Delhi District Court
State vs Aamir @ Aatish on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-003528-2018
SC No. 224/2018
STATE Vs. Aamir @ Atish
FIR No. 03/2018
PS : Ranhola
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence 02.01.2018 Date of Committal in the Court of 21.04.2018 Sessions Name of the complainant Ram Ji Lal Name of accused and addresses (1) Aamir @ Atish S/o Mohd.
Amil R/o B-252, J. J. Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(2) Aarif @ Raju S/o Mohd.
Ashique, R/o B-20, J. J. Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(3) Nooruddin Farukhi @ Raju Pradhan S/o Noor Ahmed Farukhi R/o A-110, Suraksha Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi.
(4) Sherkhan @ Md. Fahim S/o Amil R/o B-252, J. J. Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved 307/34 IPC & Section 27/54/59 Arms Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquittal
Date of announcing of judgment 23.12.2025
FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 1 of 19
BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.01.2018 at 08:17 PM, DD no.44A was received at PS Ranhola vide which the caller informed that he has been shot by some boys and he is going to DDU hospital by auto. SI Dinesh Kumar alongwith HC Rajbir reached DDU hospital where the complainant Ramji Lal was found admitted vide MLC no.209/17. IO recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant stated that the accused persons namely Aamir @ Atish, Aarif @ Raju, Nooruddin Farukhi @ Raju Pradhan and one person Shahrukh used to demand money from him and when he refused to pay the same, they wanted to take revenge at him. Hence, the accused Aamir shot at the complainant from a katta, at the instance of other accused persons. He was taken to the hospital by his acquaintance Vinod. One bullet was retrieved from his clothes. On basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 27/54/59 Arms Act. During investigation, all the four accused were apprehended and arrested. One country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Aamir.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was filed in the Court of Ld. MM against all the accused persons. After completion of proceedings U/s 207 FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 2 of 19 Cr.P.C., Learned MM committed the case to Learned Sessions Court.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 21.02.2024, charge under Section 307/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons and charge under Section 27/25/54/59 Arms Act was additionally framed against accused Aamir @ Atish. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in total.
5. PW-1/complainant Ramji Lal deposed that he is an auto driver. He could not recollect the date, month or year of the incident but deposed that the incident had taken place at night. He was getting his auto repaired at a shop in Vir Bazar, Balaji Chowk, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. In the meantime, 3-4 boys came there. One of them fired at him, but the bullet got stuck in his jacket. He could not assign any reason why they had fired at him. He became unconscious. Some auto driver took him to DDU hospital. He regained consciousness during mid-night. Police also came there and he narrated the abovesaid facts to the police. He admitted his signatures upon his statement Ex. PW1/A but voluntarily stated that he had not read the same as he was nervous at that time. He further deposed that he did not mention the name of any of the assailants in his FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 3 of 19 statement to the police. He admitted his signatures on the site plan Ex. PW1/B but denied about the contents of the same. He admitted his signatures on the arrest memo of accused persons Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E but denied about the contents of the same. The witness failed to identify the accused persons before the court and stated that none of them had fired at him. He identified his shirt having blood stain marks, his vest and black leather jacket, which he was wearing at the time of incident. Same are Ex.P1, Ex. P2 and Ex.P3. He deposed that the bullet touched the zip of his jacket but no injury was caused to him. He could not identify the weapon of offence stating that he had not seen the same nor the same was recovered in his presence.
6. PW-1/Ramji Lal was cross-examined by Learned Public Prosecutor for state as he failed to support the prosecution story. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A. However, the witness denied the suggestion that the said statement was read over and explained to him by the police before he signed the same. He denied having told the police that accused persons Aamir, Aarif, Nooruddin and Sherkhan used to extort money from the auto drivers on behalf of Raju Pradhan or that they were trying to extort money from him also but he did not pay any money to them. Hence, to take revenge, accused Aamir @ Atish had fired at him after taking weapon from Abid. He denied having stated to the police that the incident had taken place on 02.01.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was present at FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 4 of 19 Balaji Chowk near Murli Samose Wala and was talking with Bunty Pradhan. He denied having seen the accused Raju Pradhan, Aamir, Abid, Aarif @ Raju, Sharukh and Sherkhan coming to the spot and further denied that on seeing them, he tried to go away from there. He denied that in the meantime, accused Abid handed over a country made pistol to Aamir and told him to fire at the witness.
