gun shot on his back. Thereafter accused fled from the spot. Public persons gathered there and one of them called at 100 number. PCR van came and took the deceased to the hospital.
2. On the basis of statement of Rajender Joshi, FIR under Section 302 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was registered against the accused.
Charge
3. Charge was framed against the accused namely Prithvi under Section 302 IPC & 27 Arms Act vide order dated 04.01.2016.
POOJA
Prosecution evidence TALWAR
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2025.10.18
twenty three witnesses as under :- 12:35:04 +0530
SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 2 of 55
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW6: Smt. Sheela deposed in her testimony that:
"I can not tell the date, month and year as I am illiterate. 6- 12 months ago, I came to Delhi after visiting '9 devi mandir'. I boarded one auto from Uttam Nagar to vikas Nagar in the morning hour. I reached at my home by the said auto. Other passengers were also sitting in the said auto. They had de- boarded from the said auto. Thereafter, what happened I do not remember.
At this stage, Id. Addl. PP wants to cross examine the witness as she is not disclosing the whole facts of the case. Heard. Allowed.
XXX by sh. Ghanshyam Srivastava Id. Addl. PP for State. I can not say if it was the month of June 2015 or if the date was 19th. It is correct that some other boys were also sitting in the auto. Vol. There was 2-3 boys who had de. boarded from the auto before arrival of auto at my house. I can not say that two boys and one driver was in the auto besides me. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated before the police that when auto reached Som Bazar Road, Vikas Nagar, one boy also boarded the said auto. (confronted with portion A to A on statement Ex PW 6/A, where it is so recorded). It is correct that I deboarded the auto at R-block gali no. 2 and I took out my luggage from the auto. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated before the police that auto driver and other three boys, who were sitting in the auto also got down from the auto. (confronted with portion B to B on statement Ex PW 6/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated before the police that auto driver gave the auto to one boy who came with us, he took the auto for some POOJA TALWAR distance and while taking turn in the meantime, one boy also Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:35:35 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 3 of 55 came there and the said boy was having gun in his hand and he started quarreling with the auto driver. (confronted with portion C to C on statement Ex PW 6/A, where it is so recorded). Vol. I had already gone to my house with my luggage. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated before the police that the said boy who was having gun made fire upon the auto driver, thereafter, due to fear I fled away towards my house. (confronted with portion D to D on statement Ex PW 6/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated before the police that police recorded my statement at my house. (confronted with portion E to E on statement Ex PW 6/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused or that I am deliberately not deposed the true facts of the present case occurred in my presence".
(ii) PW8: Rajender Joshi deposed that:
"I do not remember the date, month & year. however, one and half year ago, on the day of the incident I boarded one auto from the Uttam Nagar, 3-4 persons were already in the said auto. When auto reached Pradhan Chowk, Vikas Nagar. I got down from the said auto. Thereafter, what happened I do not know.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP wants to cross examine the witness as he is not disclosing the whole and true facts of the case.
Heard. Allowed.
XXX by Sh. Ghanshyam Srivastava Id. Addl. PP for State. I have studied up to 8th class. I can read and write Hindi language. It is correct that I put my signatures after going POOJA through the documents. It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/A TALWAR is my signature. It is wrong to suggest that I signed the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:35:42 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 4 of 55 Ex.PW8/A after reading the same. Vol. I put my signature on blank paper.
It is correct that I used to drive the auto on rent. It is correct that on 19.06.2015, I boarded the auto of Pardeep but it is wrong to suggest that I boarded the said auto from Commender Chowk, Vikas Nagar and the said auto was coming from Murga Chowk side. Vol. I boarded the said auto from Uttam Nagar. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that in the said auto one of the friend of Pardeep namely Mama Tyagi, R/o of village Budhela, Vikas Puri was sitting (confronted with portion A to A on Ex PW 8/A, where it is so recorded). It is correct that one lady was sitting in the said auto. Vol. 2-3 other persons were also in the said auto. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that one Sultan boarded the said auto from Som Bazar road, who used to drive the auto of Pradeep in the day hours. (confronted with portion B to B on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). Vol. One passenger also boarded the said auto from the Som Bazar road. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that thereafter we started going towards gali no.2, R- block, Vikas Nagar for dropping the lady passengers. (confronted with portion C to Con Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). Vol. I deboarded the said auto at Pradhan Chowk. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that Pardeep stopped his auto at shop no.15-16, gali no.2, R-block chowk in front of Gaurav Traders for deboarding the lady passengers and where lady passenger got down from the said auto and that we also got down from the said auto and that Pardeep had given the said auto to POOJA Sultan for taking turn. (confronted with portion D to D on TALWAR Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR had stated to the police that at around 6:30am, accused Prithvi Date: 2025.10.18 12:35:54 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 5 of 55 S/o Kawar Singh, R/o E-block, Vikas Nagar came there from main Ranhola Road who was having country made pistol and started abusing Pradeep and kicked him and said that where was he in the night. (confronted with portion E to E on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that Pardeep said that "bhai meri bat to sun lai" or that I also stated to the police that "aur unke bich kuch baihash baji hoi, aur baihash baji ke duran hi Prithvi ne apne daye hath mai pakde katte se Pradeep ki chhati per najdik se goli mar di"
(confronted with portion F to F on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that after receiving bullet injury Pradeep moved his hand and fell down on the road and that Prithvi loaded the country made pistol and fired on the back of the Pradeep and that thereafter Prithvi again loaded the country made pistol and left the spot towards Ranhola road from where he had come. (confronted with portion G to G on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that after the said incident public persons gathered there and some one made call to the police (confronted with portion H to H on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that due to fear I fled away from the spot and stood in the gali from where I was seeing. (confronted with portion to J on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that police vehicle came there and took the injured Pradeep to the hospital and I also came into the crowd and stood there. (confronted with portion K to K on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded). Vol. While I was standing Pradhan POOJA TALWAR Chowk, I saw that police vehicle was taking the injured Pradeep.
Digitally signed byIt is correct that later on I came to know that Pradeep has POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:36:04 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 6 of 55 expired. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police that Prithvi committed the murder of Pradeep and action should be taken against him. (confronted with portion L to L on Ex.PW8/A, where it is so recorded).
The distance between Pardhan Chowk and Gaurav traders is about 100 meters. I had not heard the sound of the fire at the Pardhan Chowk. Vol. I had gone to my house from Pardhan Chowk after deboarding the auto. My house was situated at the distance of one kilometer from Pardhan Chowk. I went to my house on foot from Pardhan Chowk on that day and it took about 10-15 minutes. The auto can cover the distance from Pardhan Chowk to Gaurav traders within 1-2 minutes. I got down from the said auto at around 6:00am.
It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/B is my signature. Vol. Police obtained my signature on several blank papers. It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/C is my signature. It is wrong to suggest that police prepared the sketch of two fired cartridges having word graved on the back of the said fired cartridges 8mm KF in my presence and at that time I put my signature at point A on Ex.PW8/C. It is wrong to suggest that the said fired cartridges were found near the blood scattered at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that police measured the said cartridges in my presence and mentioned the measurements on the sketch memo Ex.PW8/C as well as seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. It is further wrong to suggest that police kept the said fired cartridges in a transparent plastic container and the said container was tapped and sealed with the seal of SM and that thereafter it was taken into Digitally possession. It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/D is my signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR signature. It is correct that deceased Pradeep was driving the TALWAR Date:
2025.10.18 12:36:18 +0530 TSR No. DL 1RQ-3672. It is correct that I boarded the said auto SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 7 of 55 on the day of the incident i.e. 19.06.2015. I do not know if the said auto was seized by the police or not. It is wrong to suggest that I put my signature at point A on Ex.PW8/D when police seized the said auto from the spot. It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/E is my signature. It is correct that at point A on Ex.PW8/F is my signature. It is wrong to suggest that police lifted the blood scattered at the spot with the help of the cotton and the same was kept in a plastic container and the said container was tapped and sealed with the seal of SM in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I put my signature at point A on Ex.PW8/F when Police seized the said blood in gauze in my presence. I do not know if the police took out blood stain concrete from the spot with the help of the hammer and chhaini. It is wrong to suggest that police took out the blood stain concrete with the help of the hammer and chhaini in my presence and the same was kept in a plastic container and the said plastic container was sealed with the seal of SM. It is wrong to suggest that I put my signature at point A on Ex.PW8/E at the time of the seizure of the said plastic container. It is wrong to suggest that police prepared the site plan at my instance on 19.06.2015 where Prithvi committed murder of deceased Pardeep (confronted with statement from portion A to A on Ex.PW8/G, where it is so recorded). I do not know Prithvi. I can not say if the accused Prithvi was also driving the auto. It is wrong to suggest that accused Prithvi now present in the court committed the murder of deceased Pradeep in my presence on 19.06.2015. It is wrong to suggest that police had not obtained my signature on the blank POOJA TALWAR papers or that I made a false statement in this regard today before Digitally signed by this court. It is wrong to suggest that I had given my statement POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:36:25 +0530 Ex.PW8/A & 8/G as per the facts happened before me. It is SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 8 of 55 correct that I had no rivalry with the police. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused Prithvi and just to save him".
