Delhi District Court
State vs Rocky on 11 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPIN KHARB
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-07 : SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No.67/2024
CNR No. DLSE010012792024
State Vs. Rocky
S/o Late Sh. Balraj
R/o H.No.40A, Basantpur
Village, Faridabad, Haryana
FIR No. : 466/2023
Police Station : Jaitpur
Under Sections : 302/307 IPC,
39/192 MV Act &
25/54/59 Arms Act.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 05.02.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 10.12.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 11.12.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On 27.10.2023, Ct. Satyapal was on night emergency duty along with IO/SI Satyapreet. On that day at about 09:07 pm vide DD No.77A IO/SI Satyapreet received a PCR call that "ek ladke ne meri bahan ko goli mar de hai", accordingly, he along with Ct. Satyapal went to spot i.e. G-67, Gali no.2 Ekta Vihar, Delhi where blood were lying on the spot and they met mother of deceased Nirash Yadav and she told that one boy had shot her daughter and ran away from there. Thereafter, IO called the crime team at the spot. Crime team clicked the photograph and lifted blood stain stole and exhibits from the spot Page 1 of 29 and handed over to IO. One splendor motorcycle was found at the spot and IO took it into possession and seized the same through seizure memo. Crime team also lifted four empty cartridge, one projectile bullet lead and two P-cap and gave to IO and IO prepared sketch of empty cartridges and seized the same vide seizure memo. In the meantime, another DD No.87A was received regarding brought dead of Pooja Yadav from the Apollo Hospital. IO left the Ct. Rakesh at the spot and along with Ct. Satyapal went to the Apollo Hospital where he collected the MLC of deceased and Manoj Yadav, brother of the deceased, met IO and IO took his statement and prepared the rukka.
2. In his statement complainant Manoj Yadav stated that on 27.10.2023 after finishing his duty he returned home at around 08:00 pm and at that time his mother and sister Pooja were present at home. After having dinner, he was in front room of house and his sister Pooja was standing near gallery gate. He heard four gunshots and suddenly his mother shouted and screamed that her daughter has been shot. Immediately, he came out of the room and saw his sister Pooja lying unconscious in blood and blood was splashed on the floor. A boy who looked stoic was trying to start his black coloured motorcycle and run away but he caught hold of his motorcycle because of which the boy fell down along with motorcycle. On falling down that boy took out a pistol from right side of his pant and pointed it towards him, on which, he got scared and ran back. The boy chased him for 5-7 steps and then returned to his motorcycle and tried to start it but it did not start, so, that boy started pushing the motorcycle and he again tried to catch him, on which, that boy again pointed pistol towards him and he again moved back out of fear and picked up a wooden plank from the road to save himself, after which, that boy again pushed his bike and after some distance, he again reached near him then that boy took out the pistol and fired upon him but the bullet missed him and Page 2 of 29 passed by his side and after that he hid nearby. That boy removed his helmet and his face mask got loose and he saw his face clearly. Then he again fired another shot in the air and tried run away on his motorcycle but it did not start and he left the motorcycle there. He took his sister to Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar in unconscious state. On the way to the hospital, he called the police at 112 number and informed them about the incident and he told his father about the incident that a boy had shot Pooja and was taken her to Apollo Hospital where his father also met there. In hospital, she was declared brought dead. On the basis of his statement and MLC, IO got registered the present FIR u/s.
302/307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
3. After the registration of FIR, further investigation of the present case was carried out by the Inspr. /SHO Sanjiv Mishra and he prepared the site plan at the instance of Manoj Yadav. IO/ Inspr Sanjiv Mishra enquired from mother and father of the deceased and recorded their statements. On 28.10.2023, on secret information, IO along with HC Samay Singh went to Bilaspur Camp near Lohia Pul, where at the instance of secret informer, they apprehended the accused Rocky. Complainant identified the accused in PS. IO arrested accused vide arrest memo and recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, IO along with HC Samay Singh and accused Rocky went to Yamuna Bank, near Basantpur Village, Faridabad Haryana where weapon of offence was recovered from near a unpaved road approaching towards Yamuna Bank. IO recovered one plastic katta at the instance of accused and opened it and found one pistol which was wrapped with Chunni. IO prepared sketch of pistol and magazine. IO seized the chunni and katta and prepared recovery site plan. On the intervening night of 29-30.10.2023 IO along with ASI Karter, HC Samay Singh and HC Praveen (Driver) went to Yamuna Bank near Village Basantpur, District Faridabad, Haryana and at the instance of accused took out one check Page 3 of 29 shirt and one blue colour jeans pant from bushes and IO seized the same.
4. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court for the offence u/s. 302/307 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and 39/192 MV Act. After complying with Sec.207 Cr.PC, case was committed to the Sessions Court.
5. After hearing arguments, separate charges were framed against the accused on 24.02.224 for the offences punishable u/s.302/307/336 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act and 29/192 M.V. Act to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. During the trial, IO filed supplementary charge-sheets regarding FSL.
7. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 24 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
8. PW-1 / Manoj Yadav was the complainant and he deposed that on the day on incident, he was present at home suddenly his mother was crying from the kitchen and he went towards the gate of his house and found that his sister Pooja was lying near the gate and blood was oozing from her body. He did not see any person who shot her and called at 112 and police came after some time. Thereafter, he took her sister to Apollo Hospital where doctor declared her brought dead. He gave written complaint to police Ex.PW1/A. Site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared at his instance and his signature was obtained on blank papers by police.
Page 4 of 29After taking permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross-examined PW-1 as he resiled from his previous statement. He admitted his MLC No.7710/2023 dated 29.10.2023 Ex.PW1/C. He admitted that police obtained his signature on arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and personal search of accused Ex.PW1/E. He denied his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC dated 28.10.2023. He denied the suggestion that police arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and recording of his disclosure statement in his presence and failed to identify the clothes of accused as Ex.P4 (colly). He correctly identified the chunni of deceased as Ex.P5. He failed to identify the accused in the court and stated that he had not seen the accused at the time of incident. He denied the suggestions that he has settled the matter with accused out of the court that is why he is deposing falsely.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he stated that he did not go to PS on 28.10.2023. He admitted that the complaint Ex.PW1/A was not in his hand writing and he had signed blank papers at the instance of police.
9. PW-2 / Rajni deposed that some police officials came to her house and made queries about motorcycle as motorcycle was used in commission of offence and she showed her ignorance about the said motorcycle. The keys of the motorcycle used to be on the motorcycle itself and do not know who had taken the aforesaid motorcycle at the time of incident. She does not remember the registration number of motorcycle and heard a person with the name of Rocky but she does not know him. She deposed that she is a housewife and mostly remain inside the house and she does not know anything else about the case.
After taking permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross-examined PW-2 as she resiled from her previous statement. She denied Page 5 of 29 the suggestions that she had given the motorcycle bearing No. DL-3SF-F5621 to accused. She admitted that motorcycle was not having number plates affixed on it. She stated that she has not given any statement to the police she does not know if IO had recorded her statement. She denied the suggestions that she is deliberately and purposefully neither deposing true facts nor admitting her true and correct statement given to the police as she was won over by the accused either by threat, coercion, promise or inducement.
10. PW-3/Smt. Niras Devi was the mother of deceased and she deposed that on 27.10.2023, they were present at their house and her daughter Pooja was playing on the roadside. Suddenly, one person came on the motorcycle and fired on her daughter Pooja. Her son Manoj tried to apprehend him but the motorcyclist / assailant also fired on her son Manoj. The said assailant left the motorcycle and ran away from the spot and her son took injured Pooja to Apollo Hospital where she was declared brought dead.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, she stated that she did not know what happened outside her house. She has not seen the incident. She only heard the gun shot noise. Police had not recorded her statement.
11. PW-4/Ram Vishnu Yadav was father of deceased and he deposed that on 27.10.2023 at about 08:30 pm, his son informed through telephonically that some motorcyclist had fired on his daughter Pooja and assailant also fired on his son. The assailant left the motorcycle and fled away. Her daughter was taken to Apollo hospital where she was declared brought dead. He identified the dead body vide identification memo Ex.PW4/P1 and received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW4/P2.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he stated that he Page 6 of 29 was not an eye-witness of the incident.
12. PW-5/Dr. Ritesh Srivastava deposed that on 27.10.2023 patient Pooja was brought by W/Ct. Priyanka Kumari with alleged history of gun shot injury and she was in unconscious and unresponsive state and he had prepared MLC No.871/2023 Ex.PW5/A.
13. PW-6/ Dr. Balaji, PW-7/Dr. Ayushman and PW-8/Dr.Gokul are doctors who conducted post-mortem of deceased Pooja and opined that cause of death of shock due to gunshot injuries to head, ches and abdomen which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries are antemortem in nature and proved post moretm report No.1281-2023 Ex.PW6/A.
14. PW-9/SI Harbir Singh was the photographer of the Crime Team, South East District deposed that on 27.10.2023, on receipt of information by SI Satyapreet, he along with ASI Ravi (fingerprint proficient) went to the spot and he took 24 photographs Ex.PW9/A of the spot from different angles and he proved certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW9/B.
15. PW-10/ACP Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 15.11.2023, he along with IO and two other police officials went to the spot where he inspected the spot, took measurements and prepared rough notes on the pointing out by complainant Manoj and IO. On 16.11.2023, on the basis of said rough notes prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW10/A. After preparation of scaled site plan rough notes were destroyed.
16. PW-11/W/Ct. Komal deposed that on 27.10.2023 at about 21:09:40 Page 7 of 29 hours she received PCR call and she proved the event ID8014520 of PCR form Ex.PW11/A. In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, she stated that as per PCR form Ex.PW11/A the name of informer was Pooja Yadav and voluntarily stated that in heinous cases they have very less time and information is transmitted to console room as soon as possible and name of informant did not feed by her and CLI automatically detects the name and number through mobile number of caller.
