Delhi District Court
State vs Sanju@Gagan And Ors on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA Courts : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 201/2019
FIR No. 61/2019
Police Station Gokulpuri
Under Section 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act
Instituted on 12.07.2019
Argued on 23.07.2025
Decided on 31.07.2025
Final Order Acquitted
State Vs. 1. Sanju @ Gagan
S/o Ratan Lal,
R/o House No.537, Gali No.7,
Phase-I, Manglapuri, Palam, Delhi
2 Babu Lal
S/o Hukma Ram
R/o A-155, Gokulpuri, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Judgment, this Court shall decide the charges leveled against both accused namely Sanju @ Gagan and Babu Lal.
Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.07.31 15:52:57 +0530 SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another page 1 of 14
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.03.2019, one DD No. 30A was received that a man is injured with bullet. IO along with Ct. Jitender and Insp. Jagdish Prasad reached near footpath near bus stand Gokulpuri flyover where they came to know that injured was taken to the GTB hospital then IO went GTB hospital and obtained the MLC of injured. Injured was declared fit for statement and his statement was recorded and on the basis of statement, FIR was registered. At the instance of crime team, exhibits were lifted from the spot and seized vide duly exhibited memo. IO also met eye witness Vishnu and recorded his statement at the spot. Also statement of Raju and Rahul were recorded who took injured to the hospital.
3. On 11.03.2019, IO reached at the house of accused Babu Lal, arrested him and produced him before the Court concerned. On the night of the same day i.e. 11.03.2019, accused Sanju @ Gagan was apprehended at Sanjay Colony pulia, near Gokulpur village. From the possession of accused Sanju, one countrymade pistol loaded with one live cartridge was recovered from his left side dub of his lower. IO seized the pistol and cartridge. IO also collected MLC wherein the nature of injury was opined as grievous. Exhibits were sent to FSL. IO prepared the chargesheet and filed it on the Court on 03.06.2019.
A. Charges
4. Vide order dated 20.08.2019, charges were framed against both the accused persons for offence under sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act. Both the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the said Digitally charges. signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 15:53:04 +0530 SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another page 2 of 14 B. Prosecution Evidence:-
5. Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in this case.
6. PW1 Constable Vinesh deposed that on 01.04.19, he received the exhibit from the MCM (M) vide RC No.61/21/19 and deposited at FSL Rohini, Delhi.
7. PW2 Jagdish (wrongly numbered as PW1) deposed that on 10.03.2019, at about 7.00 PM, when he was present on the footpath near Gokul Puri Bus Stand and Gokul Puri Flyover near a tea stall, accused Gagan put the pistol on the left side of PW2's head saying " Aab to Tu gaya". Accused Babu Lal told "Martha Kyon nahi and immediately thereafter accused Gagan fired upon the head of PW2. The bullet exited from the right side of PW2's head near eyes. Thereafter, both the accused fled away from there. PW2 shouted and on hearing his cries, Rahul and Rajeev reached at the spot and helped PW2 and took him to GTB hospital in an auto. Rajeev opened Whatsapp account in the mobile of PW2 and recorded his version in which he told that he had received bullet injuries caused by both the accused. In the GTB hospital, PW2 Jagdish was medically treated and from there, he was referred to Trauma Centre where he was operated during the period 12.03.2019 to 21.03.2019 and discharged from there on 21.03.2019. Earlier accused Babu Lal had also lodged a false case against the son of PW2 at PS Gokul Puri FIR No.583/13. Police recorded statement of PW2 Jagdish (Ex.PW2/A). After about 4-5 days, IO came at house of PW2 and took him to GTB hospital where his blood sample was taken by the doctor. PW2 shown the place of incident to the IO, where IO prepared site plan Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another 15:53:11 +0530 page 3 of 14 (Ex. PW1/B). PW2 identified deshi katta along with one test fired cartridge, katta is Ex. P1.
8. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for both the accused that at the time of the incident, he was standing at the main Road, Gokulpuri, Delhi. Rahul @ Harish and Raju were standing there and talking. He sated that it is correct that on that day, prior to the incident, PW2 had not met with accused Babu Lal and Sanju @ Gagan. The assaillant had fired upon PW2 from the distance of 6-7 steps. PW2 could not recall the directions from where bullet was fired. It is correct that PW2 could not see the faces of the assailant clearly who fired on him.
9. PW3 HC Jitender deposed that on 10.03.2019, after receipt of DD No.10 he alongwith ASI Jeevanand and ATO Inspector Jagdish Yadav reached at the spot i.e. footpath near gokul puri flyover, where they came to know that injured was already shifted to GTB Hospital. SHO also reached at the spot and called the crime team and photographer.