(iii) PW9: Sajid @ Sultan deposed that:
"I am driver by profession. Pradeep (since deceased) was known to me as he was the resident of the same locality i.e. my locality. I do not remember the date but it was around two years back. On that day, in the morning Pradeep called me to drive his auto. Thereafter, he met me at auto stand which is ahead Pradhan Chowk and he handed over his auto to me. I took his auto and left the spot. On that day, in the afternoon I received a call from police station and I went to the police station in the aforesaid auto. I narrated the aforesaid facts to the IO.
At this stage, Addl. PP wants to cross-examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. dated 19.06.2015.
Heard. Allowed.
XXX by Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Addl. PP for State.
I am illiterate. I can not say if the date of incident is 19.06.2015 or that Pradeep (since deceased) called me at about 6:00 a.m. on that day. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the I.O. that Pradeep had asked me to drive his auto for half day. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that on that day, at about 6:15 a.m. when Pradeep met me at Som Bazar Road, one person namely Mama Tyagi and one lady were sitting on the back seat of the said auto. Pradeep was driving the said auto and one POOJA person namely Rajender Joshi @ Pahari was sitting next to TALWAR Digitally signed by Pradeep on the front seat. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 the I.O. that Pradeep made me to sit on the back seat alongwith 12:36:31 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 9 of 55 other passengers and we reached at R-block, gali no.2 in front of Gaurav Traders, where Pradeep dropped female passenger. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that all of us deboarded auto at the aforesaid place or that Pradeep asked me to take a U- turn of the said auto.
It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that I went ahead and when I was taking turn with said auto, I saw that one boy namely Prithvi who was having a gun in his hand was having altercation with Pradeep. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that I saw that Prithvi fired at the chest of Pradeep with the said gun or that Pradeep fell down on the road. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that I saw that accused Prithvi was re-loading his gun due to which I got scared and ran away leaving aforesaid auto. It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that I came to know that Prithvi had fired twice on Pradeep due to which Pradeep got expired in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I returned at the spot and IO recorded my statement.
At this stage, Addl. P.P. pointed out towards the accused Prithvi and asked the witness if he is the same person who had fired on the chest of Pradeep in his presence. But the witness has replied that he does not know anybody by the name of Prithvi and he had not seen any such incident on that day. He has said that he had not seen the accused present today firing at Pradeep.
At this stage, statement Mark PW-9/A is read over to the witness from point A to A' to which he denies in toto. POOJA TALWAR It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR deliberately not identifying the accused as I have been won over Date: 2025.10.18 12:36:39 +0530 by the accused".SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 10 of 55
(iv) PW12: Sandeep deposed in his testimony that:
"I am doing job in Om Ji Ayurved, Sector-1, Dwarka. I do not know anything about the present case. Police had never made any inquires from me with respect to the present case.
At this state, Addl. P.P. for State seeks permission to cross-examine the witness as he resiling from his statement dated 20.07.2015 recorded U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
Heard. Allowed.
XXX by Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Addl. P.P. for State.
It is incorrect to suggest that I stated to the police that at the relevant period of time, I used to ply TSR on rent. It is incorrect to suggest that on the intervening night of 18/16.06.2015, I alongwith Pradeep (since deceased) were present in the auto of Pradeep (since deceased) and we had consumed liquor or that after consuming the liquor. I slept in the aforesaid auto.
(Confronted with portion A to A' of statement Mark PW-12/1 where it is recorded so.) It is incorrect to suggest that on 19.06.2015 at about 5.45 am one old lady hired auto of Pradeep (since deceased) and he went towards Vikas Nagar or that at Commander Chowk, Rajender Joshi @ Pahari also boarded the said auto or that at Som Bazaar Road. Vikas Nagar, Sazid @ Sultan also boarded the said auto It is further incorrect to suggest that all of us went to R-block, Gali No.2. Vikas Nagar for dropping the aforesaid lady passenger. (Confronted with portion B to B' of statement Mark PW-12/A where it is recorded so.) It is incorrect to suggest that after dropping the aforesaid lady POOJA passenger, Pradeep handed over the said auto to Sazid @ Sultan, TALWAR Digitally signed by who went away from there. It is incorrect to suggest that I POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 alongwith Pradeep (since deceased), Rajender Joshi @ Pahari 12:36:48 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 11 of 55 and aforesaid lady passenger were standing in front of Gaurav Traders or that we saw that accused Prithvi who was resident of E-Block, Vikas Nagar, Delhi was arriving from the side of Ranhola Road. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused Prithvi gave a fist blow to Pradeep (since deceased) and started abusing him or that he was having a gun in his hand. (Confronted with portion C to C of statement Mark PW-12/A where it is recorded so.) It is incorrect to suggest that after looking at the gun, I went to the corner of the gali and looked towards the place of incident. It is incorrect to suggest that I saw that the accused Prithvi fired gunshot at the chest of Pradeep (since deceased) from the aforesaid gun and Pradeep (since deceased) fell on the ground. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Prithvi took out another cartridge from the pocket of his pant and fired at the waist of Pradeep (since deceased). It is incorrect to suggest that I got scared and ran away from the spot or went to the house of my relative. It is incorrect to suggest that on 20.07 2015, 10 recorded my statement at the residence of my sister in respect of the incident dated 19.06.2015. (Confronted with portion Dito D' of statement Mark PW-12/A where it is recorded so.) At this stage, Addi. P.P has pointed out towards the accused Prithvi present in the Court and asked the witness if he is the same person, who had fired at Pradeep on 19.06.2015. But the witness has denied the same and stated that he has never seen the accused before today. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused".
POOJA Formal Witnesses: TALWAR
(i) PW5: Dr. Manoj Dhingra deposed that on 20.06.2015, he Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR conducted a postmortem on the body of Pradeep S/o Kirpanand. Date: 2025.10.18 12:36:56 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 12 of 55 Body was brought by Inspector Subhas Malik from PS Ranhola with alleged history of fire injury and found dead on 19.06.2015. The Internal/External examination are as follows:-
1. Firearm entry wound, oval shaped, 3X1.5cm in diameter over back of right chest 3 cm lateral to midline & 10 cm below the border of neck surrounded by abrasion collar and grease collar, blackening and tattooing present around the wound margin. On exploration, injury track passing through underlying skin, s/c tissues, muscles & fracturing 4 right rib piercing left lung and bullet found embedded in left anterior chest muscles.
Injury track is running posterior anteriorly right to left above downwards with extensive blood extravasation along the track.
2. Firearm entry wound, oval shaped, 3X1.5 cm in diameter over front of right chest, 2 cm lateral to midline & 2 cm below the right nipple surrounded by abrasion collar and grease collar, blackening and tattooing seen around the wound margin. On exploration, injury track passing through underlying skin, s/c tissues, muscles & fracturing sternum and 3rd 4th right ribs passing through right lung, spleen and bullet found embedded in muscles in right lateral abdominal muscles. Injury track is running laterally; above downward with extensive blood extravasation along the track.
Time since death: apx 30 hrs. Opinion: Cause of death was Shock as a result of abdominal and chest injury due to rifled firearm weapon. All injuries are POOJA TALWAR antemortem in nature. After the postmortem, he prepared his Digitally signed detailed report vide postmortem report no.550/15 (running into 4 by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 pages) same is Ex.PW5/A all pages bears his signature at Point 12:37:05 +0530 A. SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 13 of 55
(ii) PW11: Vikram Garg deposed that he was in the business of installation of CCTV System. In the year 2015, in the month of March-April, owner of Gaurav Traders namely Raju Joshi approached him through his brother-in-law namely Vicky Sharma for installation of CCTV System at his shop and thereafter he installed 8 CCTV Cameras, 2 outside the shop in the gali, 1 outside the shop near gate of building, 3 inside the shop and 1 outside in his godown and 1 inside in his godown (shop).
On 19.06.2015, on request of Raju Joshi, he went to the shop of Gaurav Traders and he took out DVR containing Hard Disk and Adapter and handed over the same to the IO.
(iii) PW13: Vijay Khurana deposed that he did not remember the date but it was the month of June, 2015 when he received a call from S.H.O. P.S. Ranhola and went to the spot at Vikas Nagar, Ranhola. He had his camera with him. There he clicked nine photographs of the spot from various angles at the instance of S.H.O. The blood was lying at the spot. Two empty cartridges of bullets were also lying there. Later on, he handed over six sets of nine photographs and six CDs alongwith one memory card to the IO.
He did not remember the exact date but the date on which he had clicked the photographs could be inferred from the summary of the memory card. The photographs, CDs and memory card were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/A. The IO had recorded his statement. He correctly POOJA TALWAR identified nine photographs, CD and memory card. The Digitally signed by photographs are Ex.PW-13/B1 to Ex.PW-13/B9. The CD is POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:11 +0530 exhibited as Ex.PW-13/C. The memory card is exhibited as Ex.PW-13/D. SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 14 of 55
(iv) PW15: Dr. Rohit Kumar Pal deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was posted in Department of Casualty of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital as CMO (Casualty Medical Officer). On that day at about 7.35 a.m., he examined one patient namely Pradeep S/o unknown, aged about 35 years, male brought by Ct. Dharmender. Patient was having alleged history of gunshot. The patient was unconscious and there was no body movement. On local examination, a single wound on the left side of chest and one single wound on the back were found. ECG of patient showed flat line. Patient was declared brought dead. Direction for shifting the body to mortuary for postmortem was given. One white colour Nokia mobile phone was found with the body and the same was handed over to the IO. The aforesaid examination was done vide MLC No.11242. The same is Ex.PW-15/A.