17. PW-12/W/Ct. Anju Devi deposed that she fed the information stated by the informant in system and transmitted the call to console room and proved the PCR form for even ID8014471 Ex.PW12/A.
18. PW-13/ASI Ravi deposed that he was the fingerprint proficient at Crime Team and on 27.10.2023 and on receipt of information by SI/Satyapreet, he along with Photographer SI Harbir went to spot where one black colour splendor motorcycle was found parked in front of gate of the house and checked the bike for chance print but no chance print could be developed. He prepared scene of crime report Ex.PW13/A.
19. PW-14/SI Satender was the Duty Officer, who proved endorsement on rukka Ex.PW14/A, copy of FIR Ex.14/B, certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW14/C, GD No.9A & 10A dated 28.10.2023 Ex.PW14/D and Ex.PW14/E respectively.
20. PW-15/SI Vijay Kumar deposed that he collected clothes of the deceased in sealed pullanda with the seal of Apollo Hospital on 28.10.2023 Page 8 of 29 and prepared seizure memo of clothes Ex.PW15A. On 29.10.2023 he filled PM request form and form no.25-35 (1) (B) Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15C respectively. Ram Vishnu Yadav identified the dead body vide memo Ex.PW4/P1 and after post mortem dead body was handed over to Ram Vishnu Yadav vide handing over memo Ex.PW4/P2. Doctor also handed over exhibits and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/D.
21. PW-16/Ct. Mahender deposed that on 21.12.2023 he deposited the exhibits, sample seal and forwarding letter at FSL Rohini vide RC No.295/21/23 and he did not tamper as along as exhibits remained with him.
22. PW-17/Ct. Satish deposed that on 18.12.2023 he collected sealed exhibits along with sample and forwarding letter vide RC No.294/21/2023 from MHC(M) and deposited in FSL Rohini and acknowledgment receipt and copy of RC was handed over to MHC(M).
23. PW-18/Ct. Satyapal deposed that on 27.10.2023, IO/SI Satyapreet received call, accordingly, he along with IO went to spot where crime team was present. Crime team inspected the spot and clicked the photograph and lifted blood stained stole and handed over one wooden plank (fatta) to IO. IO seized the same through seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. Crime team also lifted the exhibits from the spot Ex.PW18/B. IO took the motorcycle into possession and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C. Crime team also lifted four empty cartridge, one projectile bullet lead and two P-cap from the spot and took the same into police possession. IO prepared sketch of empty cartridge Ex.PW18/D. Four empty cartridge, one projectile bullet lead and two P-cap were kept in transparent box were seized and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW18/E. He correctly identified the stole Ex.PW18/P1, five pieces of tile Page 9 of 29 Ex.PW18/P2, four empty cartridge, one projectile bullet lead and two P-cap Ex.PW18/P3 (colly), one wooden plank (fatta0 Ex.PW18/P4 and photographs of motorcycle Ex.PW9/A (colly) respectively.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he stated that exhibits were collected by the crime team at the spot and were handed over to IO of the case namely SI Satyapreet.
24. PW-19/Ct. Ishwar Pal was the police official and went to deliver the copy of FIR at the resident of DCP, Joint CP and Ld. MM on 28.10.2023.
25. PW-20/ASI Kumar Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 29- 30.10.2023 he along with HC Samay Singh, SI Satyapreet and accused Rocky went to near Yamuna River at Village Basantpur, District Faridabad Haryana where near the bushes accused took out one check shirt and one blue colour jeans pant and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. He correctly identified the accused in the court during testimony and also identified the clothes Ex.P4 (colly).
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he admitted that house of accused was on the way from PS Palla to alleged place of recovery of clothes. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused and IO planted the alleged clothes on the accused.
26. PW-21/HC Samay Singh deposed that on 28.10.2023 he along with SI Satyapreet, Inspr. Sanjeev Mishra went to near Bilaspur Camp where one secret informer pointed out towards the accused, thereafter, they apprehended and took him to PS. IO called the complainant Manoj at PS and he identified the accused and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter, he along with SI Satyapreet and went to Yamuna Bank with the accused where Page 10 of 29 accused took out one coloured plastic katta and IO checked and found one pistol which was wrapped with orange black colour chunni. IO prepared the sketch of the pistol and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. He prepared the recovery site plan of the pistol Ex.PW21/B. On 29.10.2023 he along with SI Satyapreet, ASI Kartar, HC Praveen and accused went to unpaved road leading towards Yamuna bank, Basantpur, Haryana where accused took out his clothes i.e. pant and shirt from inside the bushes and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A and prepared recovery site plan Ex.PW21/C. He identified the clothes Ex.P4 (colly) and pistol Ex.P5 which were recovered at the instance of accused.
