Delhi District Court
State vs Furkan on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02) SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010020822016
Session Case No.2516/2016
FIR No.709/2015
Police Station: Sunlight Colony.
State
Versus
1) Furkan
Son of Shahid
Resident of Lodhi Wali Gali,
Post Narsal Ghat, PS Kotwali,
District Bulandshehar, U.P.
2) Shehzad @ Sameer
Son of Habib Khan
Resident of Village and Post Pahasu,
District Bulandshehar, U.P.
Date of Institution : 18.01.2016
Judgment reserved on : 15.09.2025
Date of Decision : 24.09.2025
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 1 of 55
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the accused persons, namely, Furkan and Shehzad for having committed the said offences.
2. As per the police report on 08.10.2015, this case FIR was registered in police station Sunlight Colony for the offences punishable under sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27Arms Act.
3. As per the police report, on 08.10.2015, upon receipt of a DD No. 23A regarding " Ashram Chowk, Bharat Petrol Pump se Badarpur ki taraf jate hue do aadmi ek aadmi ko goli maar kar Pulsar Motorcycle, Black colour par bhage hai, jisme se ek ne black or ek ne white shirt pehni hai ", Assistant Sub- Inspector Omprakash along with Constable Vikram had reached on the reported spot, and recorded the statement of the victim Shrawan Kumar.
4. It is further reported in the police report that the complainant, Shravan Kumar has, inter-alia, stated as follows:
"I am Shravan Kumar son of Late Chhotu Bhagat resident of House no. 234, Gali No. 3, Pal Mohalla Mandawali, New Delhi-110092 and a permanent resident of village Baru, Post- Pathtera, Police Station- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura (Bihar). Today, on FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 2 of 55 8/10/15 at around 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, I was going by my TSR No. DL-1RK-6537 to Okhla Mandi via Mathura Road after taking passengers from Paharganj. When I reached Bhogal flyover, two boys were riding on a black Pulsar with unknown number. There was a jam on Bhogal flyover. I had an argument with the motorcyclists over giving way. After this, I was standing in the queue to fill CNG at Bharat Petrol Pump, Ashram Mathura Road. The motorcyclists with whom I had an argument on Bhogal flyover, came to me by a motorcycle at the petrol pump and the boy sitting behind on the motorcycle pointed a pistol and fired a shot at me with the intention of killing me. The bullet hit the little finger of my right foot and went away. After firing, both the boys riding the motorcycle ran away from the spot. They were not wearing helmets. The motorcyclist was wearing a black shirt and the boy sitting behind was wearing a white shirt. After the firing, a crowd gathered at the spot and during the same time, the passenger sitting in the auto went away. I don't know their names or addresses, but I can identify the two boys who fired at me with the intention of killing me if they come forward. Legal action should be taken against them."
5. It is further recorded in the police report that SHO along with his staff had arrived at the spot, and on the spot the complainant Shravan Kumar had told that he was having a lot of pain due to the bullet hitting his right little toe, on which ASI Omprakash had sent the complainant Shravan Kumar under protection of Ct. Vikram to Trauma Center, AIIMS for Medical Examination, and interrogated the people in the crowd.
6. It is further reported in the police report that during the interrogation, Ct. Vikram had arrived at the spot along with complainant Shravan Kumar, who had produced MLC No. 520444/15 dated 8/10/15, on which the doctor opined the nature of injury as 'simple' and after inquiring the complainant, his statement was recorded.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 3 of 557. It is further reported in the police report that from he contents of statement of the complainant, perusal of MLC and spot inspection, the offences under sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act have been made out, therefore, a case under those sections was got registered and further investigation of this case was assigned to Sub-Inspector Bijender Singh.
8. It is further reported in the police report that the crime-team was informed and the investigating officer had obtained the crime-team report and seized the exhibits through seizure memo, and after that, he had prepared site plan and recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.
9. It is further reported in the police report that the accused persons could not be traced on that day, hence, investigation continued.
10. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused Furkan son of Shahid Qureshi was apprehended red-handed on 14/10/2015 from Ring Road, Near Maharani Bagh, New Delhi by SI Bijender Singh and other staff of police station Sunlight Colony and during that process, the accused had even fired bullet shot at SI Bijender, and a case FIR no. 715/15 dated 14/10/2015 under sections 186/353/332/307/34 IPC & 25/27 the Arms Act, 1959 police station Sunlight Colony was registered against the accused and one pistol, one desi katta along with live cartridges were recovered from him.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 4 of 5511. It is further reported in the police report that the accused Furkan was arrested on the spot but his accomplice/co- accused Shehzad had run away from the spot by motorcycle, and during interrogation, the accused Furkaan had disclosed his involvement in the present case; thereafter, further investigation of the present case was handed over to SI Sanjay Kumar.
12. It is further reported in the police report that the accused Furkan was formally arrested in the present case also in the Saket Court Complex after obtaining due permission for interrogation and formal arrest from the Court.
13. It is further reported in the police report that an application for conducting TIP proceedings was made in the Court but the accused had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings, and two days police custody remand of the accused was obtained.
14. It is further reported in the police report that during police custody remand, the accused Furkan was taken to search the co-accused Shehzad son of Habib and to trace the motorcycle used in the commission of crime, but despite of making sincere efforts, neither the co-accused nor the motorcycle could be traced, however, the previous involvement of the accused Furkan was obtained from his local police station.
15. It is further reported in the police report that since the co-accused Shehzad could not be traced, NBWs had been got issued against him and further proceedings would be carried out as and when the accused would be traced.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 5 of 5516. It is further reported in the police report that the afore-said acts on the part of the accused Furkan revealed commission of offences punishable under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by the accused Furkan may be taken and he should be tried as per the provisions of law.
17. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the police report before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
18. On the police report, on 18.01.2016, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences.
19. On 29.01.2016, the accused Furkan was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused Furkan.
20. On 15.02.2016, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 307 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and committed the case to the Court of Session.
21. On 01.05.2017, first supplementary police report was filed by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, and summons for appearance of the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 6 of 55 accused was issued for supplying the copies of supplementary police report.
22. It is further reported in the first supplementary police report that the main police report of the case had already been filed, and the exhibits including cartridge and bullet, which had been seized in the present case, had been sent to CFSL, Rohini, New Delhi and result of the same had been obtained.
23. It is further reported in the first supplementary police report that in the results of examination, it was opined that the exhibits marked as 'ECl' i.e., 7.65mm cartridge, was a fired empty cartridge, while another exhibit marked as EB1' i.e., bullet, was the bullet of 7.65mm cartridge; the exhibit 'EC1' was fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm, which was sent to FSL vide FSL No. 2015/F-7841 in case FIR no. 715/15, police station Sunlight Colony, as exhibit 'F-2' and were compared under Comparison Microscope Model Lieca DMC and were found identical; the class characteristics of striations/rifling marks present on the evidence deformed bullet marked exhibit 'EBl' and on the test fired bullets test fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm Caliber marked as exhibit 'F2' were examined and were compared under Comparison Microscope Model Lieca DMC and were not found identical, hence, as per the result, the evidence deformed bullet marked exhibit 'EBl' has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65mm Caliber marked as F2; the exhibits EC1' & 'EBl' were parts of ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. It is further reported in the first supplementary police report that the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 7 of 55 supplementary police report be attached with the main police report.