(v) PW20: Dr. Ruchi Sharma deposed that on 29/06/2015 she was posted as Jr Forensic Chemical Examiner at FSL, Rohini. Delhi On that day, five sealed parcels in connection with FIR of present case were received in the office of FSL. Rohini. The aforesaid parcels were marked and assigned to her for examination. All the parcels were duly sealed as per forwarding letter. Parcel S1 was a plastic container duly sealed with the seal of SM. Same was found containing Exhibit 'S1' ie., one gauze cloth piece having brown stains taken from the place of occurrence, Parcel No. S2 was a plastic container duly sealed with the seal of SM. Same was found containing Exhibit S2 ie, POOJA some small pieces of concrete material described as blood stained TALWAR concrete taken from place of occurrence. Parcel No S7 was a Digitally signed by POOJA cloth parcel duly sealed with the seal of SM. Same was found TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:19 +0530 containing Exhibit 'S7 i.e.. one pant described as pant of accused, SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 15 of 55 Parcel No. P1 was a sealed polythene parcel duly sealed with the seal of SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83. Same was found containing Exhibits 'P1a' P1b', 'P1c', 'P1d and P1e', which were one foul smelling lower having dark stains alongwith insects and fungal growth on it, one foul smelling T shirt having dark stains alongwith insects and fungal growth on it, one foul smelling cut/torn baniyan having dark stains alongwith insects and fungal growth on it. One foul smelling underwear having dark stains alongwith insects and fungal growth on it and a pair of sandals respectively and Parcel P3 i.e.. one sealed a paper envelope sealed with the seal of SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83. Same was found containing Exhibit P3 ie., one gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood sample of deceased. On biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits S1, S2, S7, P1a 'P1b'. 'P1c', 'P1d, P1e' and P3. On serological examination human blood was found on all the aforesaid exhibits and no blood group was found on the aforesaid exhibits. After examination, remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of FSL DR. RS DELHI. Her examination report including forwarding letter, running into four pages, is Ex PW20/A, bearing her signatures at points A. She identified one gauze cloth piece having brown stains taken from the place of occurrence as Ex.P-1, some small pieces of concrete material described as blood stained concrete taken from place of occurrence as Ex.P-2, one brown light colour pant bearing slip of FSL bearing signatures of examiner and cut cloth pullanda as Ex.P-3, one foul smelling lower having dark stains POOJA and fungal growth on it, one T shirt having dark stains alongwith TALWAR fungal growth on it: one cut/torn baniyan having dark stains Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR alongwith fungal growth on it, one underwear having dark stains Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:28 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 16 of 55 alongwith fungal growth on it and a pair of sandals and one cut polythene collectively Ex.P-4, gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood sample of deceased as Ex.P-5.
(vi) PW22: V. Lakshmi Narasimhan deposed that on 13.07.2015 she was posted as above. On that day, she received through Division Head one sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SM for the purpose of examination. The seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per the forwarding letter.
On opening the parcel, one DVR containing one hard disk of capacity 1.0 TB of make WD was found and the same was marked as Exhibit 1.
The DVR was examined forensically and her result and opinion are given as under:
1. On examination of the relevant video files in DVR marked Exhibit 1, it was observed that each video file contains one identified video shot. There was no indication of alteration in the identified video shot on the basis of frame by frame examination.
2. The copy of the relevant video files in DVR marked Exhibit 1 were prepared in the three DVDs marked COPY OF RELEVANT VIDEO-DVD1 to DVD3 and provided the same alongwith this report.
3. The relevant images in video footage of relevant date and time in DVR marked Exhibit 1 were grabbed and copies of the same were prepared in three DVDs marked COPY OF RELEVANT PHOTOGRAPHS-CD1 to CD3 and provided the same alongwith this report. POOJA After the examination, the DVR was duly sealed with the seal of TALWAR V.L.N. FSL-DELHI and forwarded to the forwarding authority Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 alongwith the report. Her detailed report is Ex.PW22/A. 12:37:36 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 17 of 55
(vii) PW23: Dr. Puneet Puri deposed that vide letter no.
2076/SHO/PS Ranbola dated 13.07.2015, their office received four scaled parcels in connection with case FIR No. 466/2015 PS Ranhola through HC Parminder Kumar. The said parcels were marked to him. He found that seals over the said parcels were intact and tallied as per the specimen seals as per forwarding letter. He had opened the said parcels and the material contained in them were marked as FC1 & EC2 contained in parcel no.1, Exhibit Fl contained in parcel no 2, Exhibit A1 to A4 contained in parcel no.3 and Exhibits EB1 and EB2 contained in parcel no.4.
After examination, he found that the country made pistol 315 inch marked as Exhibit F1 was designed to fire a standard 8 mm cartridge and was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully by using cartridges marked Exhibit A1 & A2 and the test fired cartridge cases were marked as TC1, TC2 and the two recovered test fired bullets were marked as TBI and TB2. I also found that the cartridge cases marked as Exhibit EC1 and EC2 were fired empty cartridges and had been fired through the country made pistol marked Exhibit Fl as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breach face marks present on evidence cartridge cases marked exhibits EC1 and EC2 and on test fired cartridge cases marked "TC1 & TC2"
were examined and compared under Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identical. The bullets marked Exhibits EB1 and EB2 were corresponding to the bullets of 8 mm/315 inch cartridges and had been discharged through the POOJA TALWAR country made pistol marked Exhibit F1 as the individual Digitally signed by characteristics of striations marks present on evidence bullets POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:43 +0530 marked Exhibits ER1 and EB2 and on test fired bullets marked SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 18 of 55 TB1 and TB2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. The country made pistol marked Exhibit F1 was a firearm, the cartridges marked A1 to A4, the cartridge cases marked EC1, EC2 and the bullets marked EB1 and EB2 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. The exhibits were then resealed with the seal of PP FSI. DELHL After examination, he had prepared FSL report dated 29.09.2016 which is now Ex.PW23/A which bears his signatures at points A. Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW1: HC Veena deposed that on 19.06.2015 he was posted at PS Ranhola and was working as duty officer from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. At around 10:20 am, he received a rukka brought by HC Parminder sent by Insp. Subhash Malik. He lodged DD No. 13A as kaymi of the FIR on 466/15, on the basis of the rukka he got registered the FIR no.466/15. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW1/A. He had brought the register of the computerize copy of the FIR (OSR). He made an endorsement at point X on rukka Ex.PW1/B. After registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to HC Parminder for handing over the same to Insp. Subhash Malik for the purpose of the further investigation.
He had issue certificate u/s 65 B evidence act in respect of the computerize copy of the FIR. The said certificate is Ex.PW1/C. He had brought the original DD register pertaining to DD No.13A.
(ii) PW2: SI Rambir deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was working POOJA TALWAR as duty officer at P.S Ranhola from 12.00 midnight to 08.00 am.
Digitally signed byAt about 06.45 am, he received a wireless message regarding that POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:51 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 19 of 55 one person received bullet injury at R Block Gali No. 2, Vikas Nagar near Holi Chandan School, opposite Aggarwal Sweets, on the basis of same, he recorded DD No. 9A and the same DD was handed over to SI Bharam Prakash for further action. SI Bharam Prakash left the police station alongwith HC Parmender for the spot. The said information was conveyed to SHO. He had brought the original DD register, copy of DD No.9A is Ex.PW-2/A (OSR).
On the same day, at around 07.50 am, he received a telephone call from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangol Puri made by Duty Constable regarding one person namely Pardeed was got admitted in the hospital by PCR officials and doctor declared him as brought dead. He recorded DD No. 10 A in this regard. He had brought the original DD register, copy of same is Ex.PW2/B. The said DD was sent to SI Bharam Prakash through Ct Naresh.
(iii) PW3: HC Ved Parkash deposed that on the intervening night of 18/19.06.2015, he was posted as driver of PCR van P-70 and the base of same PCR was at Ganda Nala, Vikas Nagar under the jurisdiction of P.S Ranhola. At around 06.45 am, that one person received gun shot injury in the area of Vikas Nagar near one sweet shop. They reached there where one person was lying in the injured condition and they shifted the said person to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and they got admitted the said injured in casualty of said hospital.
(iv) PW4: Ct. Naresh Kumar deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was POOJA posted at PS Ranhola. On that day, at around 7.50 am duty TALWAR Officer had given DD No. 10A for handing over the same to SI Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Braham Prakash. After receiving the said DD he went to Gali Date: 2025.10.18 12:37:57 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 20 of 55 No.2, R-Block. Vikas Nagar. Delhi where SI Braham Prakash met him and he handed over the said DD to St Braham Prakash. After that he returned to the Police Station. On the same day, at around 11 a.m Duty Officer gave three envelopes containing the copies of present FIR. He delivered one envelope at the residence of the Ld. MM at Saket. Thereafter he went to Menon Marg, Chanakya Puri, Delhi where he handed over the one envelope at the residence of concerned Joint Commissioner of Police and thereafter he went to the residence of DCP in the area Hauj Khas where he delivered one envelope at his residence. Thereafter he returned to the Police Station.
(v) PW6: Insp. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 12.07.2015 he was posted at aforesaid place. On that day, on the request of the Insp. Subhash Malik IO of the present case he reached PS Ranhola, from there he alongwith IO visited the place of incident i.e. Gali no.2 in front of Gaurav Traders, R-Block, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. At the instance of the IO, he took rough notes and measurements of the spot. On the basis of those rough notes and measurements prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW6/A. He handed over the same to the IO and he destroyed the rough notes and measurements after preparation of the scaled site plan.
