Delhi District Court
State vs Ajeet Badk @ Sonu And Another on 24 September, 2025
SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
CNR No.: DLND01-005676-2020
SC No. 247/2020
FIR No. 564/20
PS Sagarpur
U/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
State
vs
1. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu
S/o Sh.Jai Bhagwan
R/o House No.65, Village Nasirpur
New Delhi
2. Vishnu
S/o Late Sh.Sukumar
R/o WZ-882 B, Bata Chok, Gali No.1
Badiyal Mohla, Palam, New Delhi
Date of FIR : 15.06.2020
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 18.09.2020
Date of Committal of case to
Sessions Court : 29.10.2020
Charge framed on : 22.12.2020
Date of Arguments : 02.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025
FIR No. 564/20 Page 1 of 20
SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
APPEARANCES
For prosecution : Sh.Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State
For accused : Sh. Sandeep Gupta, Ld. Counsels for
both the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu s/o Jai Bhagwan and Vishnu s/o Sukumar have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act vide FIR No. 564/20 PS Sagarpur.
2. According to the prosecution, on receipt of information about the gun fire incident, police officials reached the spot i.e. plot at the backside of Puran Mal Jailadar Samadhi, Mahavir Enclave, Near Dashrath Puri Metro Station. On receipt of information of hospitalization of injured Bhupender Solanki to Manipal Hospital, Sector-6, Dwarka, police officials reached there and found that Bhupender Solanki has been admitted with the alleged history of gunshot in his left abdomen and was unfit for statement. No eye witness could be found while doctor handed over pulandas containing blood stained clothes of injured, one bullet and one blood sample. The spot of occurrence was inspected through crime team and site plan was prepared. The case FIR was registered. On 16.06.2020, the statement FIR No. 564/20 Page 2 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
of injured Bhupender Solanki was recorded after he was declared fit for statement wherein he named accused persons Ajeet Badk @ Sonu and Vishnu for causing the incident whereby accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu fired gunshot at the complainant and fled away along with accused Vishnu on motorcycle bearing no. DL9S-3A-1608. Police was also informed. Injured called his friends and brothers and was removed to the hospital.
3. On 21.06.2020, accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu was apprehended and arrested on the basis of secret information and he made disclosure statement wherein he admitted having committed the crime. Accused was taken on police remand during which he got recovered pistol from bushes, in the field of village Dudhani and recovery memo was prepared about seizure of pistol. Pistol having two live rounds were sealed and recovery memo was prepared. Medical record of injured was obtained from the hospital.
4. On 26.08.2020, an information was received about apprehension of accused Vishnu vide Kalandra under Section 41.1 A Cr.P.C and he was formally arrested in the present case with the permission of Ld. Magistrate. Accused Vishnu also confessed to the commission of offence on 14.06.2020. Accused Vishnu admitted that he was riding the motorcycle and co-accused Ajeet Badk was the pillion rider and they went to the house of Bhupender Solanki @ Bunty FIR No. 564/20 Page 3 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
and after causing the incident, they fled away from the spot. Investigation was conducted by the police during which statement of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited for forensic analysis.
5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on the basis of the same, cognizance was taken by the court of Ld. Magistrate and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
6. Vide order dated 22.12.2020, accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and accused Vishnu was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of accused persons. The sum and substance of prosecution evidence is as follows:
PW-1 ASI Satpal, Incharge Mobile Crime Team visited the spot of occurrence along with HC Banwari Lal (finger print proficient) and Ct.Anil (photographer). The spot was inspected and photographs were taken. Further examination of this witness was deferred.FIR No. 564/20 Page 4 of 20
SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
PW-2 HC Sanjay Kumar was posted as MHC (M) at PS Bindapur and deposed about deposition of motorcycle bearing no.DL9SABA1608 vide entry in register no.19 at serial no.2940 Ex.PW2/1. On 16.09.2020, motorcycle was transferred to PS Sagarpur vide road certificate no. 162/21/20 Ex.PW2/2.
PW-3 Ct. Prakash was posted at PS Sagarpur. On receipt of information about incident vide DD No. 104A, he along with SI Surender went to the spot i.e. plot behind mazar near Dashrathpuri Metro Station. On coming to know that injured has been removed to the hospital by his brother Jitender Solanki, they went to Manipal Hospital. PW-3 deposed about inspection of spot by the crime team, handing over of the parcels by the doctor to the investigating officer who seized the same vide Ex.PW3/A. This witness got the FIR registered on the basis of endorsement made by IO.