ATO Insp. Jagdish Yadav handed over one rukka to PW3 for registration of FIR. PW3 reached PS and handed over the rukka to the duty officer and the present FIR was got registered through computer operator. Thereafter, PW3 returned at the spot with rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to ASI Jeevanand. Thereafter, Insp. Jagdish Yadav left the spot. Blood was lying at the spot. IO lifted the blood, earth without blood and earth having blood and kept the same in separate plastic containers and were sealed with seal of "JN". All the three sealed exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. IO made inquiries from Vishnu and Bharti who used to run a Tea/Pan/Bidi Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another 2025.07.31 15:53:19 page 4 of 14 +0530 Khokha (stall). Thereafter, PW3 alongwith IO ASI Jeevanand reached GTB Hospital where IO made inquiries from Rahul @ Harish, Raju and Anshu. Anshu is son of complainant and recorded their statement. In the GTB Hospital, HC Virender handed over the exhibits of complainant Jagdish in sealed condition alongwith sample seal, to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and deposited in Malkhana. On the next day, they reached at the house of accused Babu Lal and he was apprehended in front of his house and at about 11:00 am, he was arrested (arrest memo Ex. PW3/C), personal search was also conducted (vide memo Ex.PW3/D). His disclosure statement was also recorded (vide memo Ex.PW3/E). Accused Babu Lal was medically examined and he was remanded to the judicial custody. Thereafter, PW3 alongwith Constable Vipin and IO ASI Jeevanand proceeded in search of accused Sanju at about 08:00 PM and reached Sanjay Colony pulia near Gokul Puri village, from where accused Sanju was apprehended. Accused Sanju was arrested at about 11:00 pm (Ex. PW3/F) and his personal search was conducted (vide memo Ex.PW3/G). His disclosure statement was recorded (Ex.PW3/H). From the search of accused Sanju, one countrymade pistol in loaded condition was recovered from the left side of lower. The countrymade pistol was unloaded by the IO and one live cartridge was taken out. The countrymade pistol and live cartridge were measured and sketch of the same was prepared (Ex.PW3/I). The countrymade pistol and live cartridge were kept in cloth piece and pullanda was prepared which was sealed with the seal of "JN". The sealed pullanda was seized (vide memo Ex.PW3/J). Accused Sanju was medically examined and lodged Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 page 5 of 14 15:53:24 +0530 into the lockup. Case property was deposited in malkhana in sealed condition. IO recorded statement of PW3. PW3 identified countrymade pistol and cartridge (Ex.P1 colly) which were recovered from the possession of accused Sanju.
10. In his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that on 10.03.2019, it took about 2 minutes to reach at the spot from the PS. Statement of PW3 was recorded at the spot. The documents of arrest of accused Babu Lal was prepared at the place of his arrest.
11. PW4 Vishnu Yadav and PW5 Bharti (daughter of PW4) are completely hostile witnesses and deposed that police had never recorded their statements.
12. PW6 Raju deposed that he saw that PW2 Jagdish Chawla was found in injured condition and blood was oozing out from his body. PW2 Jagdish Chawla disclosed to PW6 that accused Gagan and Babu had fired upon PW2.
13. PW7 HC Vipin deposed that on 11.03.2019, PW7 along with Constable Jitender and IO/ASI Jeeva Nand went in search of accused Sanju and reached at Sanjay Colony Pulia, near Gokulpur Goan, where at the instance of secret informer, accused Sanju @ Gagan was apprehended and in his cursory search, one country made pistol was recovered from the left side waist of his lower. IO opened the same and it was found containing one live cartridge. The sketch of the same was prepared by the IO (Ex. PW3/1), after its measurement was done. The country made pistol and live cartridge were converted into pulanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of JN (vide memo Ex. PW3/J).
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another 15:53:32 +0530 page 6 of 14 Disclosure statement of accused was recorded and he was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Accused Sanju @ Gagan led them to the place of incident and pointed out the same. Pointing out memo was prepared. After that, medical examination of accused Sanju was conducted and was sent to lock-up. Statement of PW7 was recorded.
14. PW8 ASI Mahabir Singh deposed that on 10.03.2019, he along with SI Rajinder Singh (head of mobile crime team), ASI Raj Kumar Finger Print Proficient visited the spot i.e. footpath, near auto stand, Gokulpuri, flyover, where he met with IO/ASI Jeeva Nand along with other staff. Scene of crime was inspected by the mobile crime team and PW8 took photographs of the scene of crime from various angles and handed over 12 photographs to IO. IO recorded statement of PW8. PW8 identified the said photographs (Ex. P1 colly).
15. PW9 retired SI Rajinder Singh deposed that on 10.03.2019, he alongwith the Mobile Crime Team comprising of photographer ASI Mahabir Singh Finger Print Proficient and ASI Raj Kumar had visited the scene of crime (SOC) i.e. footpath, auto stand, Gokul Puri, flyover where they met with IO / ASI Jeeva Nand and other staff. PW9 inspected the SOC. The photographer took photographs of the SOC.