(vi) PW7: Ct. Manoj Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 18/19.06.2015 he was posted in PCR, CPCR PHQ, Delhi and was on duty from 8:00pm to 8:00am. At about 6:43am on 19.06.2015, an information was received from mobile phone POOJA number-9871132920 and the said call was attended by him. The TALWAR Digitally signed by information was to the effect that "ek admi ko goli maar di" at R- POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:40:50 +0530 block, gali no.2. Vikas Nagar. Delhi near Holi Chandan Sweet SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 21 of 55 opposite Aggarwal Sweet. He filled this information in PCR form on computer as CPCR DD No.19 Jun 151360073 and forwarded the said information to console operator for further necessary action. He had seen the computerize copy of the said PCR form and portion mentioned at point X. The PCR form Ex.PW7/A (running into two pages). He also produced a certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act regarding the correctness of the print out. The certificate is Ex.PW7/B bears the signature of Sl Harish Chand (Nodal officer) at point A.
(vii) PW10: HC Dharmender deposed that on 18.06.2015, he was posted at PCR, West Zone, Delhi as Ct and his duty hours were from 8:00 p.m to 8:00 a.m. On that day, he was working as I/C on PCR Van P-70. On 19.06.2015, at about 6:45 a.m., they received a call regarding shooting of one person at R Block, Gali No.2, Vikas Nagar, Near Holi Chander Sweet, Opposite Aggarwal Sweets. On that day, he alongwith staff in PCR Van reached at the spot and found that in front of Gaurav Traders, one person was lying with inverted face (ulte muh) in a pool of blood and blood was scattered. He alongwith PCR staff put that person on the stretcher. Two empty cartridges were also lying at the spot. They took that person to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, where Doctor declared him brought dead. IO recorded his statement.
(viii) PW14: SI Devender Singh deposed that on 18.06.2015, he was posted at Crime Team, West District as Sub Inspector and POOJA was working as In-Charge, Crime Team. On that day, his duty TALWAR hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 a.m next day. On 19.06.2015, Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR he received a wireless message and he alongwith ASI C.L. Date: 2025.10.18 12:40:57 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 22 of 55 Meena (Fingerprint Proficient) and Driver went to the spot. There they met S.I. Brahm Prakash and his staff. He inspected the spot at his instance and prepared his report i.e. Ex.PW-14/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Insp. Subhash Malik who had reached at the spot. IO recorded his statement.
(ix) PW16: HC Bijender Singh deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was posted at P.S. Ranhola as Head Constable and was working as MHC(M). On that day, Insp. Subhash Malik deposited case property of the present case ie. one sealed puilanda containing mobile phone make Nokia alongwith copy of seizure memo, one sealed plastic box containing blood in gauge alongwith copy of seizure memo, one sealed transparent plastic box containing blood-stained concrete alongwith copy of seizure memo, one sealed transparent plastic box containing two empty cartridges (khali khol alognwith copy of seizure memo, one TSR bearing No.DL-1RQ-3672 alongwith copy of seizure memo and one sealed pullanda containing DVR with power adapter alongwith copy of seizure memo. He entered the details of aforesaid case property in Register No 19 at serial No.1196.
On 20.06.2015, Insp. Subhash Malik deposited case property of the present case ie. one sealed red colour polythene containing blood-stained cloth of deceased, one sealed small plastic container containing two blood stained bullet leads, one sealed envelope containing blood in gauge of deceased alongwith sample seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI POOJA DELHI-83 & copy of seizure memo. The IO had also deposited TALWAR one country-made pistol in a transparent plastic box sealed with Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR the seal of "SM" and 4 live cartridges kept inside a small Date: 2025.10.18 12:41:04 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 23 of 55 transparent plastic box sealed with the seal of SM alongwith copy of seizure memo. The IO had also deposited a sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "SM" containing blood-stained pant of accused alongwith copy of seizure memo. He entered the details of aforesaid case property in Register No.19 at serial No.1197. Copy of Register No.19 pertaining to entry at serial No.1196 running into 4 pages is Ex.PW16/A. Copy of Entry No.1197 running into 3 pages is Ex.PW16/B. On 29.06.2015, he handed over 5 sealed pullandas out of which 3 pullandas were sealed with the seal of "SM" and 2 pullandas were sealed with the seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83 alongwith one sample seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83" to H.CL. Parminder vide RC (Road Certificate) No.110/21/15 for depositing the same al FSL Rohini. Copy of aforesaid Road Certificate is Ex.PW-16/C (OSR) bearing his signature at point 'A' and that of H.Ct. Parminder at point 'B'. After depositing the case property at FSL Rohini, H.Ct. Parminder handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt to him. Copy of acknowledgment receipt is Ex.PW-16/D (OSR) bearing signature of H.Ct. Parminder at point 'A' On 13.07.2015, he handed over one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "SM" alongwith adapter cable to H.Ct. Parminder vide RC (Road) Certificate) No.116/21/15. Copy of Road Certificate is Ex.PW-16/E (OSR) bearing his signature at point 'A' and that of H.Ct. Parminder at point 'B. After depositing POOJA TALWAR the case property at FSL Rohini, H.Ct. Parminder handed over Digitally signed by copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt to him. Copy of POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 acknowledgment receipt is Ex.PW-16/F (OSR) bearing signature 12:41:11 +0530 of H.Ct. Parminder at point 'A' SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 24 of 55 On the aforesaid date he also handed over 4 sealed plastic containers out of which 3 were sealed with the seal of "SM" and one with seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83" to H.Ct. Parminder vide RC (Road Certificate) No.117/21/15. Copy of Road Certificate is Ex.PW16/G bearing his signature at point 'A' and that of H.Ct. Parminder at point "B". After depositing the case property at FSL Rohini, H.Ct. Parminder handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt to him. Copy of acknowledgment receipt is Ex.PW16/H bearing signature of H.Ct. Parminder at point 'A'. The case property intact and not tampered in any manner till it remained in his custody.
(x) PW17: Ct. Rajeev deposed that on 24/06/2015 he was posted at PS Ranhola. On that day, he was present in the police station in the office of SHO, Inspector Subhash Malik when Sh. Vijay Khurana handed over six sets of nine photographs which were clicked at the spot alongwith six CDs and Sandisk SDHC Card regarding incident dated 19/06/2015. Inspector Subhash Malik seized the same vide memo Ex PW13/A, bearing his signatures at point B.
(xi) PW18: ASI Parmender Kumar deposed that on 19/06/2015 he was posted at PS Ranhola as HC. On that day, St Brahm Prakash received DD No.9 A and on that, he alongwith Sl Brahm Prakash and SHO/Inspector Subhash Malik went to the spot i.e., Shop No.15-16, Gaurav Traders, Gali No.2, R Block, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, in government vehicle. When they reached at the POOJA spot, saw that a big crowd had gathered there and blood was TALWAR scattered on the road and two empty cartridge cases were lying Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR nearby the blood. On enquiry, they came to know that the injured Date: 2025.10.18 12:41:25 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 25 of 55 has already been removed to the hospital by PCR van. The SHO informed the Control Room through his wireless set for sending crime team at the spot. In the meantime, Ct Naresh brought DD No. 10A from the PS to the spot and handed over copy of the same to Inspector Subhash Malik. Thereafter, IO called with staff at the spot for safe guarding the spot and IO instructed him for getting the spot inspected by the crime team. Thereafter, IO alongwith St Brarhm Prakash went to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. He got conducted the inspection through crime team and crime team incharge handed over Scene of Crime (SOC) to him. In the meantime, Sl Brahm Prakash alongwith IO returned to the spot. IO called private photographer at the spot as photographer was not available with the crime team and photographs were clicked by the said photographer. At the same time, one person namely Rajender Joshi @ Pahadi, s/o Ganga Dutt Joshi met them, he introduced himself as eye witness to the incident and IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him. At about 10 am he left the spot alongwith rukka for registration of the FIR at the PS Ranhola. After registration of FIR, he returned back to spot at about 11.30 am alongwith computerized copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to IO.
The IO lifted exhibits ie., two empty cartridge cases and blood in gauze, blood stained concrete, TSR bearing DLIRQ-3672, DVR etc and seized and sealed the same with the seal of SM and seal after used was handed over to him at the spot by the IO. Thereafter, they returned back to the PS. IO had POOJA deposited the case property in the malkhana of PS Ranhola TALWAR through seizure memo. IO recorded his statement. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 On 20/06/2015, he alongwith SI Brahm Prakash, HC 12:41:33 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 26 of 55 Ajit joined investigation of the present case with IO. Thereafter, they went in search of the accused Prithvi Singh and when they reached at Ranhola mor, one secret informer informed IO about the presence of accused Prithvi Singh behind Sikhadeep Public School, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, they alongwith secret informer went to the place of information, on the way they met complainant Rajinder Joshi near ganda nala, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. IO apprised him about the information and joined him in the investigation of the present case. When they reached behind Sikhadeep Public School, secret informer pointed out towards one person and he apprehended that person and he was interrogated by the IO. Accused Prithvi Singh was arrested by the IO at about 6.15 pm vide memo Ex.PW18/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/B bearing his signatures at point A. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/C, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused led them to his house and got recovered one countrymade pistol alongwith remaining four live cartridges which was used at the time of incident by accused, from the shelf (Taand) of his house and one blood stained pant which he was wearing at the time of incident from beneath the mattress on the bed of last room of his house. IO prepared sketch of pistol and recovered cartridges which are Ex.PW18/D and Ex.PW18/E. Both bear his signatures at point A. The aforesaid pistol was placed in a transplant plastic container and live cartridges were placed into another plastic container and both of the containers POOJA were sealed with the doctor tape and the seal of SM was affixed TALWAR on both the containers. Serial no.5 and 6 were marked on the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 aforesaid containers and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex 12:41:46 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 27 of 55 PW18/F which bears his signatures at point A. The blood stained pant was converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and was sealed with the seal of SM, Mark S-7 was given to the aforesaid pullanda and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/G which bears his signatures at point A. Seal after use was handed over to him. Thereafter accused led them to the place of incident vide memo Ex PW18/H which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, all of them alongwith accused went back to police station. IO deposited the case property in the mal khana and recorded his statement in this regard.