After taking permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State asked a leading question from PW-21 as he did not disclose the complete fact. IO prepared the sketch of recovered pistol Ex.PW21/D and sketch of pistol Ex.PW21/E. In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he admitted that at the time of apprehending of accused they had no clues regarding accused. He admitted that complainant Manoj was not present with them when accused was apprehended. The place of recovery of pistol falls within the jurisdiction of PS Palla Faridabad, Haryana. At the time of apprehending the accused at Agra Canal only police personnel were present. He along with IO reached Yamuna Bank with accused through Jaitpur Road approaching towards Haryana. He does not remember the mode of transport used by them to reach the spot of recovery of pistol and further do not remember whether they were in private vehicle or govt vehicle. He does not remember as to how many persons they were there who went to spot of recovery of pistol. He along with IO/Inspr. Sanjeev Mishra, SI Satyapreet and accused went to the spot of recovery. He admitted that the alleged place of recovery of pistol is a dark place having no lights and no place to sit. He denied the suggestion that vehicle/car cannot Page 11 of 29 reach at the place of recovery of pistol.
He stated that IO had not recorded the statement of any public witness in his presence. He could not say as to how much time IO to complete investigation at the place of recovery of pistol and can tell what documents / paper formalities were prepared by the IO at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused was identified by the complainant at the instance of IO to solve a blind murder case.
27. PW-22/HC Dilpreet deposed that he was MHC(M) and proved the relevant entries in Register No. 19 of year 2023 at Sr No.2392 as Ex.PW22/A, at Sr No.2392 as Ex.PW22/B and at Sr. No.2398 as Ex.PW22/C.
28. PW-23/SI Satyapreet was the first IO of the case and deposed that on 27.10.2023 he received the DD No.77A regarding ek ladke ne meri bahan ko goli mar de hai. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Satyapal went to the spot where he met the mother of deceased Pooja and she told that one boy had shot her daughter and ran away from there. He called the crime team at the spot and crime team clicked the photograph and lifted blood stain stole and handed over to him and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. Crime team also lifted exhibits as Ex.PW18/B. One splendor motorcycle was found at the spot and took it into possession and seized vide seizure memo as Ex.PW18/C. Crime team also lifted four empty cartridge, one projectile bullet lead and two P-cap and took it into possession and prepared sketch of empty cartridges Ex.PW18/D and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/E. In the meantime, he received another DD No.87A regarding brought dead of Pooja Yadav from the Apollo Hospital. He left the Ct. Rakesh at the spot and along with Ct. Satyapal went to the Apollo Hospital where he collected the MLC of deceased and met Manoj Yadav brother of deceased and recorded the statement Page 12 of 29 of Manoj Yadav and prepared the rukka Ex.PW23/A1. Thereafter, further investigation of the case was carried out by Inspr./SHO Sanjiv Mishra and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of Manoj Yadav. IO/ Inspr Sanjiv Mishra enquired from mother and father of the deceased and recorded their statements. On 28.10.2023, on secret information IO along with HC Samay Singh went to Bilaspur Camp near Lohia Pul where at the instance of secret informer they apprehended the accused Rocky. Complainant identified the accused in PS. IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/F. Thereafter, SI Satyapreet along with HC Samay Singh, IO and accused Rocky went to Yamuna Bank, near Basantpur Village, Faridabad Haryana where weapon of offence was recovered from near a unpaved road approaching towards Yamuna Bank. IO recovered one plastic katta at the instance of accused and opened it and found one pistol which was wrapped with Chunni. IO prepared sketch of pistol and magazine as Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW21/E respectively. IO seized the chunni and katta vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A and prepared recovery site plan as Ex.PW21/B. On the intervening night of 29-30.10.2023 SI Satyapreet along with ASI Karter, HC Samay Singh and HC Praveen (Driver) went to Yamuna Bank near Village Basantpur, District Faridabad, Haryana and at the instance of accused took out one check shirt and one blue colour jeans pant from bushes and SI Satyapreet seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. SI Satyapreet identified the accused in the court.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he admitted that at the time of apprehending of accused, complainant was not accompanying the raiding party. He do not know if the spot of recovery of pistol was near to the house of Rocky but he admitted that village Basantpur was situated nearby to place of recovery of alleged pistol. The road approaching from the main Basantpur road towards the spot of recovery of pistol is around 10 feet wide.
Page 13 of 29He denied the suggestion that the pistol was not recovered at the instance of accused and the pistol was planted by the IO to solve a blind murder case. He denied the suggestion that no public persons were present at the spot of recovery of pistol. He is not aware if IO had made any departure or arrival entries at PS Jaitpur and at PS Palla, Faridabad on 28.10.2023 when they went to Yamuna Bank, Basantpur for recovery of pistol. He admitted that the spot of alleged recovery was situated in Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Palla, Faridabad. He admitted that in a investigation if police visit other state for recovery of case property the IO has to make departure and arrival entries to concerned police stations.
