Delhi District Court
State vs Jammal Etc on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-000679-2014
SC No. 56565-2016
FIR No. 599/2014
PS: Patel Nagar
U/s. 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
In the matter of:
State
(Government of NCT of Delhi)
Versus
(1) Jammal
S/o Shri Sardar Singh
R/o Village Badhi,
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
(2) Jatin Khatri
S/o Shri Bijender
R/o Anoop Nagar Village
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
(3) Shiv Kumar @ Tony
[Proclaimed Offender]
S/o Shri Ved Prakash
BST Road,
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 1 of 34
Date of Institution : 10.02.2015
Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025
Decision : Both accused
persons Jammal and
Jatin Khatri Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri have faced trial in the present case for the commission of offences punishable under sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Factual Background
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2014 at about 9 pm, Vipin Rajput (victim) was sitting in his Hyundai Car No. DL 2CAD 6159, parked at the corner of road no. 26, West Patel Nagar, Delhi and was discussing something with his friend Amar Pandey. When Vipin Rajput moved his car three persons suddenly came there and his car brushed against one of them and consequently there was some altercation and scuffle between them. Thereafter, the said three persons went away and Vipin Rajput started moving his car after those persons and when they reached at K.B. Fair Price Shop, West Patel Nagar the car of Vipin Rajput again struck against one of those persons. When Vipin Rajput came out of the car the said three boys started assaulting him. Thereafter two of those boys exhorted "maar isko" and the third boy took out a pistol and fired a gun shot at Vipin Rajput and thereafter the boy who fired at the victim ran away. Further out of the other two boys one said to the other that " Tony to bhag gaya, hum bhi chalte hain" and they also fled from the spot.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 2 of 34 Thereafter Amar Pandey took the victim/ injured Vipin Rajput to his house and thereafter Amar Pandey along with the wife of the victim/ injured took him to B.L. Kapoor Hospital and the wife of the victim/ injured made a PCR call. DD No. 39-A was received at the police station regarding admission of victim/ injured at B.L. Kapoor Hospital with gun- shot injury and the police machinery sprung into action. SI Vinay Kumar reached at the hospital and after making preliminary inquiries at the hospital and at the spot of the incident, he prepared rukka and the present FIR was registered.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation a search was launched for the accused persons and the police reached at the house of one Ms. Renu r/o A-873, Baba Faridpuri, Patel Nagar, Delhi who informed that the one of the said boys namely Jammal was residing at her house as a tenant along with his two friends but they were not seen after the incident. On the basis of the identity card of Jammal provided by the said lady, police reached at the house of Jammal but he was not found there. His mobile phone was tracked and accused Jammal was traced on the basis of his location details and on inquiry from his relatives. On 26.08.2014, accused Jammal was arrested from village Raipur, Sonipat, Haryana. He disclosed that two of his associates accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were involved with him during the incident. During investigation it was further revealed that accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were arrested in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act on the next day of the incident and the weapon of offence State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 3 of 34 (pistol) in the present case had also been recovered from them in the said case by the police officials of P.S. Gannaur. Thereafter accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were arrested in the present case as well. The case property (pistol) was subsequently seized in this case also. All the accused persons refused to participate in TIP. However, on 10.11.2014, the victim/ injured identified the accused persons (Jammal, Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar @ Tony) in the Court premises as the culprits who had attacked him and asserted that accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony had fired the gun shot at him on the day of the incident and his supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in this respect.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons for the offences under sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 27of the Arms Act.
Charge
5. On consideration of the entire material on record, charges were framed against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, to which the accused persons pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to bring home the charge.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 4 of 34
7. PW1 Vipin Rajpoot is the injured in this case and he has deposed that on 21.08.2014, he alongwith his friend Amar Pandey was discussing some matter pertaining to property while sitting in his Hyundai Verna Car No. DL 2CAD 6159. In the meanwhile, three persons came there and knocked the back door of his car and he rolled down the window of his side and asked them as to what the matter was, however those persons started misbehaving with him and also abused him in filthy language. His friend Amar pacified him and the above mentioned three persons went ahead while abusing him (PW1).