On 21/06/2015, he joined investigation of this case with the IO and the accused, as per his disclosure, led them to the gate of DDA Park near JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. Accused had disclosed that he had thrown his blood stained shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident, near the wall of the aforesaid park near its gate. Efforts were made to locate the said shirt but in vein. IO prepared non recovery of said shirt vide Ex.PW18/J which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, all of them alongwith accused went back to police station. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
On 29/06/2015, as per the direction of the IO, he took five sealed pullandas pertaining to the present case vide Road Certificate No.110/21/15 alongwith sample seal and forwarding letter and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. The case property remained intact and not tampered with when remained in his custody. After depositing case property, he had POOJA handed over copy of RC alongwith FSL. acknowledgment to the TALWAR MHC(M). Copy of aforesaid RC and acknowledgment receipt are Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Ex.PW16/C and Ex.PW16/D. Both bearing his signatures at point Date: 2025.10.18 12:41:53 +0530 Y. SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 28 of 55 On 13/07/2015, he was posted at PS Ranhola as HC. On that day as per direction of SHO, he collected one sealed pullanda containing DVR make Juna alongwith adapter cable sealed with the seal of SM and took the same to FSL vide RC No.116/21/15. Copy of RC is Ex.PW16/E bearing his signatures at point B. He also took FSL form, one internal hard disk of one TB and six empty DVDs alongwith aforesaid case property and deposited the same at FSL Rohini. He obtained acknowledgment receipt regarding the same. Copy of acknowledgment is Ex.PW16/F, bearing his signatures at point A. He returned back to PS and handed over copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt to the MHC(M). The photocopies of the aforesaid documents were handed over to the IO. The case property remained intact and not tampered with in any manner till it remained in his possession.
Witness correctly identified one light brown colour pant (khaki) bearing slip of FSL bearing signatures of examiner and cut cloth pullanda as Ex P-3, one desi katta bearing FSL-2015/F 4622 as Ex P-6, two live cartridges and two empty cartridges and two led as collectively Ex P-7 (at that time all the four cartridges were live).
(xii) PW19: SI Brahm Prakash deposed that on 18/06/15 he was posted at PS Ranhola as Sub Inspector. On that day he was having night emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am on the next day i.e. 19/06/2015.
On 19/06/2015 he received DD No. 9A at about 6.45 am POOJA TALWAR regarding the incident of gun shot injury to a person at Gali No. 2 Digitally signed by R Block, Ranhola. On that, he alongwith HC Parmender SHO POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:42:03 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 29 of 55 Inspector Subhash Malik and driver/operator of government Gypsy went to the spot i.e. in front of Gaurav Traders, Gali No. 2, R Block, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. The public was gathered there. Blood was scattered on the road and two empty cartridges were lying nearby. On local enquiry, it came to know that injured has already been removed by the PCR to hospital. SHO Subhash Malik flashed message from his wireless set for sending crime team at the spot. In the meantime Ct. Naresh from PS Ranhola reached at the spot and handed over copy of DD No. 10A to 10/SHO Inspector Subhash Malik. IO left HC Parminder and other staff which had come to the spot, at the spot for preservation of the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to SGM Hospital in government Gypsy. In the emergency ward, concerned doctor handed over MLC of deceased Pradeep. On the MLC, doctor had declared that patient brought dead and the body was already shifted to mortuary. Doctor handed over mobile phone make Nokia of deceased which was converted into pullanda by the IO and sealed with the seal of SM. The said pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A bearing his signatures at point A Thereafter, he alongwith IO and case property reached at the spot, where the crime team already present. SI Devender was Incharge of crime team who informed them that photographer was not available with the team, so IO called private photographer and photography of the spot was clicked by the photographer. SI Devender prepared scene of crime report and handed over the same to the IO. In the POOJA meantime, one person namely Rajender Pahari met them who TALWAR informed that he was eye witness of the incident. IO recorded his Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR statement and prepared rukka. IO handed over rukka to HC Date: 2025.10.18 12:42:10 +0530 Parminder for registration of the case. Thereafter, IO lifted the SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 30 of 55 two empty cartridges which were lying at the spot and prepared sketch of the same which is Ex.PW8/C, bearing his signatures at point B. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. IO had lifted blood in gauze, blood stained concrete and thereafter IO placed exhibits separately in small plastic containers and the said containers were sealed with the help of doctor tape and with the seal of SM. Sealed plastic container containing blood in gauze having serial no. S-1 was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW8/F, bearing his signature at point B. Sealed plastic container containing blood stained concrete having serial no.S-2 was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E, bearing his signatures at point B. Sealed plastic container containing empty cartridge cases having serial no. S-3 was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW8/B, bearing his signatures at point B. One TSR bearing no.DL-1RQ-3672 which was standing nearby was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter IO had checked the footage of CCTV camera which was installed outside the shop of Gaurav Traders and on checking the footage, it was found that deceased Pradeep alongwith three boys and one lady passenger came on TSR in front of Gaurav Traders and those three boys and lady passengers alighted from the said auto. Deceased Pradeep handed over auto to one of three boys who took that auto at some distance ahead and took turn and they saw that one boy wearing dark blue coloured shirt and light brown coloured pant who was bare footed came from the side of Ranhola road and he punched Pradeep, that boy had fire arm in POOJA his right hand, apparently arguments ensued between that person TALWAR and deceased for sometime and thereafter he fired on the chest of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 deceased Pradeep and the deceased fell down facing towards the 12:43:12 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 31 of 55 ground. The aforesaid person took out another round/cartridge from the pocket of his wearing pant and after loading the same, fired on the back of deceased Pradeep who was lying on the ground. Thereafter, that person again took out one cartridge from his wearing pant and after loading the same in the fire arm, went away towards Ranhola Road on foot. Thereafter, IO took DVR alongwith adopter from the owner of Gaurav Traders and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SM. Seal after use was handed over to HC Parminder who had already reached at the spot after registration of the case. The said pullanda was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B, bearing his signatures at point A. IO recorded the statement of witnesses. He alongwith IO and other staff and case property returned back to the police station. Witness correctly identified the accused. IO recorded his statement.
On 20/06/2015 he again joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Subhash Malik and in the morning, they reached at SGM Mortuary for postmortem of deceased Pradeep. Inquest papers were prepared by the IO. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. The exhibits i.e., two bullet lead, blood in gauze and clothes of deceased, taken by the autopsy surgeon during the postmortem were handed over by the said surgeon in sealed condition to the IO alongwith three x-ray films and the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and case POOJA property returned to the PS. IO deposited the case property in the TALWAR malkhana.
Digitally signed byOn the same day in the evening, IO organized a POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:43:19 +0530 raiding party consisting of HC Parminder, HC Ajit, IO and SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 32 of 55 himself and briefed the raiding party. Thereafter, all of them reached at Ranhola mor. From there, secret informer accompanied them and they reached at ganda nala picker. There they met complainant Rajender Pahari, who joined them. Thereafter, they reached near Sikhadeep Public School and at the instance of secret informer, they apprehended the person who was coming from the side of gali no. 4, E Block, Vikas Nagar. Name of the accused was disclosed as Prithvi. IO interrogated the accused and he was arrested at about 6.15 pm vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A bearing his signatures at point B. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/B, bearing his signatures at point B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/C, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter accused led them to his house and got recovered one country-made pistol and four live cartridges from the shelf of the last room of his house at ground floor. IO prepared sketch of country-made pistol vide Ex.PW18/D bearing his signatures at point B. Sketch of recovered cartridges was prepared by the IO vide memo Ex.PW18/E bearing his signatures at point B. The aforesaid countrymade pistol and cartridges were placed in two separate plastic containers and same were sealed with the seal of SM. Serial no.5 was given to plastic container containing countrymade pistol. Serial no.6 was given to plastic container containing cartridges. The aforesaid containers were seized by the 1O vide memo Ex.PW18/F bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter the accused got recovered his blood stained khaki coloured pant which the accused was wearing at the time of POOJA incident) from beneath the mattress lying on the bed from the last TALWAR Digitally signed by room of his house. The said pant was converted into white POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 pullanda with the help of white cloth, same was sealed with the 12:43:43 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 33 of 55 seal of SM and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/G, bearing his signatures at point B. Seal after use was handed over to HC Parminder by the IO. Thereafter accused led them to the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW18/H, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he along with IO, case property and accused went to the police station. Case property was deposited in the malkhana, his statement was recorded by the IO and thereafter he was relieved.