7. PW-1 denied that the accused persons Aamir, Aarif, Nooruddin and Sherkhan were the same persons who had fired at him. He denied that the site plan Ex.PW1/B was prepared by the police at his instance. He denied having identified accused Aamir in the police station on 06.07.2018. He denied that on 28.03.2018, he joined investigation with the police and on his pointing out, police apprehended the accused Nooruddin Farukhi and Aarif @ Raju.
8. During cross-examination by Learned defence counsel, PW-1 admitted that he had got his statement recorded before the court at his free will and without any fear or pressure. He stated that he does not know any of the accused persons and denied that the accused persons were involved in the incident of firing on him. He admitted that his statement Ex.PW1/A was not recorded by the police at his instance.
9. PW-2/Vinod deposed that in the year 2018 he used to drive auto. PW-1/Ramji Lal @ Kalu also used to drive auto. On FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 5 of 19 02.01.2018 in the night hours, he was passing from Balaji Road in his auto, when Ramji Lal stopped him and sat in his auto and asked him to drop him at some hospital. The father and brother of Ramji Lal met them at Matke wali gali and they also sat in the auto. They asked him to drop them at DDU hospital. Ramji Lal was having his hand on his chest and was saying that he was feeling uncomfortable. He dropped them at Emergency gate of DDU hospital. Some police officials came to Balaji Road on the next day and got his signatures on some papers. PW-2 also failed to identify the accused persons.
10. This witness was also cross-examined by Learned Chief Prosecutor for the State. He denied the suggestion that on 03.01.2018 police recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied having stated to the police that on 02.01.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was passing from the shop of Kake Mistri, he heard the noise of firing. He denied that PW-1/Ramji Lal @ Kalu sat in his auto and told him that Amir had fired upon him. He was confronted with his statement Mark PW2/A. He denied having called the police from his mobile phone. He denied that accused Aamir is the same person who had fired at PW-1/Ramji Lal @ Kalu.
11. PW-3/Surender @ Bunty also failed to support the prosecution story and was cross examined by Ld. Chief Prosecutor. He denied having made the statement Mark PW3/A to police on 05.01.2018. He denied that he knew FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 6 of 19 the accused Aamir who also used to drive auto. He denied that prior to 2½ months from the registration of the present case, Ramji Lal and Aamir had a quarrel. He denied that on 02.01.2018 at around 8.00 p.m. when he was getting his auto repaired from the shop of one Kake, the complainant Ramji Lal @ Kalu also came there. They started talking. In the meanwhile, accused Aamir came there in an auto. He denied that on seeing the accused Aamir, Kalu tried to leave the said place, but Aamir fired upon Kalu. He denied that after receiving injuries, Kalu started running towards Murli Samosa wala for going to his house. He denied that the accused Aamir is the same person, who had fired upon injured Ramji Lal @ Kalu.
12. PW-4/IO SI Amit Rathi deposed that he collected FSL result of the case from Malkhana and obtained Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act from DCP, Outer District. He prepared supplementary charge-sheet against accused Sherkhan and filed the same before the court.
13. PW-5/IO Insp. Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 02.01.2018, he received DD No. 44-A (Ex. PW-5/A) upon which he alongwith HC Rajbir reached DDU hospital. Ramji Lal was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 209/18. He recorded the statement of Ramji Lal and prepared rukka Ex. PW-5/B and handed it over to HC Rajbir for registration of FIR. Doctor at DDU Hospital handed over to him the sealed exhibits with seal of CMO DDU Hospital, containing the clothes of injured Ramji Lal and FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 7 of 19 bullet. He seized both the pullandas vide seizure memos Ex. PW-5/C. He prepared the site plan of place of incident at the instance of injured Ramji Lal.