29. PW-24/IO Inspr. Sanjeev Mishra was the second IO of the case, who deposed that on 27.10.2023, after registration of FIR, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and he collected copy of FIR and original rukka from SI Satyapreet and they went to the spot. Complainant Manoj also came there and he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant and enquired from parents of the deceased and recorded their statements. On 28.10.2023, he received secret information about the accused and on his instructions, SI Satyapreet along-with HC Samay Singh went to Bilaspur Camp near Lohia Pul where at the instance of secret informer they apprehended the accused Rocky. Complainant identified the accused in police station. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/F. He alongwith SI Satyapreet, HC Samay Singh and accused went to Yamuna Bank, near Basantpur Village, Faridabad Haryana where weapon of offence was recovered from near a unpaved road approaching towards Yamuna Bank. He recovered one plastic katta at the instance of accused and opened it and found one pistol which was wrapped with Chunni. He prepared sketch of pistol and magazine as Ex.PW21/D and Page 14 of 29 Ex.PW21/E respectively, seized the chunni and katta vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A and prepared recovery site plan as Ex.PW21/B. On the intervening night of 29-30.10.2023 SI Satyapreet along with ASI Karter, HC Samay Singh and HC Praveen (Driver) went to PS Teegaon, Faridabad, Haryana and came back to PS and deposited the case property in malkhana. He identified the accused and case property in the court.
In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, he stated that on 28.10.2023 they left the PS in the evening to get recover the pistol at Yamuna Bank Basantpur and he had not made any departure entry or arrival entry at PS Palla, Faridabad when accused was taken to spot of recovery of pistol as they directly went to the place of recovery and not went to PS Palla, Faridabad. It took about 02 hours to complete the investigation at the spot of recovery of pistol. He had investigated on the point that deceased Pooja was working with elder brother of accused the said fact was disclosed by complainant Manoj.
30. Accused admitted Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act of DCP-II dated 01.04.2025 as Ex.A1, FSL Report Ballistics No. SFSL DLH /3742/BAL/376/24-4183 dated 11.02.2025 as Ex.A2, FSL Report Chemistry No. SFSL DLH/14668/Chem/4530/23/14181 dated 21.05.2024 as Ex.A3 and Report No. SFSL DLH 14441/BIO/3311/2023 BIO NO.3492/2023 dated 27.01.2025 as Ex.A4, u/s. 294 Cr.PC.
31. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 28.11.2025 and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused.
32. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating evidences which came against him during the prosecution evidence were put to him and he replied that he has been falsely implicated in Page 15 of 29 the present case. He has not committed any offence and does not know deceased Pooja. He had no connection with her. He does not lead any defence evidence.
33. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
34. Prosecution has examined 24 witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the registered owner of the motorcycle which was used in the crime, PW-3 is mother of the deceased, PW-4 is the father of deceased, PW-5 to PW-8 are the doctors and PW-9 to PW-24 are the police officials who participated in the investigation.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Eye-witness Evidence
35. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-1 Manoj Yadav, who was the brother of the deceased; was the eye-witness of the murder who has seen the accused and he even tried to apprehend the accused but accused after firing upon him ran away from the spot leaving behind the bike on which he came to commit murder. Testimony of PW-1 shows that he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and specifically deposed that he did not see the person who fired upon his sister and also failed to identify the accused in the court. He even failed to identify the splender motorcycle which was recovered from the spot and also failed to identify the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident.
Page 16 of 2936. Except Manoj Yadav, prosecution has not cited any other person as eye- witness of the incident. PW-3 and PW-4 are the mother and father respectively of the deceased but they deposed that they did not witness the incident and PW-3 even deposed that she do not know what happened outside her house and she only heard gunshot and police did not record her statement. Their testimonies are of no help to prosecution case.
37. It is well established legal principle that a witness may lie, but not the circumstances. It is not necessary to have an eye witness/ direct evidence in every case to prove who committed the crime. Circumstantial evidences can be used to prove a person's guilt. During investigation of the present case, apart from the eye-witness PW-1, police also collected certain circumstantial material against accused persons, which are as follows :
- Splender motorcycle No. DL-3S-FF-5621 used by accused in committing offence was found at the spot.
- Recovery of pistol at the instance of accused with which accused fired upon the deceased and committed her murder.
- Motive Circumstantial Evidence Splender motorcycle No. DL-3S-FF-5621 used by accused in committing offence was found at the spot.
38. As per prosecution case, at the spot police found a black colour splender motorcycle without number plate, which was used in committing murder of deceased, and during investigation from the chasis number of motorcycle it was found out that motorcycle belongs to Narender S/o Mahaveer. As per the Page 17 of 29 prosecution case, on 27.10.2023 at around 7:00 p.m. accused Rocky took the bike from Rajni W/o Narender and from this police came to know that the accused Rocky have committed the offence.
39. As per the prosecution case, the owner of the motorcycle No. DL-3S- FF-5621 was Narender Singh but interestingly he was not interrogated or made prosecution witness nor any notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act was given to him. Rather his wife was interrogated and was made prosecution witness.