24. On 20.05.2017, copies of first supplementary police report with E-Challan were supplied to the accused Furkan in compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
25. On 01.05.2017, second supplementary police report was filed by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, and summons for appearance of the accused were issued for supplying the copies of supplementary police report.
26. In the second supplementary police report, it is stated that the main police report in the present case has already been filed in the Court, and the FSL result Ballistic vide FSL No. 2016/F-4635 dated 28/09/16 has already been filed in the Court through supplementary police report.
27. It is further reported in the second supplementary police report that in the present case, sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was required, which has been obtained from Addl. DCP-I/South East District, vide letter No.782/SO/Addl. DCP-I/SED dated 07.05.2022, which is attached with the file. It is further reported in the second supplementary police report that search for the co-accused Shahzad son of Habib wanted in the present case was going on and upon his arrest, supplementary police report would be filed. It is prayed that the second FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 8 of 55 supplementary police report should be attached with the main police report.
28. On 24.06.2022, copies of second supplementary police report were supplied to the accused Furkan in compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
29. On 23.02.2023, third supplementary police report was filed by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, and summons for appearance of the accused Furkan and production warrant qua the accused Shehzad were issued for supplying the copies of supplementary police report.
30. It is reported in the third supplementary police report that the main police report of the present case has already been filed in the Court and the accused Shahzad son of Habib resident of Mohalla Kaji Khel Pahasu Kasba, police station-Pahasu, Distt. Bulandshehar (UP) was searched, and on 30.11.2022, it had come to know that he had been lodged in Rohini Jail.
31. It is further reported in the third supplementary police report that during the course of investigation, on 03.12.2022, the investigation officer had made an application for issuing production warrant of the accused in the concerned Court and it was issued for 08.12.2022.
32. It is further reported in the third supplementary police report that during the course of investigation on FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 9 of 55 08.12.2022, the co-accused Shahzad was produced in the Court on the execution of the production warrant, and the investigating officer had made an application for interrogation and arrest in the concerned Court and after taking permission, the investigation officer had recorded the disclosure statement of the co-accused Shahzad in the present case, who in his disclosure statement had confessed to have committed the crime with his associate Furkan and after interrogation, the accused was arrested in the present case and his arrest memo was prepared and the accused was produced in the concerned Court and sent to judicial custody and his TIP was fixed for 05.01.2023 but the accused had refused to participate in the TIP and the investigating officer had obtained the documents regarding TIP which are attached with the file.
33. It is further reported in the third supplementary police report that the aforesaid acts on the part of the accused Shehzad revealed commission of offences punishable under sections 186/353/352/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by the accused Shehzad may be taken and he should be tried as per the provisions of law.
34. On 27.02.2023, copies of third supplementary police report were supplied to the accused persons Furkan and Shehzad in compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
35. On 03.06.2023, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 10 of 55 accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused Furkan for his having committed offences punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code & 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and the charge was framed against the accused Shehzad @ Sameer for his having committed offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code.
36. The charge was read over and explained to both the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
37. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW2 Deepak Kumar, PW3 Amar Nath, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Abdul Wahid, PW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Anand Pal, PW6 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Vikram Kumar, PW7 Sub-Inspector (SI) Om Prakash, PW8 Sub-Inspector (SI) Yogesh Tanwar, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, PW11 Inspector Bijender, PW12 Additional DCP II Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, PW13 Head Constable (HC) Mukesh Kumar, PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F(colly.), Ex.PW10/G, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW14/A; and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Mark X FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 11 of 55 (colly.), Ex.MOI (colly.), Ex.MO2 (colly.), were also tendered in evidence.
38. On 23.09.2023, the accused persons, namely, Furkan and Shehzad have made joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. admitting the copy of FIR (Ex.Al), DD No.30A (Ex.A2), certificate under-section 65B IEA (Ex.A3), DD No.23A (Ex.A4), TIP proceedings of the accused Shehzad (Ex.A5), FSL result No.2016/F/4635 dated 29.09.2016 (Ex.A6 colly), TIP proceedings of the accused Furkan (Ex.A7); the above-said documents may be read in evidence as per section 294 Cr.P.C.
39. On 29.05.2025, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.
40. On 08.08.2025, this Court examined the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons took the defence that they are innocent. It is further stated by the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
41. The accused persons did not express their desire to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 12 of 5542. I have heard Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Shadman Ali, Advocate for both the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
43. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW2 Deepak Kumar, PW3 Amar Nath, PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid, PW5 ASI Anand Pal, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar, PW7 SI Om Prakash, PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, PW11 Inspector Bijender, PW12 Additional DCP II Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar, PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F(colly.), Ex.PW10/G, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW14/A; and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Mark X (colly.), Ex.MOI (colly.), Ex.MO2 (colly.), learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused persons. It is further submitted that both the accused persons had followed the complainant and fired at him at the petrol pump. It is further submitted that PW1 Shravan Kumar, the complainant has correctly identified both the accused persons to be the offenders. It is further submitted that the complainant had sufficient time to recognize the faces of the offenders as the incident had happened at two places and the first incident had happened at Bhogal Flyover and then at petrol pump where the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 13 of 55 accused persons had fired bullet shot at the complainant. It is further submitted that PW2 & PW3 are the public witnesses/employees of the petrol pump and they had rushed to the injured after the incident and one of them has confirmed that he had heard the gunshot noise. It is further submitted that PW6 ASI Vikram had reached the spot and recovered the empty cartridge from the spot which has been identified by him. It is further submitted that PW9 Inspector Sanjay is investigating officer of another case, during the investigation of which case, desi katta used in the present case, was recovered from the rented house of the accused Furkan. It is further submitted that FSL report, which is admitted by the accused persons by way of their statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. confirms that the empty cartridge recovered from the spot of incident was filed from desi katta recovered from the accused Furkan. It is further submitted that the investigating officer had also obtained sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 to prosecute the accused persons for the offences under sections 25 & 27 of the said Act and such sanction has been proved by PW12. It is further submitted that the complainant had identified the accused persons from the dossiers and there is no illegality in that procedure. It is further submitted that there was no previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant. It is further submitted that the testimonies of PW1 remained consistent and he is a reliable witness.
44. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW2 Deepak Kumar, PW3 Amar Nath, PW4 ASI Abdul FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 14 of 55 Wahid, PW5 ASI Anand Pal, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar, PW7 SI Om Prakash, PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, PW11 Inspector Bijender, PW12 Additional DCP II Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar, PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F(colly.), Ex.PW10/G, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW14/A; and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Mark X (colly.), Ex.MOI (colly.), Ex.MO2 (colly.), and submitted that the complainant/injured has failed to identify as to which of the accused persons had fired shot at him. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution witnesses, the complainant had not told the descriptions of the accused persons to the investigating officer. It is further submitted that when the complainant was having sufficient time to recognize the faces of the offenders, he should have told the descriptions of the accused persons to the investigating officer. It is further submitted that the public persons prosecution witnesses are silent on the point of identification of the accused persons. It is further submitted that there are contradictions on the point as to where statement of the complainant was recorded.
45. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 15 of 5546. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act read as follows:
307. Attempt to murder. - 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. 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.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--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.
Section 25 Arms Act. Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries 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 five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversation, repair, test or proof, 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.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 16 of 55Section 27 Arms Act. Punishment for using arms, etc.- (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.
47. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
48. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined fourteen (14) witnesses.
49. PW1 Shravan Kumar has deposed that he was residing at the given address and he was auto driver by profession. It is further deposed by PW1 Shravan Kumar that on 08.10.2015 at about 02.30 p.m., he was going to Okhla Mandi by Mathura Road after taking passenger in his auto bearing registration No. DL-1RK-6537 and when he had reached Bhogal flyover, there was traffic jam, and two motor cyclists asked why he was not giving side to them. It is further deposed by PW1 Shravan Kumar that he had moved forward and reached at CNG pump, Bhogal, and they (accused persons) had come there by FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 17 of 55 their motorcycle and stopped it in front of his auto, and the pillion rider of the motorcycle had fired at him due to which he had sustained bullet injury on his right leg's thumb, thereafter, they had fled from the spot and he had called the police.
50. It is further deposed by PW1 Shravan Kumar that the police had arrived at the spot, enquired from him, taken him to the police station Sunlight Colony, and recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A), thereafter, they had taken him to Trauma Center, AIIMS, and he was given treatment there. It is further deposed by PW1 Shravan Kumar that the police had recovered two empty cartridges from the spot and prepared the sketch memo (Ex.PW1/B), and seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex. PW1/C), bearing both documents his signature at point 'A'. PW1 Shravan Kumar has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
51. During his cross-examination PW1 Shravan Kumar has, inter-alia, deposed as follows:
"......I cannot tell which accused was riding the motor cycle and who was sitting on the back side. I cannot identify the person who had fired at me but he was the pillion rider. There were employees of CNG Pump present. I do not know if any CCTV was installed there or not. The passenger ran away from my auto immediately after I was hit by the bullet. Accused persons had also immediately ran away from the spot towards Ashram. Police reached there within 15-20 minutes. Both PCR and local police had reached the spot. Police officials had remained there for about 45 minutes. Though my wound was bleeding but not profusely.. I had not seen the police taking statement of any person at spot. Police had recorded my statement at the spot. Rest of the papers were signed by me at PS. I had not given any description of my assailants to the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 18 of 55 police. I was called at PS in 2021 and informed that accused were arrested. I do not remember if accused persons were also shown to me at PS or not.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons had not fired at me and I had wrongly identified them at the instance of Police officials. It is wrong to suggest that I was told that I would get compensation if I would identify the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
52. PW2 Deepak Kumar has deposed that he was residing at the given address since 2000 and he was working at Bharat Petrol Pump, Ashram. It is further deposed by PW2 Deepak Kumar that he did not remember the exact date, however, about 6-7 years back, he was present at his petrol pump and was taking meal at noon, when two persons had come in his cabin and told that there was some quarrel at the entry point of petrol pump, thereafter, he had gone there and seen that one auto-driver was present and some public persons had also gathered, and someone had dialled number 100 and the police had come and enquired them.
53. During leading question by learned Addl. PP for the State, PW2 Deepak Kumar has deposed that he could not say if the incident was dated 08.10.2015 at 02.30 p.m., however, he admitted that it was noon and lunch hours were going on.
54. PW2 Deepak Kumar was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
55. PW3 Amar Nath has deposed that he had been working at Bharat Petroleum pump, Ashram for the last about 30 FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 19 of 55 years and about eight-nine years ago, when he was having lunch, they had heard some noises and when he had come out, and seen that some public persons had gathered there. It is further deposed by PW3 Amar Nath that when he had heard a gun shot, he had also rushed towards that place and seen one auto-driver, who had told them about gun shot.
56. During the leading question put by learned Addl. P.P. for the State, PW3 Amar Nath has admitted that the incident was dated 08.10.2015 at about 02.30 p.m., however, he has denied the suggestion that he had informed police at number 100 and he had not seen the bullet nor it was recovered in his presence.
57. PW3 Amar Nath was also not cross-examined by the accused person.
58. PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid has deposed that on 18.10.2015, he was posted as Head Constable at the police station Sunlight Colony and on that day, he had joined the investigation along with the investigating officer and Ct. Ankit and the accused Furkan, and had gone to Mohalla Kaji Khel, Bullendsher, UP in search of the co-accused Shehzad and motorcycle used in the commission of crime but no clue was found there. It is further deposed by PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid that thereafter, they had gone to Lodhi wali gali, PS Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshehar, UP for search of the accused and motorcycle but could not be found, thereafter, they had gone to Sikandrabad, at the instance of the accused but no clue was found. It is further deposed by PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid that thereafter, they had FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 20 of 55 returned to the police station and the accused was kept in lock-up after his medical examination. PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid has correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court.
59. During his cross-examination, PW4 ASI Abdul Wahid has, inter-alia, denied the suggestions that he had never join the investigation and never gone to Bulandshehar and Sikandarabad.
60. PW5 ASI Anand Pal has deposed that on 17.10.2015, he was posted as Constable at police station Sunlight Colony and on that day, he along with SI Sanjay and Ct. Komal had come to Saket Courts to produce the accused Furkan in case FIR No.715/15. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Anand Pal that SI Bijender had made an application for formal arrest and interrogation of the accused Furkan, interrogated and formally arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex.PW5/A) and the interrogation report (Ex.PW5/B), both documents bearing his signature at point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Anand Pal that the investigating officer had made an application for TIP of the accused, however, the accused had refused to take part in TIP proceedings. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Anand Pal that thereafter, he had got two days police custody of the accused Furkan and gone to the spot, and at instance of the accused, the investigating officer had prepared the pointing out memo (Ex.PW5/C) of the place of occurrence, bearing his signature at point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW5 ASI Anand Pal that thereafter, they had returned to the police station and after the medical examination of the accused Furkan, the accused was FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 21 of 55 kept in the lock-up, and the investigating officer had recorded his statement. PW5 ASI Anand Pal has correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court.
61. During his cross-examination, PW5 ASI Anand Pal has, inter-alia, denied the suggestions that IO had obtained signatures of the accused on the blank paper and later on converted it into pointing out meaning.
62. PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar has deposed that on 08.10.2015, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. along with ASI Om Prakash, who had received DD No.23A regarding "shooting by two persons and run away with a black colour Pulser at Bharat Petrol-Pump, Ashram, New Delhi". It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that they had gone there and found the public persons had gathered there, and they had also found one auto bearing registration number DL-1RK-6537 standing there. It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that the injured/complainant Shravan was also present there and ASI Om Prakash had enquired him and they had also found that the injured had sustained bullet injury in his right little finger on feet and blood was present in the auto. It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that Ct. Vikram, who was also present there had taken the injured to the hospital and after his medical examination, he had returned to the spot and ASI Om Prakash had recorded his statement and prepared rukka, which was handed over to him for registration of the FIR, It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that he had gone to the police station, got the present case registered, and FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 22 of 55 after registration of the FIR, he had handed over copy of FIR and rukka to the SI Bijender as investigation of this case was marked to him by the SHO. It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that they had come back to the spot and crime-team was called by SI Bijender, which had come and inspected the spot and taken the exhibits and handed over the same to SI Bijender. It is further deposed by PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar that crime-team had also recovered one used cartridge and one shells (khali khol) which was taken into police possession, and the investigating officer had recorded his statement.
63. Having seen seven photographs of the spot and auto, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar has correctly identified the said photographs Mark X (colly). During his examination-in-chief, MHC(M) has produced one yellow colour envelop duly sealed with the seal of FSL and with the permission of the Court, seals were broken, out of which one transparent plastic jar was taken out which was opened and found one used cartridge (Ex.P1) and one empty shell (Ex.P2), and having seen that, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar has correctly identified the same.
64. During his cross-examination PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar has, inter-alia, deposed that the complainant had not told the investigating officer about the description of the accused persons. PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar has denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the spot nor join the investigation at any point of time or that the case properties were planted.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 23 of 5565. PW7 SI Om Prakash has deposed that on 08.10.2015, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. along with Ct. Vikram. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that upon receipt of receipt of DD No.23A regarding "shooting by two persons and run away by a black colour Pulser at Bharat petrol-pump, Ashram, New Delhi", he along with Ct. Vikram had gone there and found the public persons had gathered there and they had also found one auto bearing registration number DL-1RK6537 standing there. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that the injured/complainant Shravan was also present there, who was enquired and they had come to know that the injured had sustained bullet injury in his little toe of right leg and blood was present in the right side of the auto and one used cartridge was also present in the right side of auto and one empty shell (khali Khol) was found on the left side of the auto. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that the Ct. Vikram, who was also present there had taken the injured to the hospital at his direction and after the medical examination of the injured, he had returned to the spot.
66. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that he had recorded statement of the complainant, prepared rukka (Ex.PW7/A), bearing his signature at point A, handed over to Ct. Vikram for the registration of the FIR, thereafter, they had gone to the police station and got the present case registered. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that after registration of the FIR, he had returned at the spot along with SI Bijender and the crime-team was called by SI Bijender and the crime-team had come and inspected the spot and taken the exhibits (blood FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 24 of 55 samples from the auto) and handed over the same to SI Bijender, which was seized by SI Bijender vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/B), bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that the crime-team had also recovered one used cartridge and one shell (khali khol), which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C), bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW7 SI Om Prakash that the investigating officer had also prepared the sketch memo of the cartridges vide memo (Ex.PW1/B), bearing his signature at point B and the investigating officer had also prepared site-plan at the instance of the complainant, thereafter, the investigating officer had recorded his statement.
67. Having seen seven photographs already Mark X (colly) of the spot and auto, PW7 SI Om Prakash has correctly identified the same. During his examination-in-chief, MHC(M) has produced one yellow colour envelop duly sealed with the seal of FSL, and the seals were broken with the permission of the Court, one transparent plastic jar was taken out and same was opened and found one used cartridge and one empty shell inside it. Having seen that, PW7 SI Om Prakash has correctly identified the used cartridge and one empty shell (Ex.P1 & Ex.P2).
68. During his cross-examination PW7 SI Om Prakash has, inter-alia, deposed that the complainant had not told to the investigating officer about any description of the accused persons. PW7 SI Om Prakash has also denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the spot nor join the investigation or the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 25 of 55 case properties were planted. PW7 SI Om Prakash has also denied the suggestion that the investigation officer had obtained his signature on blank papers and later converted it into incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
69. PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar has deposed that on 16.11.2015, the present case FIR was assigned to him for further investigation and after perusal of the file, it revealed that co- accused Sahajad was absconding. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar that on 17.12.2015, he had also made an application (Ex.PW8/A), bearing his signature at point A, for issuing the NBW against the co-accused Sahajad, and they had conducted the raid at the given address of the accused Sahajad to arrest him, however, he could not be traced. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar that he had also made an application (Ex.PW8/B), bearing his signature at point A, under section 82 Cr.P.C. in the Court, and after the completion of the investigation, he had filed the police report in the Court.
70. PW8 SI Yogesh Tawar was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
71. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has deposed that in the intervening night of 13/14.10.2015, he was posted as Sub- Inspector at the police station Sunlight Colony and during the said intervening night, he had got registered the FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that in the said FIR 715/2015 police station Sunlight Colony, the accused Furkan was FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 26 of 55 arrested and during interrogation, he had disclosed that he was involved in the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony, thereafter, he had given the information to SI Bijender regarding his disclosure statement and involved in the said FIR.
72. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that one desi katta, six live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered from the possession of the accused Furkan. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that during the course of investigation, the accused Furkan had also got recovered one pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges from his rented house situated at Behrampur, Ghaziabad, UP. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that he had handed over the relevant documents i.e. the seizure memo of the case-property dated 14.10.2015, seizure memo of case-property dated 15.10.2015, sketch memo of pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges dated 15.10.2015 and disclosure statement of the accused Furkan dated 14.10.2015 of case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony to SI Bijender.
73. Having seen the original case file of FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony, entitled State versus Furkan Qureshi and Another, which was also listed that day for prosecution evidence, and the photocopy of the seizure memo (Mark A) of the case-properties, namely, one desi katta, six live cartridges and one empty cartridge available in the judicial file of the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 27 of 55 Sunlight Colony and the original seizure memo of the document Mark A was available in the judicial file of the case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony, State versus Furkan Qureshi and Another, it is deposed by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that he has compared the photocopy of seizure memo Mark A (exhibited as Ex.PW9/A) with the original, which was true and correct copy of the original seizure memo, bearing his signature at point A.
74. Having seen photocopy of the seizure memo (Mark B) of the case-properties, namely, one pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges available in the judicial file of the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony and the original seizure memo of the document (Mark B) was available in the judicial file of the case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony, titled as State versus Furkan Qureshi and Another, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he has compared the photocopy of seizure memo Mark B (exhibited as Ex.PW9/B) with the original, which was true and correct copy of the original seizure memo bearing his signature at point A.