14. PW-5 further deposed that on 05.01.2018, he obtained the opinion about the injuries of Ramji Lal vide Ex. PW-5/D. He produced injured Ramji Lal and a sealed pullanda containing bullet and clothes of the injured before the HOD, Forensic Department, DDU Hospital. The opinion of HOD is Ex. A-7. He further deposed that on 06.01.2018, he alongwith HC Rajesh apprehended accused Aamir @ Atish near DDA Park, Uttam Nagar on secret information. Complainant Ramji Lal also came to the PS and identified him as the person who had fired at him on the date of incident. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/E and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/F. The accused led them to the Ganda Nala, Ranhola, near Sai Baba Mandir. The accused Aamir @ Atish took out one country made pistol from beneath the stones lying by the side of wall of Ganda Nala and handed it over to the witness. He prepared sketch of the said pistol, same is Ex. PW-5/G. The country made pistol was seized in a sealed pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/H. IO prepared site plan of the place of recovery of the pistol which is Ex. PW-5/I. He identified the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Aamir Atish as Ex. PW5/Article-1.
FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 8 of 1915. During cross examination, PW-5 admitted that public persons were present on the road at the time of recovery of the country made pistol. He had asked the said public persons to witness the recovery but they all refused citing their personal difficulties. He handed over the seal after use to HC Rajesh, who returned it to him on the next day in the PS.
16. PW-11/HC Rajesh Kumar corroborated the testimony of PW-5/Inspector Dinesh Kumar. During cross examination, he admitted that no videography was conducted regarding recovery of the country-made pistol. He admitted that public persons were available near the ganda nala from where the katta was recovered and IO had requested some of the public persons to join the investigation. However, they refused to join the same. IO had not recorded their names etc. nor had he served any notice upon them. Seal after use was handed over to him by IO and handing over memo was prepared. He returned the seal to the IO at the same time.
17. PW-6/IO SI Jasbir Malik deposed that on 23.01.2018, further investigation of this case was marked to him. He obtained NBWs against accused Arif @ Raju and Nooruddin Farukhi @ Raju Pradhan on 23.02.2018 vide his application, Ex.PW6/A. On 28.03.2018, he arrested the accused Arif @ Raju and Nooruddin Farukhi @ Raju Pradhan on pointing out by the complainant, vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Their personal search FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 9 of 19 was taken vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C respectively. They made disclosure statements also. He also obtained the original MLC, the X-ray report and X-ray plates of the injured Ramji Lal from the hospital. As per the MLC of the complainant, Ex. A-1, the nature of injury given by the doctor is 'Simple'. After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet.
18. PW-6/IO further deposed that he sent the sealed pullandas containing seized firearm and the recovered bullet to FSL, Rohini. On 08.05.2014, he received information from Crime Branch regarding arrest of accused Sher Khan @ Mohd. Fahim. After obtaining due permission from court concerned, he interrogated accused Sher Khan @ Mohd. Fahim and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/E and recorded his disclosure statement.
19. PW-9/HC Indu corroborated the testimony of PW-6/SI Jasbir Malik and deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Nooruddin @ Raju, which is Ex.PW9/A. PW-10/Ct. Ajay also corroborated the testimony of PW-6/SI Jasbir Malik and deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Aarif @ Raju, which is Ex.PW10/A.
20. PW-7/Sh. Rajinder Singh Sagar, Addl. CP, Armed Police had accorded the sanction under Section 39 Arms Act vide his order dated 12.03.2020, which is Ex.PW7/A. FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 10 of 19
21. PW-8/SI Satender Kumar, deposed that on 07.05.2018 he was posted at IGIS/Crime Branch, Delhi. On that day, he and his raiding party apprehended the accused Sher Khan on secret information and arrested him u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. Information of his arrest was sent to IO of this case. The Kalandra regarding arrest of the accused is Ex.PW8/A.