PW9 had directed IO to lift exhibits from the spot. After that, PW9 prepared a detailed report (Ex. PW9/A) and later on handed over the same to the IO. Statement of PW9 was recorded.
16. PW10 ASI Gajraj Singh deposed that on 15.10.2019, on the direction of the SHO, he collected the FSL result bio division in sealed cover from MHC (CP) of the present case. PW10 de-sealed the result and filed it in the Court in the form of supplementary charge sheet.
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another 2025.07.31 15:54:21 page 7 of 14 +0530
17. PW11 Dr. BR Anand deposed that on 01.04.2019, one sealed parcel with the seal of "JN" is opened and one countrymade pistol .315" bore and one 8 mm / .315" cartridge were taken out (Mark F-1 and A-1). PW11 examined the said exhibits and found that the country made pistol was in working order and test fire conducted successfully. PW11 Dr. BR Anand further deposed that the cartridge A-1 was live one. The cartridge A-1 was test fired through the country made pistol marked Ex.F1. The exhibits F-1/A-1 were firearm / ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. All the exhibits / remnants were sealed with the seal of VRA, FSL DELHI after examination. Detail report dt. 28.01.2021 of PW11 is Ex.PW11/A.
18. PW12 Dr. Nitika Beri deposed that she has been deputed to identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Swati Verma as she had worked with Dr. Swati Verma. PW12 identified the handwriting of Dr. Swati Verma, who has opined the nature of injury as grievous on the MLC of Jagdish Chawla (PW12). Dr. Swati Verma made endorsement on the MLC (Ex.PW12/A).
19. PW13 ASI Jivanand deposed that on 10.03.2019, on receipt of DD No.30A, he along with Constable Jitender and Inspector Jagdish in govt. gypsy reached at the spot i.e. footpath near Gokulpuri flyover, where they came to know that injured already shifted to GTB Hospital. He along with Inspector Jagdish proceeded to GTB Hospital leaving Constable Jitender at the spot. In the hospital, PW13 along with inspector Jagdish obtained the MLC of injured Jagdish Chawla on which he was stated to be fit for statement. Inspector Jagdish inquired injured Jagdish Chawla, who narrated the facts of the incident in the Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 page 8 of 14 15:54:29 +0530 presence of concerned doctor. Thereafter, PW13 along with Inspector Jagdish came back to spot. Crime team was called at the spot and Inspector Jagdish prepared tehrir and gave the same to Constable Jitender for registration of the FIR. Constable Jitender came back at the spot and gave the copy of FIR and tehrir to PW13. PW13 was assigned in the hospital, concerned doctor had also produced blood sample of injured Jagdish in sealed parcel along with sample seal on 29.03.2019. PW13 seized the same (vide memo Ex.PW13/E). PW13 deposited the MLC of the injured in the hospital. Concerned doctor opined the injury to be grievous in nature. Exhibits were sent to FSL for examination. Acknowledgment receipt of the FSL is Ex. PW13/F. PW13 prepared the chargesheet and filed before the Court.
20. PW14 Inspt. Jagdish Yadav deposed that on 10.03.2019 at around 07.00 pm, on receipt of PCR call vide DD No. 30 A, ASI Jivanand alongwith Ct. Jitender and PW14 visited the place of incident, where they came to know that injured had already been shifted to JPC Hospital. On the direction of PW14, Ct. Jitender stayed at the spot. PW14 alongwith ASI Jivanand reached GTB Hospital, where injured Jagdish Chawla was found under treatment, PW14 collected his MLC from the hospital and injured was stated to be fit for statement. He inquired injured Jagdish Chawla who narrated the facts of the incident in presence of Dr. Rahamatullah. PW14 recorded statement of injured already (Ex.PW2/A). Thereafter, PW14 alongwith ASI Jivanand came back to spot where SHO PS Gokulpuri was also found present. PW14 made endorsement (vide Ex.PW14/A) and gave the same to Ct. Jitender for Digitally registration of the FIR. signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 15:54:02 +0530 SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another page 9 of 14
21. Statement of both the accused persons was recorded under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. wherein they, after consultation with their counsel admitted the following documents i.e. (i) MLC of complainant Jagdish Chawla is Ex.A1, (ii) FIR No.61/2019 PS Gokulpuri is Ex. A2 and (iii) Prosecution sanction order dated 15.03.2021 under section 39 of the Arms Act, accorded by Sh. Devesh Mehla, IPS is Ex. A3.
22. On 19.07.2025, statements of both accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied their involvement and opted not to lead evidence.