75. Having seen the photocopy of the sketch memo (Mark C) of the case-properties, namely, one pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges available in the judicial file of the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony and the original sketch memo of the document (Mark C) available in the judicial file of case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony titled as State versus Furkan Qureshi and Another, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he has FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 28 of 55 compared the photocopy of sketch memo Mark C (Ex.PW9/C) with the original, which was true and correct copy of the original sketch memo, bearing his signature at point A.
76. Having seen the photocopy of the disclosure statement of the accused Furkan (Mark D), which was available in the judicial file of the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony and the disclosure statement of the accused Furkan Mark D (Ex.PW9/D) available in the judicial file of case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony, State versus Furkan Qureshi and Another, PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he has compared the photocopy of disclosure statement of the accused Furkan with the original, which was true and correct copy of the original disclosure statement of the accused Furkan. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has further deposed that the investigating officer had recorded his statement.
77. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court.
78. During his examination, MHC(M) has produced one yellow coloured envelop (parcel no.3) sealed with Court seal and bearing particular of case FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony and bearing FSL No.2015/F-7841 and after breaking the seal, the said parcel was opened and found containing one transparent plastic box, and the said plastic box found containing two empty cartridges/shells, two live cartridges, two leads, two magazines and one pistol, which were shown to FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 29 of 55 PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, who has correctly identified the said case properties (Ex.MO1 colly.) to be the properties, which the accused Furkan had got recovered from his rented house.
79. During his examination, MHC(M) has produced another one yellow coloured envelop (parcel no.1) sealed with Court seal and bearing particular of case FIR no. 715/2015 police station Sun Light Colony and bearing FSL no. 2015/F-7841, and after breaking the seal, the said parcel was opened and found containing one transparent plastic box, which plastic box was found containing one desi katta, four live cartridges, two leads and three empty cartriges and same are shown to PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, who has correctly identified the said case properties (Ex.MO2), which were recovered from the possession of the accused Furkan by SI Bijender (complaint of case FIR no.715/2015).
80. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar was not cross- examined by the accused Shehzad. During cross-examination of PW9 Sanjay Kumar by counsel for the accused Furkan, he has, inter-alia, deposed that the investigating officer of the present case had not prepared handing over memo of documents which were handed over to him. PW10 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has denied the suggestion that the accused Furkan had not made any disclosure statement to him or that he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Furkan on his own and forciably obtain signatures of the accused.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 30 of 5581. PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki has deposed that in the month of April, 2022 while he was posted as Sub-Inspector at police station Sunlight Colony, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation and the main charge-sheet containing FSL report, in the case had already been filed. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that during the course of further investigation, he had obtained sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act qua the prosecution of the accused Furkan son of Shaheed in the present case and filed the same through supplementary charge-sheet dated 10.05.2022.
82. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that during the course of further investigation, he had also come to know that the accused Shahzad already involved in several cases was running in judicial custody, accordingly, he had got an application (Ex.PW10/A) filed for production warrant of the accused Shahzad through ASI Rohtash and pursuant thereof, the accused was produced before the concerned Court. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that he had made an application (Ex.PW10/B) for seeking permission for interrogation of the accused Shahzad, and after interrogation, the accused Shahzad was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW10/C), bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that he had also recorded disclosure statement (Ex.PW10/D), bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that HC Mukesh had remained present with him during the course of said proceedings.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 31 of 5583. It is further deposed by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that he had also made an application for conducting TIP of the accused Shahzad but the accused had refused to participate therein.
84. During his examination, an envelope sealed with the seal of 'MB bearing particulars of the present case is taken out from the judicial file, and the same is opened, out of which TIP proceedings including an application (Ex.PW10/E), bearing his signature at point A made by PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki and the order passed thereon (running into 2 pages) (Ex.PW10/F colly) were taken out.
85. It is further desposed by PW 10 Inspector Amit Solanki that after refusal of TIP by the accused Shahzad, the complainant Shravan Kumar of the present case had identified the accused Shahzad after seeing his dossier containing his photographs, and the printout of the photographs of the accused Shahzad taken from his dossier is Ex.PW10/G, bearing signature of the complainant Shravan Kumar. PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki has identified the accused Shahzad in the Court.
86. PW11 Inspector Bijender has deposed that on 08.10.2015, the present case was assigned to him for the investigation after registration of the case and upon receipt of the copy of FIR and original rukka by Ct. Vikram at police station, he along with Ct. Vikram had reached at the place of incident. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that ASI Om Prakash had already called the district crime-team and during that FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 32 of 55 course, one bullet and one empty cartridge were recovered from spot and he had prepared its sketch vide memo (Ex.PW1/B), bearing his signature at point B and signature of the complainant at point A. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that he had converted the same into parcel, sealed with the seal of 'BS' and seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C), bearing his signature at point C and signature of the complainant Sharwan Kumar at point A, who was already present there when he had reached the scene of crime, and he had also joined the proceedings.
87. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that the complainant Sharwan Kumar along with his auto bearing registration number DL1RK6537 was in the queue at the patrol pump to get the CNG filled and the same was also inspected by the crime-team and some amount of blood was found in the auto near the clutch of the auto which was lifted by the crime-team in gauze and handed it over to him. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that he had put the same in a plastic tube, sealed the same with the seal of 'VS' and seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/B), bearing his signature at point B and signature of the complainant at point C.
88. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that at the instance of the complainant, he had also prepared the site-plan qua the scene of crime, (Ex.PW11/A), bearing his signature at point A, and he had also collected the crime-team report. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that on 14.10.2015, he was informed by SI Sanjay Kumar, investigating FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 33 of 55 officer of the case FIR No.715/15 police station Sunlight Colony about arrest of the accused Furkan, and later, he had filed the application for his production in the Court.
89. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that on 17.10.2015, the accused Furkan was produced before the concerned Court and after taking permission from the Court, he had interrogated and arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex.PW5/A), bearing his signature at point 'B', and had also prepared interrogation report (Ex.PW5/B) of the accused Furkan and signature of the accused at point 'C'. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that he had produced the accused before the concerned Court and obtained his two days police custody remand and during that course, the accused Furkan had pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo (Ex.PW5/C), bearing his signature at point 'B'.
90. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that he had also collected the seizure memo of pistol, two magazine and four live cartridges (Ex.PW9/B), seizure memo of countrymade pistol, six live cartridges and one empty cartridge, (Ex.PW9/A) and sketch of the pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges (Ex.PW9/C) and the disclosure statement of the accused (Ex.PW9/D), pertaining to case FIR No.715/15 police station Sunlight Colony.
91. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses, who had been associated with him during the course of the said FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 34 of 55 investigation, thereafter, he was transferred and he had handed over the case file to MHC(R). PW11 Inspector Bijender has correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court.