On 21/06/2015, he again joined the investigation of the present case with the IO. Accused was taken out from lockup and his custody was handed over to HC Parminder, thereafter all of them reached at DDA Park near JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and efforts were made for searching the shirt, worn by the accused at the time of incident but in vain. Memo in that regard was prepared by the IO vide memo Ex.PW18/J, bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter all of them returned to police station. IO recorded his statement and he was relieved.
One sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of court 'C. No.35 NKB' bearing FSI. no.2015/P-4611/Phy-238/15 was opened with the permission of the court. Out of it, one DVD bearing aforesaid FSL. number and one CD bearing aforesaid FSI. number and copy of relevant photographs-CD-II. The said DVD was played with the permission of court in the laptop brought by the witness. During this display it was visible that at about 6.34:20 am accused arrived at the spot and he started scuffling with the deceased in presence of one lady and one person who were later on identified as Rajender Kumar and POOJA Sheela and during scuffle accused shot at deceased, who fell TALWAR down and again accused shot on the back of deceased by Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR changing the cartridge in countrymade pistol and then again he Date: 2025.10.18 12:44:19 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 34 of 55 changed the cartridge of the katta and left the spot by walking from there at about 6.35:50 am. The said DVD is Ex.PW19/P-1.
Another CD containing photographs of the CCTV footage was inserted in the said laptop and played. It contained 9 photographs of the incident, showing accused shooting the deceased. CD containing nine photographs is Ex.PW19/P-2. Witness correctly identified the accused.
Witness correctly identified one gauze cloth piece having brown stains taken from the place of occurrence as Ex.P-1, some small pieces of concrete material described as blood stained concrete taken from place of occurrence as Ex P-2, one brown light colour pant bearing slip of FSL bearing signatures of examiner and cut cloth pullanda as Ex.P-3, one foul smelling lower having dark stains and fungal growth on it, one T shirt having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it; one cut/torn baniyan having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it; one underwear having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it and a pair of sandals and one cut polythene as collectively Ex.P-4, gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood sample as Ex.P-5, one desi katta bearing FSL-2015/F 4622 as Ex.P-6, two live cartridges and two empty cartridges and two led as collectively Ex P-7 (at that time all the four cartridges were live), one DVR make JUAN bearing FSL number and marked as Exhibit 1 and one adopter as collectively Ex.P-8.
(xiii) PW21: Insp. Subhash Malik deposed that on 19/06/2015, at POOJA about 6.45 am a PCR call was received regarding one person was shot at R Block, Vikas Nagar near Holy Child School vide DD TALWAR No.9A Ex.PW2/A. On receiving the said information, he Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 alongwith SI Brahm Prakash and HCt Parminder in a government 12:44:30 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 35 of 55 vehicle reached at the place of information. There public persons were found gathered over there and blood was scattered and two cartridge cases were lying over there. He accordingly sent a wireless message to control room for sending crime team at the spot. In the meantime, he had also received another DD no.10A that injured has been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Thereafter, he left HC Parminder and beat staff at the spot with the direction to get the spot inspected by the crime team and he alongwith SI Brahm Prakash went to SGM hospital. There they met with concerned doctor, who informed them that patient namely Pradeep was declared brought dead and was shifted to mortuary of SGM hospital. He obtained MLC of deceased Pradeep and the concerned doctor handed over him one mobile phone make Nokia of deceased, which was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SM by him. Same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. Thereafter they went to mortuary and after seeing the dead body they noticed that there was a gun shot injuries on the chest and back of deceased. Thereafter, they went to the spot, where the crime team was already found present there. Sl Devender, Incharge Crime Team informed him that they had inspected the spot but the photographer was not available with them, so he arranged private photographer, who clicked photographs as per his directions. SI Devender handed over him scene of crime report. In the meantime, one person namely Rajender Joshi @ Pahadi met him and informed that he was eye witness of incident. He recorded his statement.
He recorded statement of Rajender Joshi @ Pahadi POOJA TALWAR Ex.PW8/A, bearing his attestation at point B. He prepared rukka, Digitally signed Ex.PW21/A bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:44:38 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 36 of 55 the same to HC Parmender for registration of FIR. Thereafter, called the owner of shop in the name and style of Gaurav Traders, on whose shop CCTV was installed. His name was Raj Kumar. He reached at the spot. He joined him in investigation. Thereafter he checked the footage of CCTV cameras installed on his shop. On checking, the whole incident was found captured in the CCTV footage. In the footage, they saw that deceased alongwith three boys and one lady passenger came in a TSR in front of Gaurav Traders and three boys alongwith lady passenger alighted from the said TSR. Deceased Pradeep handed over auto to one of those boys, who took that auto at some distance and took a turn. In the meantime, one boy wearing dark blue coloured shirt and light brown coloured pant, who was bare footed came from the side of main gali, Ranhola Road and he argued with Pradeep and then he punched him and he took out a fire arm from the pocket of his pant and fired at Pradeep, at his chest, who fell down. Thereafter, the same person made a fire in the back of the Pradeep after reloading the fire arm. Again he reload the fire arm by taking out cartridge from his wearing pant and he ran away towards the Ranhola Road on foot.
Thereafter, he requested Raj Kumar to call a person who had installed the said CCTV cameras. The said person was called by Raj Kumar via telephone. In the meantime, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. Same is Ex.PW21/B, bearing his signatures at point A and that of said SI Brahm Prakash at point B. Thereafter he lifted blood in gauze from the spot and placed the same in a transparent plastic container and Digitally sealed the same with the seal of SM, serial no S1 was given to signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR the said exhibit. Same was seized by him vide seizure memo TALWAR Date:
2025.10.18 Ex.PW8/F, bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, he lifted 12:44:45 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 37 of 55 two empty cartridges which were lying at the spot and prepared sketch of the same Ex.PW8/C, bearing his signatures at point C. The aforesaid cartridges were placed in a small plastic container and were sealed with the seal of SM and seized vide seizure memo Ex PW8/B bearing his signatures at point C. Serial no. 3 was given to said exhibit. Thereafter, he lifted blood stained concrete from the spot and placed the same in a plastic container. Same was sealed with the seal of SM and serial no.2 was given to the said exhibit and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E, bearing his signatures at point C. He also seized the TSR bearing no. DL1RQ-3672, which was standing near the place of incident vide seizure memo Ex PW8/D, bearing his signatures at point C. In the meantime, HC Parmender reached at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, he seized the DVR make JUAN alongwith adopter and converted the same into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of SM and seized vide seizure memo Ex PW19/B, bearing his signatures at point B and that of Raj Kumar at point C. Serial no.4 was given to said pullanda. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Raj Kumar, Rajender, Lalit, members of crime team.
Thereafter, while they were returning to PS, one secret informer met him. He apprised him about the incident and he was discharged. Thereafter they reached at PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He recorded statement of SI Brahm Prakash and HC Parmender. Efforts were made to trace out the accused but in vain.
POOJA On 20/06/2015, he alongwith SI Brahm Prakash TALWAR reached SGM mortuary for the postmortem on the body of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR deceased. He prepared inquest papers Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D. Date: 2025.10.18 12:44:52 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 38 of 55 Ex.PW21/E bearing his signatures at point X. He recorded statements of relatives of deceased namely Karanjeet and Kripanand Ex.PW21/F and Ex.PW21/G, bearing his attestation at point X. After postmortem the dead body of deceased Pradeep was handed over to his relatives. The exhibits i.e., one sealed pullanda containing blood stained clothes of deceased, one sealed plastic container containing two bullet leads, which were taken out by the autopsy surgeon during the postmortem of deceased, one sealed envelope containing blood sample of the deceased, x- ray films and one sample seal of SGMH MORTUARY MONGOL PURI DELHI 83, all the exhibits were sealed with the aforesaid seal. Aforesaid exhibits were handed over to him by the concerned doctor and same were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW19/C, bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, they went to PS and he deposited the case property in the malkhana.
Thereafter he again left for investigation of this case with SI Brahm Prakash, HC Parmender and HC Ajeet. When they reached near the Ranhola mor, one secret informer met them, who informed that the accused wanted in the present case will come in the area. When they reached near ganda nala, complainant Rajender Pahadi met them. He apprised him about the information and joined him in the investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith above police staff, complainant and secret informer reached near Sikhadeep Public School, Vikas Nagar near Gali no.5. At about 5 pm, secret informer had told him that one person who was coming from the side of gali no.4 was the accused and that person was also identified by the complainant. Thereafter, POOJA HC Parmender chased that person and apprehended him. He TALWAR interrogated the said person, who confessed to his guilt and he Digitally signed by POOJA was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A, bearing his TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:44:59 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 39 of 55 signatures at point X. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/B, bearing his signatures at point X. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/C, bearing his signatures at point X. Accused had disclosed that country-made pistol and cartridges were kept by him at his house and thereafter he led them to his house. From the room of ground floor of his house, from the shelves (Taand), accused got recovered one countrymade pistol and four live cartridges. 1 sketch of the same, which are Ex.PW18/D and Ex.PW18/E, both bearing his signatures at point X. Case property was converted into pullandas and same was sealed with the seal of SM and he seized them vide memo Ex.PW18/F, bearing his signatures at point X. Accused got recovered from beneath the mattress of the bed lying in another room a pant, which was having small size stains of blood. He prepared pullanda of the same and sealed the same with the seal of SM. The aforesaid pullanda was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/G bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, accused led them to the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW18/H bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, as per the disclosure of accused, they went to the place where he had thrown his blood stained shirt i.e., DDA Park Shiv Vihar. Efforts were made to trace out the same but in vain. Thereafter all of them alongwith accused came back to PS. He deposited the case property in the malkhana. Accused was medically examined and was sent to lockup.