During cross-examination, PW-3 denied that he had not carried rukka to the police station for registration of the case or that he never went to the spot of crime or to the hospital.FIR No. 564/20 Page 5 of 20
SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
PW-4 ASI Ganga Ram was duty officer at PS Sagarpur and on the basis of rukka, he registered the FIR vide Ex.PW4/A. His endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW4/B and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence is Ex.PW4/C. PW-5 Rajesh Kumar Sharma is the friend of injured / complainant Bhupinder Solanki @ Bunty. The witness deposed that on 14.06.2020, he and other friends Parul Ahuja and Krishan Sharma were at the baithak of complainant and they had drinks and dinner together. At about 9.40 p.m, they left from there. At about 11.00 p.m, information was received through Parul Ahuja about the firing incident. He (PW-5) went to the house of Bhupender Solanki where he also found brothers of Bhupender Solanki. The injured Bhupender Solanki was taken to the hospital and was operated upon. Witness was cross examined on behalf of Ld. Prosecutor during which he denied that injured had disclosed about gunshot and that injuries were caused to him by Sonu @ Badk. Witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also denied the suggestion to be deposing falsely.FIR No. 564/20 Page 6 of 20
SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
PW-6 Bhupender Solanki @ Bunty deposed that on 14.06.2020 at about 10.40 p.m., while he was present in his room (behind the samadhi of his grandfather), near Dashrath Puri Metro Station. He heard the knocking at the door and opened the same, although it was dark outside.
He heard the noise of firing and one bullet was fired in his abdomen. He immediately closed the door and called his brothers and friends and he was hospitalized. He admitted that on 16.06.2020 police recorded his statement. According to Bhupender Solanki (PW-6), he cannot identify the person who fired at him and tried to kill him. During cross-examination on behalf of prosecution, PW-6 denied the suggestion that accused Sonu @ Badk along with accused Vishnu knocked the door of his house and on opening Sonu fired at him and thereafter both the accused ran away from the spot on their motorcycle. It is admitted by PW-6 that he was involved in 14-15 criminal cases and voluntarily stated that he was acquitted in all the cases. PW-6 further admitted that one FIR was lodged against him in 2009 regarding murder of Rajesh @ Dholu by Jai Bhagwan. The witness denied to be deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons having been won over by them.
FIR No. 564/20 Page 7 of 20SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
PW-7 Jitender, brother of complainant Bhupender Solanki deposed that on 14.06.2020, he got the information about firing incident and he took his brother to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police. During cross-examination on behalf of prosecution, witness denied that accused Sonu @ Badk threatened to kill his brother Bhupender Solanki or that he fired gunshot on his brother in order to kill him. PW-7 denied to be deposing falsely having been won over by the accused.
PW-8 HC Sumer Singh deposed that he has been a member of raiding them whereby secret information was received with respect to accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu. They apprehended accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu and his disclosure statement was recorded regarding involvement in the present case. He also disclosed about pistol hidden by him in the field. Accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW8/C, pointing out memo is Ex.PW8/D. On 22.06.2020 accused was produced before Magistrate and was taken on remand. Accused got recovered pistol from bushes in the fields of village Kharman District Jhajjar.
FIR No. 564/20 Page 8 of 20SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
Two live cartridges were also recovered. Sketch of the pistol and cartridges were prepared vide Ex.PW8/E. They were seized vide Ex.PW8/F, pointing out of place of recovery was prepared vide memo Ex.PW8/G. The pistol and cartridges were produced and identified by the witness as Ex.P-8/1, Ex.P-8/2 and Ex.P-8/3.
During cross-examination, PW-8 denied that accused Ajeet Badk was lifted from his houses or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers or that his disclosure statement was manipulated. The suggestions are denied that no recovery of pistol and cartridges was effected or that he is deposing falsely.
PW-9 Parul is the friend of complainant Bhupender Solanki. He received a call about 10.15 p.m about the incident whereby it was informed that some one had fired upon Bhupender Solanki. He went to the spot and found brothers and friends of Bhupender Solanki present and taking him to the hospital.