92. It is further deposed by PW11 Inspector Bijender that the photograph Mark X were the photographs of the scene of crime, and the said auto was also visible in the photograph. During his examination, MHC(M) of police station has produced a yellow colour envelope sealed with the seal of the Court, which was opened and out of which, one empty cartridge, one 7.65 mm cartridge and one deformed bullet were taken out and shown to PW11 Inspector Bijender, who has identified them to be the same bullet (Ex.P1) and cartridge (Ex.P2), which were recovered from the scene of crime.
93. PW12 Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, Addl. DCP has deposed that on 07.05.2022, he was posted as Addl. DCP II/South-East, Delhi and on that day, the investigating officer of the case had placed the photocopy of the file of the present case before him, which he had perused along with the FSL result. It is further deposed by PW12 Rajeev Kumar Ambasta that he had given sanction (Ex.PW12/A) under section 39 Cr.P.C. against the accused Furkan for the offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act pertaining to conscious possession of one 7.65mm cartridge case and one deformed bullet and his office had handed over the said sanction to the investigating officer with the said case file.
94. During his cross-examination, PW12 Rajeev Kumar Ambasta has, inter-alia, deposed as follow:
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 35 of 55"......It is wrong to suggest that I had not gone through the supporting documents placed on record with the file, justifying the grant of sanction under section 39 of Arms Act. It is wrong to suggest that sanction under section 39 of Arms Act was granted by me to fill up the lacuna of the investigating officer. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
95. PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar has deposed that on 08.12.2022, he was posted as Naib Court in the Court of Mr. Rahul Verma, MM, South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi and on that day, in pursuance of production warrant of the accused Sameer @ Shahzad, he was produced in the Court. It is further deposed by PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar that SI Amit Solanki from police station Sunlight Colony had come to the Court and interrogated the accused Sameer @ Shahzad with due permission of the Court, and also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW10/D), bearing his signature at point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar that SI Amit Solanki had arrested the accused Sameer @ Shahzad vide arrest memo (Ex.PW10/C), bearing his signature at point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the aforesaid effect.
96. PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
97. PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt has deposed that on 27.04.2017 he was posted as Sub-Inspector in police station Sunlight Colony and the main charge-sheet of the present case FIR had already been filed by SI Yogesh Tanwar. It is further FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 36 of 55 deposed by PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt that the FSL Report (Ex.A6) of Ballastics Division had been received in the police station, which was marked to him for filing of supplementary charge-sheet, accordingly, he had filed the afore-said ballastic report (Ex.A6) in the Court through supplementary charge-sheet (Ex.PW14/A).
98. PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt was not cross-
examined by the accused persons.
99. In the light of the charge framed against the accused persons and the arguments advanced before the court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused Furkan fired upon the complainant Shravan Kumar by using country-made pistol (katta).
2. Whether the accused Furkan was found in possession of pistol, six live cartridges and one empty cartridge without any lawful justification.
3. Whether both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had fired a bullet shot upon the complainant Shravan Kumar with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by such act both of you had caused him death and both of you would have been guilty of murder.FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 37 of 55
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
100. The information regarding the incident involved in the present case was given to the police station Sunlight Colony which was recorded vide DD No.23A dated 08.10.2015.
101. As per the testimonies of PW7 SI Om Prakash, on 08.10.2015, he was on emergency duty with Ct. Vikram, and upon receipt of receipt of DD No.23A regarding "shooting by two persons and run away by a black colour Pulser at Bharat petrol-pump, Ashram, New Delhi", he along with Ct. Vikram had gone there and found the public persons had gathered there and they had also found one auto bearing registration number DL-1RK6537 standing there. The accused persons Furkan and Shahzad have admitted the DD No.23A dated 08.10.2015, police station Sunlight Colony by way of their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C.
102. It is also in the evidence of PW7 SI Om Prakash that the injured/complainant Shravan was also present there, who was enquired and they had come to know that the injured had sustained bullet injury in his little toe of right leg and blood was present in the right side of the auto and one used cartridge was also present in the right side of auto and one empty shell (khali Khol) was found on the left side of the auto. It is also in the evidence of PW7 SI Om Prakash that the Ct. Vikram had taken the injured to the hospital on his direction.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 38 of 55103. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar, PW7 SI Om Prakash and PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar are relevant.
104. It is in the evidence of PW7 SI Om Prakash that after the medical examination, the injured had returned to the spot and PW7 SI Om Prakash had recorded the statement of the complainant, prepared rukka (Ex.PW7/A) and handed over the same to Ct. Vikram for the registration of the FIR, and they had gone to the police station and got the present case registered.
105. PW6 ASI Vikram, who was posted as constable at the police station Sunlight Colony on the date of incident and had accompanied PW7 SI Om Prakash to the place of incident has duly corroborated the above-mentioned testimonies of PW7 SI Om Prakash regarding his accompanying SI Om Prakash to the place of occurrence after receipt of DD and presence of the injured at the place of incident along with his auto having sustained bullet injury in his right feet, presence of blood in the auto, taking the injured to the hospital, recording of statement of the injured by the investigating officer and handing over to him the rukka for registration of the FIR.
106. PW1 Shravan Kumar, the complainant/injured has corroborated the fact of recording of his statement by PW7 SI Om Prakash. PW1 Shravan Kumar has also proved his statement (Ex.PW1/A) and his signature at point A on the said statement. PW7 SI Om Prakash has proved the fact of preparing of rukka (Ex.PW7/A) and his signature on the said rukka. PW6 ASI FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 39 of 55 Vikram Kumar has proved the fact of getting the FIR registered at the police station.
107. After registration of FIR, as per the testimonies of PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar, the investigation of the present case was assigned to SI Bijender by the order of the SHO concerned and his such testimony has been verified duly corroborated by PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar.
108. From the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW6 ASI Vikram Kumar, PW7 SI Om Prakash and PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR in the present case. During the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused has not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence. Even otherwise, the accused persons Furkan and Shahzad have, by way of their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., admitted the copy of FIR (Ex.A1).
109. For proving the injuries caused to the person of the complainant/injured and for proving the incident, it is in the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar that he was auto driver by profession and on 08.10.2015 at about 02.30 p.m., he was going to Okhla Mandi by Mathura Road after taking passenger in his auto bearing registration No. DL-1RK-6537 and when he had reached Bhogal flyover, there was traffic jam, and two motor cyclists asked why he was not giving side to them. It is also in FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 40 of 55 the evidence of PW1 Shravan Kumar that he had moved forward and reached at CNG pump, Bhogal, and accused persons had come there by their motorcycle and stopped it in front of his auto, and the pillion rider of the motorcycle had fired at him due to which he had sustained bullet injury on his right leg's toe, thereafter, they had fled from the spot and he had called the police.
110. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Shravan Kumar that the police had arrived at the spot, enquired from him, taken him to the police station Sunlight Colony, and recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A), thereafter, they had taken him to Trauma Center, AIIMS, and he was given treatment there.