40. Prosecution examined Rajni as PW-2 but she also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and deposed that keys of the motorcycle used to be in the motorcycle and she does not know who took the motorcycle and she is a housewife and does not know anything about the case. She even deposed that she did not give any statement to IO.
41. PW-13 / ASI Ravi was the fingerprint proficient of crime team and he deposed that he could not found any chance print on the bike. So, from above testimonies it is clear that no fingerprints of accused was found on the bike, nor anyone saw him riding the bike nor anyone handed over bike to him nor he is the owner of the bike, therefore, prosecution has failed to connect seized black splendor motorcycle No. DL-3S-FF-5621 with the accused Rocky.
42. In the present case, accused is also charged for the offence u/s. 39/192 M.V. Act for driving the offending vehicle without number plate and without registration certificate but as prosecution failed to connect accused Rocky with the offending vehicle i.e. black splendor motorcycle No. DL-3S-FF-5621, therefore, he is acquitted for the charges for offence u/s. 39/192 M.V. Act.
Page 18 of 29Recovery of pistol at the instance of accused with which accused fired upon the deceased and committed her murder.
43. As per the prosecution case, the pistol recovered at the instance of the accused was used by the accused in committing the murder of deceased Pooja, which means that accused fired upon the deceased Pooja from the recovered pistol. Ex.PW-18/P3 are the four empty cartridges, one bullet led and two P caps which were recovered from the spot and they must be fired from the recovered pistol.
44. During trial, the third supplementary charge-sheet was filed qua ballistic report and reading of the same at point (v) and (viii) shows that the individual characteristics of firing pin and breech face marks present on evidence cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' and on test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC1' to 'TC3'; present on percussion caps marked exhibits 'PC1' & 'PC2' and on the test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC1' to 'TC3', were examined and compared under comparison microscope model Leica DMC and were not found identical which means that cartridges and four P-caps Ex.PW-18/P3 (colly) recovered from the spot are not fired from the pistol recovered from the accused.
45. Also reading of the report at point (vi) and (vii) shows that the individual characteristics of marks present on evidence cartridge cases marked exhibit 'EC2' to 'EC4' and on test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC1' to 'TC3'; present on evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' and on test fired recovered bullets marked 'TB1' to 'TB3', were not found identical which means that bullets recovered from the spot were not fired from the pistol Page 19 of 29 recovered from the accused.
46. So, scientific evidence i.e. FSL report Ex.A2 demolishes the case of the prosecution that pistol recovered at the instance of the accused Rocky was used in the committing murder of deceased Pooja and hence, the recovered pistol is not connected with the murder of the deceased Pooja.
47. No doubt prosecution could not connect the recovered pistol with the murder of the deceased Pooja but still a pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Rocky. Appreciation of evidence shows that serious doubts have been raised regarding the recovery of pistol at the instance of accused Rocky for the reasons discussed in following paragraphs.
48. Firstly, as per the case of prosecution, after the arrest of the accused and during his interrogation, accused took PW-24 / IO Insp. Sanjeev Mishra, PW-23 / SI Satyapreet and PW-21 / HC Samay Singh to Yamuna Bank, near Basantpur Village, Faridabad, Haryana and got recovered one plastic katta containing one pistol wrapped in orange and black chunni from a bush near unpaved road approaching the Yamuna river. So, pistol was found wrapped in a orange and black chunni in a plastic katta.
49. But there are contradictions in the recovery seizure memo of pistol i.e. Ex.PW-21/A, recovery site plan of pistol i.e. Ex.PW-21/B and pointing out memo of place of recovery of pistol prepared at the instance of accused. As per recovery seizure memo Ex.PW-21/A the pistol recovered was kept inside plastic bag (katta) wrapped in cloth and the said cloth was of black and orange colour but as per recovery site plan Ex.PW-21/B said pistol was kept inside Page 20 of 29 plastic bag (katta). So, both Ex.PW-21/A and Ex.PW-21/B contradicts each other regarding the presence of a chunni but both corroborates each other on the point that pistol was found inside a plastic katta.
But both Ex.PW-21/A and Ex.PW-21/B are contradicted by 'pointing out memo of place of recovery at the instance of accused', as as per it, the pistol was wrapped in red colour cloth and was covered or hid beneath coloured plastic bag (katta), so, as per pointing out memo the pistol was not found / kept inside the plastic katta. So, pointing out memo contradicts regarding recovery of pistol in katta.
50. Secondly, Ld counsel for the accused also raised serious doubt regarding the recovery of orange and black colour chunni and submitted that as per the prosecution case, pistol was recovered wrapped in orange and black colour cloth i.e. chunni and recovery was effected after the arrest of the accused.