On 21/06/2015, accused was taken out from lock up and he was interrogated in terms of his disclosure statement. POOJA Thereafter, he was produced before Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Court TALWAR and his one day PC remand was taken. Accused was medically Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 examined at SGM Hospital and thereafter he was taken to PS. 12:45:36 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 40 of 55 Thereafter, he alongwith SI Brahm Prakash, HC Parmender, Ct Naresh and accused reached at JJ Colony DDA Park, Shiv Vihar in search of shirt of accused worn by him at the time of incident but same could not be traced. He prepared memo in that regard and same is Ex.PW18/J, bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter they went to Village Nasirpur, Dabri mor, in search of the person namely Sanju from whom accused purchased the country made pistol and cartridges but in vain. Thereafter, all of them returned back to PS. He recorded statements of witnesses and accused was sent to lockup after medical examination and on the next day, he was produced before L.d. MM and was sent to JC.
On 24/06/2015, photographer Vijay Khurana handed over six sets of photographs alongwith six CDs and one memory card to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signatures at point X. Later on the TSR was released to its owner on superdari as per directions of court and he got deposited the exhibits of the present case at FSL. Rohini. He recorded statements of witnesses from time to time and obtained PCR form during investigation. During the investigation, the spot was got inspected by the draftsman Inspector Mahesh, who had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW6/A. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the court. At that time permission u/s 39 Arms Act and FSL results were pending.
He correctly identified one gauze cloth piece having brown stains taken from the place of occurrence as Ex.P-1, some POOJA small pieces of concrete material described as blood stained TALWAR concrete taken from place of occurrence as Ex.P-2, one brown Digitally signed by POOJA light colour pant bearing slip of FSL bearing signatures of TALWAR Date:
2025.10.18 12:45:42 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 41 of 55 examiner and cut cloth pullanda as Ex.P-3, one foul smelling lower having dark stains and fungal growth on it, one T shirt having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it; one cut/torn baniyan having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it; one underwear having dark stains alongwith fungal growth on it and a pair of sandals and one cut polythene as collectively Ex.P-4, gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood sample as Ex.P-5, one desi katta bearing FSL-2015/F 4622 as Ex.P-6, two live cartridges and two empty cartridges and two led as collectively Ex.P-7 (at that time all the four cartridges were live), one DVR make JUAN bearing FSL number and marked as Exhibit 1 and one adopter as collectively Ex.P-8.
One unsealed envelope, which is part of judicial record, bearing FSL no.2015/P-4611/Phy-238/15 was opened with the permission of the court. Out of it, one DVD bearing aforesaid FSL number and one CD bearing aforesaid FSL number and copy of relevant photographs-CD-II. The said DVD was played with the permission of court in the laptop brought by the witness. During this display witness states that it was visible that at about 6.34:20 am accused arrived at the spot and he started arguing, scuffling with the deceased and during scuffling, accused shot at deceased, who fell down and again accused shot to the back of deceased by changing the cartridge in country- made pistol and then again he changed the cartridge of the katta and left the spot by walking from there at about 6.35:50 am. The said DVD is Ex.PW19/P-1.
POOJA Another CD containing photographs of the CCTV footage TALWAR was inserted in the said laptop and played. It was containing 9 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR photographs of the incident, having accused shooting the Date: 2025.10.18 12:45:51 +0530 deceased. CD containing nine photographs is Ex.PW19/P-2.SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 42 of 55
It was submitted that during his examination in chief recorded on 27.04.2019, he was directed to place on record the photographs after developing the same from CD Ex.PW19/P1. Accordingly, he had got developed the said photographs and already placed the same on record.
He identified the 14 photographs available on judicial file and exhibited the said photographs as Ex.PW21/P1 collectively.
Witness has submitted that in few of the aforesaid 14 photographs, accused Prithvi was clearly visible holding one fire arm and pointing out the said fire arm towards deceased and also seen firing with the said fire arm towards deceased Pradeep. He marked the photograph in which accused Prithvi was visible as Ex.PW21/P1-1, Ex.PW21/P1-2, Ex.PW21/P1-3, Ex.PW21/P1-4 & Ex. PW21/P1-5.
5. Accused admitted the sanction u/s 39 Arms Act Ex.Admit/YI.
Statement of Accused:
6. Statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 CrP.C wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated and had no connection with the commission of offence of the present case. He had not committed any offence.
Defence Evidence:
7. In defence evidence, DW-1 Sohan Lal Sharma was POOJA examined and he deposed that he was a fitness trainer. On TALWAR 19.06.2015 he alongwith accused Prithvi used to go for morning Digitally signed by walk at about 5.00-5.30 am and returned at about 7.00-7.30 am. POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:46:01 +0530 He used to go for a walk alongwith Prithvi for last four to five SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 43 of 55 months. On 20.06.2015 he went for a morning walk with accused Prithvi at about 5.00-5.30 am and returned at about 7.00-7.30 am.
In the afternoon, accused Prithvi told him that he received telephone call from police station and that police called him regarding some enquiry and thereafter he alongwith Prithvi went to police station where in the PS they saw that 8 to 10 persons were already sitting there and police officials were making enquiry from them. The police officials made enquiries from accused Prithvi but did not release him. He called the parents of accused and later on he came to know that accused has been falsely implicated in some case.
Arguments on behalf of the State
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that though the accused succeeded in intimidating and winning over the eye witnesses however the sequence of events is clearly visible in the CCTV footage. Accused can clearly be seen in the footage shooting deceased Pradeep. Moreover, the weapon of offence as well as the empty and live cartridges recovered from the spot at the instance of accused further corroborate the evidence available in the footage to connect accused with the offence. Accused deserves to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
9. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that the so-called eye witnesses have not supported the case of the POOJA prosecution. No incriminating evidence has been brought on TALWAR record by the prosecution to connect accused with the offence. Digitally signed by POOJA The case property i.e. the fire arm has been planted on accused TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:46:09 +0530 and the CCTV footage is tampered in order to falsely implicate SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 44 of 55 the accused in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence on record against accused. Hence he deserves to be acquitted.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Analysis of Law:
11. Murder is defined under Section 300 IPC and punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 IPC.
(a) Section 302 of the IPC provides punishment for the grave crime of murder. Murder is an act done to cause death or dangerous injury to some person, and body harm which it is known ought in all probability to cause death, or which by reckless disregard of human life would in all probability cause death. The keyword in this section is "intent" to cause death, direct or indirect.
i) Intention to Cause Death: The first pre- requisite for a criminal offense to be classified under Section 302 IPC is that the perpetrator should have an intention to kill the victim.
ii) Knowledge regarding the Possibility of Death: Although death was not intended to happen, if on the part of the perpetrator knowledge of the possibility that his act might lead to death could be proved, then the offense would come within the scope of murder. POOJA TALWAR
iii) Extreme Rashness: When the act has been done with such Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 rashness that it would cause death almost certainly, then it would 12:46:57 +0530 be murder as per Section 302.
SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 45 of 55(iv) Sentence: The law under Section 302 provides for capital punishment or life imprisonment in cases of murder. In addition to the sentence, the fine may also be imposed based on the case at hand.
Section 27 of Arms Act:
[27. Punishment for using arms, etc.―(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.] Observation of the Court:
12. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on receipt of DD no.9A. When the police team reached the place of incident, one Rajender Joshi who was present at the said place got his statement Ex.PW8/A recorded. In the said complaint, it is stated that on 19.06.2015 at around 6.15 am deceased Pradeep was coming on his auto. The auto was boarded by one Mama POOJA Tyagi, one lady and the complainant too boarded the same. On TALWAR the way deceased Pradeep stopped the auto and all of them Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR deboarded. Deceased Pradeep asked one Sultan to turn the auto. Date: 2025.10.18 12:47:05 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 46 of 55 At around 6.30 am accused Prithvi reached there, took out a desi katta from his pocket and fired at Pradeep. He then hit him with the leg. Accused Prithvi gave a gun shot on the chest of Pradeep due to which he collapsed, Prithvi then fired at his back and fled.
13. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW6 Sheela who deposed that she boarded one auto from Uttam Nagar to Vikas Nagar in the morning and deboarded at R Block Gali no.2. She turned hostile and denied all the suggestions put to her by Ld. Addl. APP for the State.
14. PW8 Rajender Joshi, this witness too deposed the fact of boarding the auto from Uttam Nagar and deboarding the same at Pradhan Chowk Vikas Nagar. He admitted his signatures on complaint Ex.PW8/A, PW8/B, PW8/C but explained that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. Similarly PW9 Sajid @ Sultan and PW12 Sandeep too resiled from their previous statement.
15. All these aforesaid witnesses failed to identify accused as the person who killed Pradeep in their presence.
16. Besides these witnesses prosecution placed reliance on testimony of PW11 Vikram Garg who had installed CCTV system in the shop of Gaurav Traders and took out the DVR containing hard-disc and adapter and handed over the same to IO.