Witness was cross-examined on behalf of prosecution during which he denied that accused Ajeet Badk had fired FIR No. 564/20 Page 9 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
upon Bhupender Solanki @ Bunty or that he is deposing falsely having been won over by the accused.
PW-10 SI Ashok has been a member of team whereby accused Ajeet Badk was apprehended and his disclosure statement was recorded and further investigation was conducted.
PW-11 HC Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 25.08.2020 he along with SI Vikas and Ct. Yograj left the police station for patrolling duty vide DD No. 66. SI Vikas received secret information about arrival of accused Vishnu near Dwarka Mor red light. SI Vikas prepared a raiding team and took the position near Dwarka Mor red light. At about 4.00 p.m, accused Vishnu came from the side of Uttam Nagar on a motorcycle bearing no.DL9SABA1608. They apprehended the accused Vishnu and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B under Section 41.1 A Cr.P.C. Motorcycle of the accused was taken into possession vide Ex.PW11/C. On interrogation, accused Vishnu disclosed regarding involvement in this case. SI Surender arrested accused Vishnu in the present case.
FIR No. 564/20 Page 10 of 20SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
During cross-examination, witness denied that accused Vishnu had not made any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers.
PW-12 SI Surender received information regarding firing shot in abdomen of a person vide GD No.104A Ex.PW12/A. He along with Ct. Prakash went to the spot and made inquiry regarding the incident which had occurred at the door of the plot behind "Puranmal Jaildar Ki Samadhi" adjacent to Dashrath Puri Metro Station. PW-12 also received DD No.8A Ex.PW12/B whereby it is informed that injured has been admitted to Manipal Hospital. He went to the hospital and obtained MLC of injured. He called the crime team at the spot. He made endorsement Ex.PW12/C on GD No.104A and prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He recorded the statement of ASI Satpal, Crime team incharge and Ct. Anil, photographer. On 16.06.2020, he recorded the statement of injured. On 21.06.2020, accused Ajeet Badk was apprehended and arrested. Accused Ajeet Badk was taken on one day police custody and one pistol containing two live cartridges was got recovered from village Kharmam District Jhajjar. On 26.08.2020, accused Vishnu FIR No. 564/20 Page 11 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
was arrested vide memo Ex.PW12/I and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW12/J. He prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW12/K and prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/I. On 28.08.2020, he obtained result regarding nature of injury from Manipal University and collected relevant DD entries. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the court.
During cross-examination, witness denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected upon the accused Ajeet Badk or that recovery of pistol and live cartridges were planted upon the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case in fair and proper manner or that he had recorded the statements of witnesses on his own.
PW-13 SI Vikas was posted at PS Bindapur. He deposed about the details whereby accused Vishnu was apprehended. He proved the kalandra as Ex.PW13/A. During cross-examination, PW-13 denied the suggestion that accused Vishnu was lifted from his house and later on falsely implicated in this case.
FIR No. 564/20 Page 12 of 20SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
PW-14 Rajeev Kumar, Addl. DCP-I, Shahdara, accorded the sanction under Section 39 Arms Act to prosecute accused Ajeet @ Sonu Badk under Section 29 Arms Act on the basis of file consisting of his arrest memo, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, seizure memo and ballistic report and other relevant documents.
Sh. Shailesh Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has admitted following documents vide statements dated 18.04.2023 and 09.11.2023 respectively:-
1. Scene of Crime Inspection Report Ex.A-1.
2. 22 photographs along with certificate under Section 65B Ex.A-2
3. Ballistic Examination report as Ex.A-3.
4. Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act Ex.A-4
5. MLC No. 573/2020 prepared by Dr. Nishtha Chaudhary Ex.A-5
6. Entry Register No.19 Ex.A-6
7. RC No. 162/21 along with acknowledgment Ex.A-7
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. When questioned FIR No. 564/20 Page 13 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
about each and every incriminating evidence appearing on record, accused persons refuted the same and pleaded innocence and false implication. According to accused Ajeet, he is innocent and he has no concern with this case. He did not know as to how Bhupinder @ Bunty sustained injury. Nothing was recovered at his instance. Recovery of pistol and live cartridges were planted upon him in order to falsely implicate him in this case. According to accused Vishnu, he is innocent and he has no concern with this case. He did not know as to how Bhupinder @ Bunty sustained injury. He has been falsely implicated.
9. I have heard Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State and Sh.Sandeep Gupta Ld. Counsel for accused persons and examined the record of case including evidence and documents appearing on record.