22. PW-12/Dr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL Rohini deposed that on 11.06.2018 two sealed parcels, parcel no.1 was sealed with the seal of PM DDUH and parcel no.2 sealed with the seal of DK, were received in FSL through Ct. Sumit and same were marked to him for examination. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seals provided with the FSL form. On opening the first parcel, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex.EB-1. On opening the second parcel, one country made pistol of .315 inch bore was taken out and marked as Ex.F1. Five 8 mm/.315 inch cartridges were also received for test firing. On examination, he found that the country made pistol Ex.F1 was in working order. Test fire was conducted successfully by using four test firing cartridges. The test fired cartridges were marked as TC-1 to TC-4 and the two recovered test fired bullets were marked as TB-1 and TB-2. The bullet marked Ex.EB-1 was corresponding to the bullet of 8 mm/.315 inch cartridge. However, no opinion could be given whether the bullet Ex.EB-1 has been discharged through the country made pistol Ex.F-1 or not as the individual characteristics of striations present on evidence bullet mark EB-1 were FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 11 of 19 found insufficient for comparison and opinion when compared with the test fired bullets marked TB-1 and TB-2 under the comparison microscope.
23. PW-13/HC Mohinder Singh, MHC(M) at PS Ranhola proved the following entries- 1. Entry at serial no.1706 in register no.19 dated 05.01.2018 vide which SI Dinesh Kumar deposited two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital alongwith sample seal and copy of seizure memo in the Malkhana. Same is Ex. PW13/A (OSR); 2. Entry at serial no.1708 in register no.19 dated 06.01.2018 vide which SI Dinesh Kumar deposited one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of DK alongwith copy of seizure memo in the Malkhana. Same is Ex. PW13/B (OSR); and 3. RC no.167/21/18 dated 11.06.2018 vide which he handed over two sealed parcels, one sealed with the seal of PM DDUH (containing bullet) and other sealed with the seal of DK (containing country made pistol) and five live cartridges of 8 mm x 0351 for test firing to Ct. Sumit for depositing the same in FSL. Same is Ex.PW13/C(OSR) and the acknowledgment receipt is Ex.PW13/D (OSR).
24. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. dated 03.10.2024, the accused persons admitted the following documents: -
1. MLC no.209/18 pertaining to injured Ramji Lal and X-
Ray report of DDU hospital as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 respectively.
FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 12 of 192. FIR no.3/18 PS Ranhola, alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and endorsement on rukka at point A to Al as Ex.A-3, Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 respectively.
3. Certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act having no.6948/CF (ACDS)/ICTec.CPCR, PHQ dated 11.01.2018 issued by SI George Abrahim alongwith the PCR form as Ex.A-6.
4. Subsequent opinion on injury dated 05.01.2018 by Dr. Komal as Ex.A-7.
5. FSL report dated 31.01.2019 as Ex.A-8.
6. DD no.57A dated 02.01.2018 PS Ranhola as Ex.A-9.
25. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence in defence was led by the accused persons despite opportunity and hence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
26. Final oral submissions were addressed at length by Learned defence counsel and Learned APP for State.
27. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts as all the material prosecution witnesses including the FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 13 of 19 complainant have turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution story. None of the eye witnesses have identified the accused persons.
28. Per contra, Learned Addl. PP for the state has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are liable to be convicted. She has submitted that even though the eye witnesses have failed to identify the accused persons and turned hostile, the FSL Result Ex.A-8 and the testimony of police witnesses proves that firearm was recovered from the possession of accused Aamir @ Atish.
Court findings
29. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the accused and the State and perused the entire record carefully.
30. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a criminal trial, a duty is cast upon the prosecution that it has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even an iota of doubt in the prosecution story entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. In 'Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs Sidarai Laxman Chougala' AIR 2019 SC 3871, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court, "The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 14 of 19 such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt."
31. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged for offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Section 307 IPC is reproduced verbatim as under, "Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and 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."
32. As per Section 34 IPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
33. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1/Ramji Lal, being the victim. However, this witness turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution story. He denied that the accused Aamir @ Atish had shot at him with a county made pistol. He was thoroughly cross- examined by Ld. APP for State. Despite that he failed to support the prosecution story and completely denied the same. He also failed to identify any of the four accused persons. Infact, he has specifically stated in his cross- examination that the accused persons were not the same FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 15 of 19 persons who had fired at him. He also denied that he had turned hostile due to fear and pressure put on him by the accused persons.