POOJA TALWAR
17. PW16 HC Vijender Singh produced register no.19. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR He proved the fact of case property being deposited in Date: 2025.10.18 12:47:14 +0530 maalkhana.
SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 47 of 5518. PW18 ASI Parminder was present alongwith IO. When they reached the spot two empty cartridges lying on the spot were recovered in his presence and PW8 Rajender Joshi introduced himself as an eye witness to the incident. Accused Prithvi was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW18/A and his disclosure statement Ex.PW18/C was recorded in his presence. Even the countrymade pistol alongwith four remaining live cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused from the shelf of his house alongwith one blood stained pant which he was wearing at the time of incident. Case property including DVR make juna alongwith adapter cable was deposited by him in the FSL. He took FSL form one internal hardisc of 1 TB and six empty DVDs alongwith the case property to FSL.
19. PW19 SI Brahm Prakash identified the accused in the DVD Ex.PW19/P-1 when the same was played in the court. He also identified the CD Ex.PW19/P-2 containing the photographs taken from the footage.
20. IO/Inspector Subhash Malik too identified accused in the DVD when the same was played in the court. As per him the accused is visible at about 6:34:20 am arriving at the place of incident and thereafter killing deceased Pradeep.
21. PW22 V. Laxmi Narasimhan from FSL Rohini to prove his report Ex.PW22/A and stated that there was no alteration in the identified video. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by
22. PW23 Dr. Puneet Puri from FSL examined the POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 countrymade pistol and stated that the countrymade pistol mark 12:47:24 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 48 of 55 F1 was in working condition and Ex.EC1 and EC2 were fired empty cartridges, fired through the said countrymade pistol mark F1. He proved his report Ex.PW23/A.
23. With this backdrop I proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused.
24. The accused has firstly been charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for causing death of deceased Pradeep with an intention and knowledge that the gun shot on the chest and back would cause his death.
25. As per opinion of Dr. Manoj Dhingra PW5 the cause of death is a result of injury inflicted by fire arm weapon.
26. All the claimed eye witnesses completely turned hostile and failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator. The evidence available with the prosecution is the CCTV footage which was recovered from the cameras installed in one shop near the place of incident.
27. The footage was got recovered from the person who installed the CCTV camera in the said shop. The same was seized by the IO and then sent to FSL. The opinion obtained from FSL declares that there was no tampering in the footage.
28. The footage was played in the court and accused POOJA was identified as the person giving gun shot injury to deceased TALWAR Pradeep by SI Brahm Prakash and Inspector Subhash Malik. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Both these witnesses identified accused in the said footage. Date: 2025.10.18 12:47:40 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 49 of 55
29. It was put to accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that he is the person seen at 6:34:20 am to have reached the place of incident and thereafter inflicting gun shot injuries on the person of deceased Pradeep. The accused denied the same and stated that he is not seen in the video.
30. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that CCTV footage can be solely relied upon to prove the guilt of accused. No corroboration is required.
31. Per contra it is argued by Ld. defence counsel that the CCTV footage is not a substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration. He further argued that moreover in this case the CCTV footage is even otherwise tampered.
32. In judgment titled Kishan Tripathi @ Kishan Painter Vs. The State appeal no.108/13 dated 12.02.2016 it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
13. The CCTV footage, which was directly and immediately stored in the hard drive of the computer is the original media, that was self generated and created without any human intervention. This CCTV footage is not secondary evidence and does not require certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. This is- sue is no longer res integra and is settled in the decision of the Supreme Court in Anwar P.V. (S) versus P.K. Basir, (2014) 10 SCC 473, which hold:-
"24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in POOJA TALWAR evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those Digitally signed CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:48:02 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 50 of 55 got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made there from which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act."
The aforesaid paragraph elucidates difference between primary and secondary evidence. When primary or direct evidence in form of original data be it a CD, hard drive or any other electronic record is produced, the same is admissible and taken on record. This takes care of the contention of the appellant that the CCTV footage should be discarded and not read in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
14. The CCTV footage is captured by the cameras and can be stored in the computer where files are created with serial numbers, date, time and identification marks. These POOJA identification marks/details are self generated and recorded, as a TALWAR result of preexisting software commands. The capture of visual Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 images on the hard disc is automatic in the sense that the video 12:48:09 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 51 of 55 images get stored and recorded suo-moto when the CCTV cam- era is on and is properly connected with the hard disc installed in the computer. It is apparent in the present case from the evidence led that no one was watching the CCTV footage when it was being stored and recorded. The recording was as a result of commands or instructions, which had already been given and programmed. The original hard disc, therefore, could be the primary and the direct evidence. Such primary or direct evidence would enjoy a unique position for anyone who watches the said evidence would be directly viewing the primary evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct, i.e., with reference to the fact which can be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness, who had seen it, with reference to the fact, which could be heard, it must be evidence of the witness, who had heard it and if it relates to the fact which could be perceived by other sense or any other manner, then it must be the evidence of the witness, who says who had perceived it by that sense or by that manner. Read in this light, when we see the CCTV footage, we are in the same position as that of a witness, who had seen the occurrence, though crime had not occurred at that time when the recording was played, but earlier.
33. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment and the principles laid down therein this court is of the considered view that possibility of manipulation, fabrication and tempering is ruled out. System was in proper working condition is satisfied by ocular testimony of Vikram Garg PW11 who deposed that he POOJA had installed the CCTV system at the shop of Gaurav Traders TALWAR and took out the DVR containing hard-disk and adapter and Digitally signed by handed over the same to the IO. PW19 SI Brahm Prakash and POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 12:48:16 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 52 of 55 PW21 Inspector Subhash Malik had viewed the data. In so far as authenticity of records is concerned witness from FSL PW22 V. Laxmi Narasimhan testified that one DVR containing one hard disc of capacity of 1.0 TB of make WD was found there was no indication of alternation in the identified video shot on the basis of frame by frame-examination. Copy of relevant video files in the DVR Ex.1 were prepared in the three DVDs marked copy of RELEVANT VIDEO-DVD1 TO DVD3 and provided alongwith the report. Relevant images were grabbed and copies of the same were prepared in three DVDs marked copy of RELEVANT PHOTOGRAPHS-CD1 TO CD3 and provided alongwith the report.
34. No suggestion is given to PW11 Vikram Garg with respect to tampering of DVR at the time of handing over the same to the IO. And a simple suggestion is given to PW19 SI Brahm Prakash that there was no CCTV camera at the spot. No suggestion with respect to tampering of DVR is given to this witness. To IO Inspector Subhash Malik PW21 it is suggested that no such occurrence is captured in the CCTV camera and a suggestion of tempering and manipulated footage is given to him.
35. Testimony of these aforesaid witnesses could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination.
36. Prosecution through the testimony of aforesaid POOJA witnesses has been able to prove that the CCTV footage is not TALWAR tampered as the footage was played in the court and accused is Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR visible at 6:34:20 am to 6:35:50 am at the place of incident Date: 2025.10.18 12:48:24 +0530 committing the crime. Accused Prithvi is seen in the footage and SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 53 of 55 in my considered opinion having seen the footage, there is no iota of doubt that man seen in the video is accused Prithvi.
37. Accused Prithvi in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated and has no connection in committing the offence. He produced one Sohan Lal Sharma in his defence who for the first time stated that accused was with him at the relevant time and was not present at the place of incident. Testimony of the said witness is unreliable and untrustworthy as the defence of alibi has been taken for the first time at the time of recording of defence evidence. No such suggestion is given to any witness in cross- examination. The said plea is not even taken by accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
38. Further one countrymade pistol is shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused, and two empty cartridges from the place of incident. PW23 Dr. Puneet Puri proved that these empty cartridges were from pistol Ex.F1 recovered from the accused.
39. ASI Parvinder PW18, SI Brahm Prakash PW19 and IO/Inspector Subhash Malik PW21 were the witnesses to the recovery of two empty cartridges lying at the place of incident, countrymade pistol alongwith remaining four live cartridges. Testimonies of these three witnesses could not be impeached POOJA during cross-examination. Photographs of empty cartridges were TALWAR taken by PW13 Vijay Khurana, PW18, PW19 and PW21 were Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR the witnesses to the recovery of the same. PW16 deposed that the Date: 2025.10.18 12:48:31 +0530 case property remained intact till it was in his custody. No SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 54 of 55 suggestion is given to the said witness with respect to tampering of the exhibits. Hence prosecution succeeded in proving the recovery of weapon of offence alongwith live cartridges at the instance of accused and that the same was used by him in commission of crime.
40. From the aforesaid discussion, placing reliance upon CCTV Footage it stands proved that deceased Pradeep was killed by accused Prithvi and is liable under Section 302 IPC.
41. As has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, prosecution succeeded in proving the recovery of countrymade pistol from the accused which was used in the commission of offence. He failed to show any valid license for being in possession of the countrymade pistol and using the same in causing death of deceased Pradeep. Hence he is liable for conviction under Section 27 of Arms Act.
Conclusion:
42. In the light of my discussion above, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused. Hence accused Prithvi is convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act.
POOJA TALWAR Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) Digitally signed by on 18.10.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.18 Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 12:48:47 +0530 SC no.57299/16 State Vs. Prithvi Page 55 of 55