111. Testimonies of PW2 Deepak Kumar and PW3 Amar Nath are also relevant to prove the incident. Both PW2 Deepak Kumar and PW3 Amar Nath were employees of the petrol-pump where the incident had happened.
112. As per the testimonies of PW2 Deepak Kumar, on the date of incident, two persons had come to his cabin, and informed that there was some quarrel at the entry point of the petrol-pump, thereafter, he had gone there and seen one auto driver present there and some public persons had also gathered. PW2 Deepak Kumar had also corroborated the fact that someone called at 100 number and police had come and inquired them.
113. PW3 Amar Nath has also corroborated the testimony of PW2 Deepak Kumar that there was some noise at the petrol-
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 41 of 55pump when they were having lunch and seen some public persons had gathered there. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Amar Nath that he had heard a gunshot and rushed towards that place and seen one auto driver, who had told them about the gunshot.
114. Though PW2 Deepak Kumar and PW3 Amar Nath are not the eyewitnesses of the incident yet their testimonies are of much relevance as they being employees of the petrol-pump were present where the incident had happened and soon after the incident, they had immediately reached there and seen the injured/complainant at the spot with his auto.
115. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of firing by a pistol causing wound on the person of the complainant/injured Shravan Kumar.
116. Regarding arrest of the accused Furkan, as per the testimonies of PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that in the intervening night of 13/14.10.2015, he got the FIR No.715/2015, police station Sunlight Colony upon the complaint of SI Bijender and in the said FIR, the accused Furkan was arrested and during interrogation, he had disclosed that he was involved in the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony. It is also in the evidence of PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar that he had given information to SI Bijender regarding his disclosure FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 42 of 55 statement and his involvement in the offence committed in the present FIR.
117. PW11 Inspector Bijender Singh has duly corroborated the testimonies of PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar regarding arrest of the accused Furkan in case FIR No.715/2015 police station Sunlight Colony. As per the testimonies of PW11 Inspector Bijender, on his application for issuance of production warrant of the accused Furkan, the accused was produced in the Court and was interrogated with the permission of the Court and arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW5/A) and the interrogation report (Ex.PW5/B). PW11 Inspector Bijender has also identified his signatures on the arrest memo and interrogation report of the accused Furkan.
118. PW5 ASI Anand Pal, who had accompanied SI Sanjay to the Saket Courts when the accused Furkan was produced in the Court in case FIR No.715/15 police station Sunlight Colony has duly corroborated the testimonies of PW11 Inspector Bijender regarding issuance of production warrant against the accused Furkan, his production in the Court and interrogation by PW11 (the then SI) Bijender and his arrest.
119. Regarding arrest of the accused Shehzad, as per the testimonies of PW8 SI Yogesh Tanwar, after the investigation of the present case FIR was assigned to him for investigation and its perusal, it was revealed that the co-accused Shahzad was absconding, therefore, on 17.12.2015, he had made an application (Ex.PW8/A) in the concerned Court for issuance of FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 43 of 55 NBWs and, thereafter, conducted raids at his given address but he could not be arrested, therefore, he had made an application (Ex.PW8/B) for issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation, he had filed the police report in the Court.
120. As per the testimonies of PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, after filing of main police report, further investigation of this case was assigned to him, and during the course of investigation, he had come to know that the accused Shahzad already involved in several cases was running in judicial custody, therefore, he had made an application (Ex.PW10/A) for production of warrant of the accused Shehzad through ASI Rohtash and pursuant thereof, the accused Shahzad was produced in the concerned Court.
121. It is also in the evidence of PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki that he had made an application (Ex.PW10/B) for seeking permission for interrogation of the accused Shahzad and he had interrogated the accused Shahzad and arrested him in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW10/C) and also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW10/D). PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki has also proved his signature on the disclosure statement of the accused Shahzad at point A.
122. As per the testimonies of PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, HC Mukesh was present with him during the course of above-said proceedings. HC Mukesh has been examined by the prosecution as PW13, and on the relevant date, he was posted as FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 44 of 55 Naib Court of the concerned Court. PW13 HC Mukesh has duly corroborated the testimonies of PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki regarding the making an application for issuance of production warrant, and after taking due permission of the Court, interrogating the accused Shehzad @ Sameer, his arrest and recording his disclosure statement. PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar has also identified his signatures at point B on the arrest memo and disclosure statement of the accused Shahzad @ Sameer. PW13 HC Mukesh Kumar was not cross-examined by the accused persons, hence, his testimonies remained uncontroverted.
123. Regarding identification of the accused persons, PW1 Shravan Kumar has correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court to be the offenders, who had followed the complainant to the spot of incident/petrol-pump and the pillion rider had fired a bullet shot on the complainant/injured.
124. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused persons has vehemently contended that as per the cross-examination, the complainant injured could not identify the person who had fired at him, hence, it would not be safe to convict them for the offence the accused persons have been charged.
125. The above-said contention raised by learned counsel for accused persons is without any substance. Although, the complainant was not able to tell which one of the accused persons had fired bullet shot on him but he has clearly and correctly identified both the accused persons to be the offenders, FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 45 of 55 who had followed him to the petrol-pump after having some altercation before reaching the petrol-pump. PW1 Shravan Kumar, the complainant has also clearly stated that one of the accused persons had fired bullet shot on him and he was a pillion rider. It is important to note here that the incident had happened on 08.10.2015. The testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, the complainant injured was recorded in the Court on 05.08.2023 i.e. about seven years and ten months after the incident, therefore, his not remembering the complete details after such a long time is quite obvious and natural.
126. PW5 ASI Anand Pal, who had accompanied SI Sanjay when the accused Furkan was produced in the Court, has also correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court.
127. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has also correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court to be the person, who was arrested in case FIR No.715/15 police station Sunlight Colony and that he had made a disclosure statement in that case FIR number regarding his involvement in the present case FIR No.709/2015, police station Sunlight Colony and informing the investigating officer of the present case regarding the arrest of the accused Furkan and the disclosure statement made by the accused.
128. PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki had arrested the accused Shahzad after interrogation of the accused in the Court. PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki has also correctly identified the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 46 of 55 accused Shahzad to be the person arrested by him in the Court and making of disclosure statement by the accused Shahzad.
129. As per the testimonies of PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, after refusal of the accused Shahzad to participate in the TIP proceedings, the complainant Shravan Kumar had identified him after seeing his dossier containing his photograph.
130. PW11 Inspector Bijender Singh has also correctly identified the accused Furkan in the Court to be the person arrested by him and recording of his interrogation report.
131. In the light of the testimonies of PW1 Shravan Kumar, PW5 ASI Anand Pal, PW9 Inspector Sanjay, PW10 Inspector Amit Solanki, PW11 Inspector Bijender and PW13 HC Mukesh, the arrest of the accused persons Furkan and Shahzad and their identification as the persons, who had fired bullet shot on the complainant and caused injuries to the complainant Shravan Kumar are duly established and proved.
132. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following two ingredients, namely:-
(i) An evil intent or knowledge
(ii) An act done
133. It has been held in the judgment in S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715 that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., if there is present FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 47 of 55 an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case entitled S.K. Khaja (supra) as follow:
"8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant -Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with overt act committed by the appellant /accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant- Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the applicant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."
134. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Khaja's case (supra) referred to on behalf of the State, the law is well settled that for conviction for the offence under section 307 of the IPC, what is important is an intention coupled with an overt act by the accused; while grievous or life threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under section 307 of IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances.
135. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused persons had some altercation with the complainant on the date of incident, and FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 48 of 55 followed him to the spot of incident i.e. petrol-pump and fired a bullet shot at the complainant through a country-made pistol and by that firing, caused wound on his toe.
136. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001, as follows:
"28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
137. There is one eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, Shravan Kumar (the complainant/injured himself), who has given his ocular account of this case. PW2 Deepak Kumar and PW3 Amar Nath have also proved the presence of the complainant/injured at the spot of the incident immediately after the incident and one of them (PW3 Amar Nath) had heard the FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 49 of 55 gunshot sound. All the three witnesses did not have animus or grudge against the accused persons.
138. The manner of the incident as described by the complainant/injured is duly corroborated by the recovery of one used cartridge and one empty shell (khali Khol) from the spot of incident which were seized by PW7 SI Om Prakash, who has duly proved the said fact in his evidence. PW7 SI Om Prakash has also correctly identified the used cartridge and one empty shell (Ex.P1 & Ex.P2) in the Court.
139. PW11 Inspector Bijender, to whom the investigation of the present case was assigned after registration of FIR has also proved the fact of recovery of one bullet and one empty cartridge from the spot of incident. PW11 Inspector Bijender has also proved the sketch memo (Ex.PW1/B) of the bullet and empty cartridge prepared by him and he has also proved his signature at point B and signature of the complainant at point A. PW11 Inspector Bijender has also proved the fact of seizure of the bullet and empty cartridge vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C).
140. PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar has also proved the fact of recovery of one country-made pistol, six live cartridges and one empty cartridge from the possession of the accused Furkan. As per the testimonies of PW9 Inspector Sanjay Kumar, one pistol, two magazines and four live cartridges were also recovered from the rented house at Behrampur, Ghaziabad of the accused Furkan U.P. FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 50 of 55
141. PW14 Inspector Brahm Dutt has proved the filing of supplementary police report (Ex.PW14/A) whereby the FSL report (Ex.A6) of Ballistic Division was filed in the Court.
142. It is important to note here that the accused persons Furkan and Shahzad have admitted the FSL result (Ex.A6) No.2016/F/4635 dated 29.09.2016 by way of their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C.
143. As per the FSL result (Ex.A6), the opinion given by the Ballistic Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi at Rohini Delhi is as follows:
"3. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION/OPINION:
(1) The 7.65mm cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' is a fired empty cartridge.
(2) The deformed bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' corresponds to the bullet of 7.65mm cartridge.
(3) The individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' and on test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC3' & 'TC4' test fired thorugh the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' in case FSL No. 2015/F-7841, FIR No. 715/15, PS: Sunlight Colony were examined and compared under Comparison Microscope Model Lieca DMC and were found identical. Hence, the evidence cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' has been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' in case FSL No. 2015/F-7841, FIR No. 715/15, PS: Sunlight Colony.
(4) The class characteristics of striations/ rifling marks present on evidence deformed bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' and on the test fired bullets marked as 'TB3' & 'TB4' test fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' in case FSL No. 2015/F-7841, FIR No. 715/15, PS: Sunlight Colony were examined and compared under Comparison Microscope Model Lieca DMC and were not found identical. Hence, the evidence deformed bullet marked FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 51 of 55 exhibit 'EB1' has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' in case FSL No. 2015/F-7841, FIR No. 715/15, PS: Sunlight Colony.
(5) The exhibits 'EC1' & 'EB1' are parts of ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959.
NOTE: Case Exhibits/Remnants of Exhibits sent to this laboratory for examination have been sealed with the seal of PP FSL DELHI."
144. From the result (Ex.A6) of examination report given by the Ballistic Division of FSL Rohini, it is proved that the fired empty cartridge 'EC1' was compared with the test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC3' & 'TC4' under Comparison Microscope Model Lieca DMC and were found identical. To put it simple, it is proved that the fired empty cartridge 'EC1' recovered from the spot of incident in the present case had been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' recovered from the accused Furkan in case FIR No. 715/15 of the police station Sunlight Colony.
145. As per report (Ex.A6) of Ballistic Division, the exhibits 'EC1' i.e. the fired empty cartridge and 'EB1' i.e. deformed bullet recovered from the spot are part of ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959.
146. PW12 Additional DCP II Rajeev Kumar Ambasta has proved the sanction (Ex.PW12/A) under section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 giving permission to prosecute the accused Furkan for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act pertaining to the conscious possession of one 7.65mm cartridge case and one deformed bullet.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 52 of 55147. It is important to note here that after arrest, the accused Furkan had made disclosure statement thereby he had admitted to have fired at the complainant through a country-made pistol on the date of incident. Though a confession made in police custody is not admissible yet the that part of confession can be used against him which has led to discovery of a fact. Since pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused Furkan, a country-made pistol and an improvised pistol was recovered from the accused Furkan, and it has been proved that the fired empty cartridge 'EC1' recovered from the spot of incident in the present case had been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65mm caliber marked exhibit 'F2' recovered from the accused Furkan in case FIR No. 715/15 of the police station Sunlight Colony, therefore such part of confession can br used against him suggesting that he had fired at the complainant through the country-made pistol recovered from him.
148. Further, the accused person have not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implications.
149. In the present case, direct testimonies of injured witness are available to prove the guilt of the accused persons and his testimonies are the biggest guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case as he had suffered injury.
150. I have already observed above that from the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, it has been proved that the accused persons, after some altercation with the complainant on the date of incident, had followed him to the spot of incident FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 53 of 55 i.e. petrol-pump and fired a bullet shot at the complainant and by that firing, caused wound on his toe; the accused Furkan was also found in possession of ammunition, without holding in this behalf a licence and he had also used a country-made pistol for purpose of firing at the complainant.
151. The offence committed in the present case by the accused persons is covered under the illustration (c) of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
152. The accused persons Furkan and Shahzad have not tendered any reasonable explanation of their conduct.
153. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons Furkan and Shahzad, so the accused persons Furkan and Shahzad are found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence, they are convicted of offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
154. The prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the accused Furkan, so the accused Furkan is found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 54 of 55155. Let both the convicts be heard on the question of sentence. Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.09.24
17:46:38
+0530
Pronounced in the Open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 24 September, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02 South East, Saket Court Complex New Delhi FIR No.709/15 P.S. Sunlight Colony State v. Furkan & Anr. Page 55 of 55