34. Eye-witness PW-3/Surender @ Bunty also failed to support the prosecution story and denied that the accused persons were known to him or that he had witnessed the alleged incident. Similarly, even though PW-2/Vinod deposed that he had taken the complainant Ramji Lal in his Auto and dropped him at DDU hospital, however, he did not depose anything regarding the alleged incident. He also failed to identify the accused persons and stated that he did not know them.
35. Ld. APP has relied upon the FSL result Ex.A-8, vide which the bullet recovered from the clothes of the complainant was compared with the countrymade pistol recovered from the possession of the accused Aamir @ Atish. However, as per the said FSL result, the bullet so recovered was found insufficient for comparison and opinion as to whether it was discharged through the same countrymade pistol or not. The relevant portion of the said FSL result Ex.A-8 is reproduced as under, "1. XXX
2. XXX
3. XXX
4. The individual characteristics of striations present on evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' were found insufficient for comparison and opinion when compared FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 16 of 19 with the test fired bullets marked as 'TB1' and 'TB2' under the Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC whether it has been discharged through the country made pistol .315' bore marked exhibit 'F1' above or not."
36. Hence, even the FSL result Ex. PW12/A is not sufficient to prove that the bullet recovered from the clothes of the complainant Ramji Lal was shot from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Aamir @ Atish.
37. Also, the very factum of recovery of the said countrymade pistol at the instance of the accused Aamir @ Atish is doubtful. As per the prosecution, the accused Aamir @ Atish took out one countrymade pistol Ex.PW5/Article-1 from beneath the stones near ganda nala, Ranhola. However, both PW-5/Inspector Dinesh Kumar and PW-11/HC Rajesh admitted in their cross-examination that public persons were available near the ganda nala from where the katta was recovered. Despite that IO failed to join any public person to the recovery proceedings of the countrymade pistol. No photography or videography of the recovery proceedings were conducted by the IO. In the case titled as 'Roop Chand v. State of Haryana', 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, "It is well settled principle of the 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 FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 17 of 19 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 he 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 afterthought and is not worthy of credence."
38. Also, both PW-5/IO and PW-11/HC Rajesh deposed that after sealing the pistol, seal was handed over by PW-5 to PW-11 Rajesh. No effort was made by the IO to handover the seal to an independent witness. PW-11 further deposed that he returned the seal to the IO at the spot itself. Admittedly, the seal remained with the Investigating Officer. Hence, the possibility of interference or tampering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out. The possibility of tampering of the contents of the sealed parcel before it was sent for examination to the FSL cannot be ruled out. (Reliance placed on Safiullah v State (Delhi Administration, 49(1993) DLT193).
39. In view of the above discussion, since the complainant/PW-1/Ramji Lal as well as other eye witnesses i.e. PW-2/Vinod and PW-3/Surender have FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 18 of 19 turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution story, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons. It has not been proved that the accused Aamir @ Atish, had shot at the complainant Ramji Lal from a country-made pistol with an intention to kill him. It has not been proved that the accused persons had committed the said act in furtherance of their common intention, that is to kill the complainant/PW-1 Ramji Lal. Further, it has not been proved that the accused Aamir @ Atish was in possession of a country made pistol which he had used to commit the alleged offence of shooting the complainant.
40. Accordingly, accused persons namely Aamir @ Atish S/o Mohd. Amil, Aarif @ Raju S/o Mohd. Ashique, Nooruddin Farukhi @ Raju Pradhan S/o Noor Ahmed Farukhi and Sherkhan @ Md. Fahim S/o Amil are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. Accused Aamir @ Atish is also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
41. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN Date: 2026.01.06
15:58:13 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE (SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
OPEN COURT ON ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST
rd
23 December, 2025 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Certified that this judgment contains 19 pagesDigitally andsigned eachby page bears my signatures. SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2026.01.06 15:58:29 +0530 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI/ 23.12.2025 FIR No. 03/2018 State Vs. Aamir @ Atish & Ors Page 19 of 19