51. PW-1 / Manoj Yadav, brother of the deceased, identified this chunni as Ex.P5 and deposed that it belongs to his deceased sister. This chunni, Ex.P5, is also identified by PW-21, PW-23 and PW-24 as chunni in which pistol i.e. weapon of offence was wrapped and recovered at the instant of accused at the time of recovery of weapon of offence. But as per the prosecution case, no chunni of deceased was reported to be missing from the spot, so, when no chunni of the deceased was missing or taken by the accused alongwith him while running away from the spot then how can he later on, wrapped the pistol in deceased's chunni and hide it. Interestingly, this chunni was not even sent to the FSL. So, there are probabilities that the said chunni along-with weapon of offence might have been falsely planted upon the accused by the police to fortifies its case against the accused.
Page 21 of 2952. Thirdly, accused was arrested on 28.10.2023 and during his interrogation he took IO / PW-24, PW-23 and PW-21 to Yamuna Bank, near Basantpur Village, Faridabad, Haryana and got the pistol and on next day got his clothes recovered from a bush near unpaved road approaching the Yamuna river. The accused is a resident of Basantpur village and the village was located near the place of alleged recovery. So, the police team along-with the accused must have passed from near the village of the accused and they must have been seen by some villagers or neighbours of the accused.
53. As per the arrest memo Ex.PW-1/D, accused was arrested at around 4:15 p.m., and accused's cousin was informed about the arrest. The above sequence of the event shows that after the arrest, in the evening, police along-with the accused went from the village of accused, and at that time they must have been seen by atleast few villagers of the accused's village. Commotion must have occurred when police was passing with accused from near accused's village and lots of people must have gathered to see the proceedings. So number of public persons were available with the IO at the elbow distance and he can make them witness to the arrest and recovery but sketch of pistol, seizure memo of pistol, seizure memo of clothes, recovery memo of clothes and pistol does not bear signature of any public witness or police could atleast made his cousin a recovery witness, who has been informed about the arrest.
54. At this stage, reference can also be made to a case titled as Nanak Chand vs. State of Delhi reported as 1992 Cr.L.J- 55 wherein it was held that the recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to Page 22 of 29 join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may cast doubt.
55. It is well settled principal of law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the investigating officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together makes the prosecution case highly doubtful.
56. Lastly, not only serious doubts have been raised regarding recovery of alleged pistol at the instance of the accused but the sanction u/s. 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also granted in cyclostyle manner without application of any mind to the facts of the present case as even the pistol was not inspected by the concerned DCP before giving the requisite sanction. In Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2013 titled as "Sukkha @ Santokh Singh VS. State of Page 23 of 29 Uttarakhand" Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital has held at :
"19. Since the Arms Act 1959 is very stringent, in order to safeguard the interest of the people, a protection has been given by way of Section 39 of the Act that in order to launch the prosecution, a previous sanction of the District Magistrate is necessary. In the opinion of this Court a valid sanction is sine qua non, for prosecution. Unless until the sanction granted is valid and is given by application of mind, the prosecution would not sustain. In the absence of application of mind and the sanction granted in a routine manner, that too without inspecting the weapon recovered, it is no sanction in the eye of law.
20. In the case in hand, this Court finds that the sanction letter dated 08.04.1999 regarding prosecution of revisionists/accused is no sanction in the eyes of law because it is reflected on careful reading of the sanction letters that same has been granted in a very routine manner and without application of mind. There is nothing sort of written in the sanction letters that the District Magistrate had got opened the seal and inspected the weapon and thereafter got it sealed again. In this view of the matter, the prosecution case cannot stand in the absence of a valid sanction. The valid sanction goes to the root of the prosecution and in the absence of a valid sanction, the prosecution cannot sustain.
21. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the finding recorded by the learned Court below are perverse regarding the sanction for the reason that the findings are against the material available on record. The sanction letters has wrongly been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court. There is nothing in the sanction letter to suggest that the requirements for granting sanction has been complied with by the District Magistrate."
57. In the present case also, nothing sort of written in the sanction letter that seal was opened and pistol was inspected by the concerned DCP and after that it was resealed and in view of the reasoning given in the Sukkha case (supra), the sanction u/s.39A i.e. Ex.A1 is not a valid sanction in the eye of the law. In the present case, not only serious doubts have been raised regarding the recovery of pistol at the instance of the accused Rocky and it can be falsely planted upon the accused by the police but valid sanction u/s. 39 of the Arms Page 24 of 29 Act, 1959 is not there and in absence of valid sanction u/s. 39 Arms Act, 1959, prosecution qua the charges u/s. 25/54/59 of Arms Act fails and accused is acquitted for the offence u/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Motive
58. As per the disclosure statement of the accused given during the investigation, deceased Pooja was working in the office of accused's elder brother and was having extra marital affair with the elder brother of the accused and she was compelling him to marry her and also extorted money from him because of which accused killed her. But not an iota of evidence was brought by the prosecution to prove the motive of the accused. No one was examined to show that deceased Pooja was working in accused's brother's office or she was having any relation with him or she was extorting any money from him. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the motive of accused Rocky for committing murder of deceased Pooja.