C. Findings:-
23. The injured who is also an eye witness in this case is PW2 Jagdish. In his examination in chief, he has supported the case of prosecution partly. He had deposed that on 10.03.2019 at around 07.00 pm, he was present on Footpath bus station Gokulpuri Flyover near a tea stall when both accused came, accused Sanju @ Gagan was having pistol in his hand and kept pistol on the left side of his head and fired. However, accused Babu Lal told him that "marta kyu nahi". Bullet exited from the right side of his head near eyes. Thereafter both the accused fled away from the spot. On his cries, one Rahul and Rajeev reached the spot and took him to the GTB Hospital in auto.
24. However, in his cross examination, he had not supported the case of prosecution completely. In his cross examination, he deposed that the spot is a busy area. He also deposed that one assailant had fired upon him from a distance of 6-7 steps. He further deposed that passersby were passing at that time and one barat was also passing from there. He Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another 2025.07.31 15:54:38 page 10 of 14 +0530 admitted that when firing occurred, a barat party was passing in front of tea stall. He could not recall the direction from which bullet was fired. He further admitted that he could not see the faces of assailants who fired at him. He further admitted that there are several cases pending between him and accused persons and hence, he named accused persons as assailants on suspicion. He deposed that he had not clearly seen the faces of assailants. He further deposed that earlier in one case also, he had named the accused persons on suspicion, at the time of FIR.
25. Perusal of cross examination of this witness would show that he had not completely supported the case of prosecution. He had admitted that there was prior enmity between himself and accused persons, he deposed that he had named the accused persons as assailants on the basis of suspicion as they have prior enmity. He further deposed that he could not see the faces of assailants clearly. Hence the arguments that the bullet might have been fired by someone from barat or by passersby as it was a congested area appear plausible. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt u/s 307 IPC.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04.02.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos.339-340 of 2014 titled as Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh held as follows:
"21.The expression "hostile witness" does not find a place in the Indian Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party. We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief Digitally signed by TWINKLE SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another TWINKLE WADHWA page 11 of 14 WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 15:54:53 +0530 examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion."
27. There are other witnesses in this case namely PW 4 Vishnu Yadav.
However, he did not support prosecution case. He stated that he run a tea stall near the place of incident and is not aware of the facts of the case. PW 5 Bharti is daughter of PW 4 Vishnu Yadav. She has also not supported the case of prosecution.
28. PW 6 Raju stated that he reached at the spot on hearing gunshot where he saw one person Jagdish Chawla was lying in injured condition and blood was oozing from his body, when he asked Jagdish Chawla who had shot at him, he disclosed the name of two persons namely Sanju @ Gagan and Babu Lal, thereafter, he was shifted to GTB hospital. He also stated that he is not an eye witness and name of accused persons were disclosed to him by injured, hence he is not an eye witness to the incident. Other witnesses in this case are police witnesses, they have Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another WADHWA Date: page 12 of 14 2025.07.31 15:55:00 +0530 only conducted investigation of the case. Their testimonies cannot be the basis for conviction in this case. They are not eye witnesses and had only been involved in investigation of the case.
29. In the circumstances, both the accused are hereby acquitted for the charged offence under section 307/34 IPC.
30. Charge under section 25/27 Arms Act has also been framed against accused Sanju @ Gagan. IO deposed before the court as PW-13, he stated in his deposition that on 11.03.2019, accused Sanju @ Gagan was apprehended near Sanjay colony pulia near Gokulpur Village by himself and Ct. Jitender along with Ct. Vipin at the instance of secret informer, one countrymade pistol loaded with one live cartridge was recovered from the possession of Sanju @ Gagan. However, IO did not depose in his deposition as PW13 that he asked any public persons to join in the search of person of accused nor any public person was asked to join for the purpose of arresting of accused. Further the facts of the case as are presented by prosecution are already doubtful.
31. Hence, as far as the recovery of weapon from accused Sanju @ Gagan is concerned, no charge for 'use of' this weapon is established against accused Sanju @ Gagan as it is denied by complainant that any of the accused fired at him, he deposed that he had not seen the faces of assailants.
32. As far as the recovery of pistol is concern, there is no public witness who has been made a witness in this case. It was a crowded area from where accused Sanju @ Gagan was arrested but no public person has been made a witness in this case. Further, facts of the case of Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another WADHWA Date:
2025.07.31 page 13 of 14 15:55:14 +0530 prosecution are already doubtful and even the injured has turned hostile. Hence, charge under 25/27 Arms Act is also not proved. Accordingly, accused Sanju @ Gagan is also acquitted for the said offence.
D. Conclusion:-
33. In view of above discussion, accused Sanju @ Gagan and Babu Lal are acquitted for the charged offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. Accused Sanju @ Gagan is also acquitted for the charged offence punishable under section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
Announced in Open Court 2025.07.31 15:55:19 +0530 as on 31.07.2025 ( Twinkle Wadhwa ) Additional Sessions Judge-02 North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 201/2019 State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan and another page 14 of 14