10. The charges against accused persons Ajeet Badk and Vishnu are for having committed an offence of attempt to murder while accused Ajeet Badk is also charged for having the possession of illegal arms.
11. The relevant provisions are re-produced as under:-
307. Attempt to murder Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and FIR No. 564/20 Page 14 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
25. Punishment for certain offences.
[(1) Whoever--
(a) 2[manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm 3[or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or FIR No. 564/20 Page 15 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
(c) 4* * * * *
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5[seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[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, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.] FIR No. 564/20 Page 16 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
12. The present FIR was registered on the basis of statement given by complainant / injured Bhupender Solanki wherein he specifically named both the accused persons responsible for causing the incident whereby accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu fired at him in his abdomen while accused Vishnu was accompanying Ajeet Badk and also facilitated in fleeing away from the spot. Complainant / injured Bhupender Solanki, therefore, is the most important witness to prove the case of the prosecution. He has been examined as PW-6 but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and stated that on 14.06.2020 at about 10.40 p.m., while he was present in his room (behind the samadhi of his grandfather), near Dashrath Puri Metro Station, he heard the knocking at the door and opened the same, although it was dark outside. He heard the noise of firing and one bullet was fired in his abdomen. He immediately closed the door and called his brother and friend and he was hospitalized. According to Bhupender Solanki (PW-
6), he cannot identify the person who fired at him and tried to kill him. Despite lengthy and specific cross-examination on behalf of prosecution, complainant has not supported his earlier statement and categorically denied that accused persons are responsible for causing injury to him through gunshot. Other important witnesses of the prosecution are PW-5 Rajesh Kumar Sharma PW-9 Parul who are friends of injured Bhupender Solanki and PW-7 Jitender who is brother of injured Bhupender Solanki and they have also denied the FIR No. 564/20 Page 17 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
prosecution version that injuries were caused by Ajeet Badk @ Sonu in furtherance of common intention accompanied by accused Vishnu. In this way, there is no evidence on record showing commission of attempt to murder by accused persons.
13. Accused Ajeet Badk has also been charged for the offence of possession and use of illegal arms under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. The prosecution has alleged recovery of pistol and live cartridges at the instance of accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu when during police remand, accused got recovered weapon / pistol from the bushes in the open field. Although police officials HC Sumer Singh (PW-8), SI Surender (PW-12) have proved recovery of pistol (7.65 mm bore) and live cartridges at the instance of accused Ajeet Badk but it is also true that no independent witness joined the proceedings of recovery. The recovery has been effected from the open space and therefore, it cannot be concluded that only accused could have knowledge that the pistol was kept there. Keeping in view the nature of evidence of witnesses, it would not be safe to rely upon exclusive testimony of police officials regarding recovery of illegal arms.
14. During the investigation, recovered weapon was also sent for ballistics examination report and as per the report, the bullet received FIR No. 564/20 Page 18 of 20 SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
from the doctor (used in the commission of offence) Ex.EB1 could not be connected to the pistol. The opinion of the expert in the report dated 30.09.2022 (Ex.A-3) is as under:-
(5) The individual characteristics of striations present on evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' were found insufficient for opinion when compared with test fired bullets marked as 'TB1', 'TB2' under the comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC. Hence, no opinion can be given whether the evidence bullet marked exhibit EB1 has been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm bore marked exhibit 'F1' above or not.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances and evidence, I am of the opinion that recovery is shrouded by suspicion as also alleged weapon could not be connected to the commission of offence. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu with intention to kill fired at the complainant Bhupender Solanki through weapon recovered in this case. Therefore, for the offence of recovery of illegal arms, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
FIR No. 564/20 Page 19 of 20SC/247/20 State Vs. Ajeet Badk @ Sonu & Anr.
16. Accordingly, case of the prosecution has not been proved against the accused persons.
17. In the result, accused Ajeet Badk @ Sonu and Vishnu are acquitted of all the charges.
18. Accused persons are required to furnish their bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C to the tune of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety of like amount.
Announced in the open court ANJU Digitally signed by
ANJU BAJAJ
on the day of 24th September BAJAJ CHANDNA
Date: 2025.09.25
CHANDNA 15:40:04 +0530
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Court
24.09.2025
FIR No. 564/20 Page 20 of 20