59. Before concluding the order, court must point out that not only serious doubts have been raised on the recovery of pistol at the instance of the accused and that there are chances that it is falsely planted on the accused but proper procedure is also not followed by the police during the investigation. It is admitted by PW-21 / HC Samay Singh, PW-23 / SI Satyapreet and PW-24 /IO Insp. Sanjeev Mishra that at the time of arresting the accused they do not have any clue that Rocky has committed the murder and he was arrested at the instance of secret informer. At the time of arresting the accused, police has no evidence or any incriminating material against Rocky and he was arrested only on the direction of secret informer. At the time of arresting Rocky, police could Page 25 of 29 only have one evidence against him and that was PW-1 / Manoj Yadav, who has seen the face of the murderer of his sister and police should have got Rocky identified by Manoj Yadav in Test Identification Proceedings; but even in a heinous offence like murder, no TIP of accused was conducted rather he was shown to the complainant / Manoj Yadav in the police station.
60. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Pawan Soni Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi", Crl. A. 897/2024 dated 01.12.2025 has held at :
"Para 15. Despite the appellant being a stranger to the complainant, no judicial TIP was conducted. The purpose of the TIP is that the witness, who claimed to have seen the culprit at the time of occurrence of the incident, is able to identify them in the midst of other people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gireesan Nair (Supra) has held as follows: -
"25. .........We may, at the outset, note that the eyewitnesses questioned by the prosecution did not give out the names or identities of the accused participating in the riot and involved in the destruction of public property. Therefore, the IO (PW
84) had to necessarily conduct a TIP. The object of conducting a TIP is threefold. First, to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the crime. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Third, to test the witnesses' memory based on first impression and enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to the crime (Mulla v. State of U.P. [Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508, paras 44, 45 & 55: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150]).
26. TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police. It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction.
It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant (Matru v. State of U.P. [Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75, para 17: 1971 SCC (Cri) 391]; Mulla v.
State of U.P. [Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508, paras 41 & 43: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] and C. Muniappan v.
State of T.N. [C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567, para 42: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402])..........."
Page 26 of 29Dock identification, in a case where the accused is not previously known to the witness, especially when it takes place when a long time has passed between the incident and the identification in Court, is a weak piece of evidence. Reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in "Nazim v. State of Uttarakhand", 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2117, wherein it was held that:-
"41. Both PW-3 and PW-4 thus identified the Appellants for the first time in court. No TIP was conducted, even though PW-3 admitted he had never known the accused earlier. It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused. In P. Sasikumar v. State, this Court acquitted the prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior accused on precisely this ground..."
"42. The Court further explained that TIP is only part of the investigative process and that the substantive evidence is dock identification, however, where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification. The following paragraph of P. Sasikumar (supra) is indicative of the same:
"21. It is well settled that TIP is only a part of police investigation. The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. The substantive piece of evidence, is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in court during trial.
23. [....] In cases where an accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting dock identification by such a witness.
24. [....] We are of the opinion that not conducting a TIP in this case dock identification of the present appellant will always remain doubtful. was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP the Doubt always belongs to the accused."
"Para 16. Once the accused was already shown to the complainant in the police station, his dock identification in Court became meaningless. In "Jafar v. State", 2024 SCC OnLine 310, the complainant was already shown the accused in the police station. No TIP was conducted. Though he identified Page 27 of 29 the accused in Court as well, not much value was assigned to it by the Supreme Court, which held as under:
"8. Anil Kumar (PW-8), who is the Investigating Officer (10), has also admitted that PW-1 identified the accused persons by seeing them at the police station. He has further admitted that no identification parade was conducted. As such, it can be seen that the identification of the appellant herein by PW-1 is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted. PW-1 clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people.
9. In the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt. ...."
61. In the present case, as discussed above, accused was not known to complainant / PW-1 still no TIP was conducted, further even PW-1 failed to identify the accused in the court. Even the story of the prosecution that Manoj Yadav himself came to the police station to enquire about the case also raises finger on the police investigation as at that time he must be in mourning and busy in last rites of his deceased sister rather than interested in coming to police station to inquire about the accused, which is not a normal behaviour that can be attributed to a ordinary person in the similar circumstances. So, serious doubts have been raised on the arrest of the accused and recovery of pistol at his instance.
62. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if any doubt has been created then benefit of it should be given to the accused person. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
63. In view of the discussion above, prosecution has failed to connect the Page 28 of 29 pistol with the murder of deceased Pooja and failed to prove that accused Rocky came on the motorcycle No. DL-3S-FF-5621 to the spot and fired upon PW-1 / complainant Manoj Yadav and killed Pooja, therefore, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s. 302/336/307 IPC.
64. Accordingly, accused Rocky is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Vipin Digitally signed
by Vipin Kharb
Date: 2025.12.11
Kharb 14:24:56 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Vipin Kharb)
on 11.12.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-07
South-East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
Page 29 of 29