8. PW1 further deposed that at that time, he was 100 meters away from his shop and all the said three accused persons started moving from there and he (PW1) started moving towards his shop and at that time, his car slightly hit against one of the above-mentioned accused persons. PW1 further deposed that he got down from the car and then, the above-mentioned persons started scuffling with him and one of those boys, fired a gun shot in his abdomen and thereafter, all of those persons fled away from there. PW1 further deposed that from there, he was taken to his house by his friend Amar and thereafter, he was taken to B.L. Kapoor hospital by his wife and his friend and there he (PW1) remained admitted there for about 12 days. In the hospital, he narrated the incident to the police who recorded his statement. PW1 further deposed that a cartridge case was recovered from the spot by the police. Later on, he came to know that the weapon of offence was also recovered from the possession of the accused persons. He further deposed that his car was also taken into possession by the police and the same is Ex. P1. PW1 State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 5 of 34 identified accused Jammal and accused Jatin in the court during his testimony.
9. PW2 ASI Suresh has deposed that on 22.08.2014, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar, as Duty Officer from 12.00 night till 8.00 a.m. and at about 12.45 a.m., Ct. Narender came at the police station with a rukka which was sent by SI Vinay Kumar and on the basis of rukka, he got registered the present case through computer operator. The copy of the FIR is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he endorsed the rukka vide endorsement which is Ex. PW2/B and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Narender to dispatch the same to SI Vinay Kumar. The certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act I respect of the copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/C.
10. PW3 Amar Pandey is the friend of the injured and the eye witness in this case and he deposed that on 21.08.2014 he went to block no. 24 to meet with Vipin (injured) and there he met Vipin who was present in his Hyundai Verna Car and they were discussing something while sitting inside the car. After about ten minutes Vipin started the vehicle and reversed his vehicle and in that process, the vehicle hit against one of the accused persons. He identified the accused persons in the Court. PW3 further deposed that one of the accused, knocked the car from back side and stated "Dekh Ke Chalao" and also abused them (PW 3 and injured). Vipin also retorted "Kya Dekh Ke Chalao Mein". PW3 further deposed that he rolled down the window of the car and tried to pacify them. Thereafter, the accused persons moved forward and he told Vipin to let the accused persons go first from there and thereafter, they would State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 6 of 34 move ahead. After sometime, Vipin again started the vehicle and moved forward and when they reached near KB Fair Price shop, the vehicle again hit against the accused persons due to which, either two of them or all of them were feel down on the road. Vipin stopped the vehicle and got down from it and the accused persons started abusing Vipin and two of the accused persons started fisticuffs with Vipin while the third accused fired a gun shot and Vipin received a gun-shot injury in his stomach. PW3 correctly identified accused Jammal and Jatin during his testimony while alleging that they were the two accused persons who gave beatings to Vipin. PW3 also correctly identified accused Shiv Kumar during his testimony while alleging that he was the accused who fired gun shot at Vipin. PW3 further deposed that the accused Jammal and Jatin were continuously beating Vipin even after the gun shot injury. Vipin fell down and the accused persons fled from the spot. PW3 further deposed that Vipin was taken to nearby Anand Nursing Home by him, where the mother and wife of Vipin also reached as the same is situated near the house of Vipin. The concerned doctor at Anand Nursing Home refused to admit Vipin as it was the matter of a gun-shot injury and then he (PW3) took Vipin to BLK Hospital. In the meantime, the wife of Vipin informed the police regarding the incident. At BLK hospital, Vipin was admitted and the police officials also reached there. He further deposed that from BLK hospital, he (PW3) went to the police station where he narrated the incident to the police.
11. PW4 Ms. Renu deposed that she does not know any person by the name of Jaimal/Jammal and no police official ever showed her any State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 7 of 34 CCTV footage. She further deposed that she did not give any room on rent to Jammal. She further deposed that she does not know any of the accused persons.
12. PW5 Ms. Shipra has deposed that on 21.08.2014 she was present at her house and at about 9/9:15 PM, her husband was brought in injured condition at their house by his friend Amar Pandey and she observed a gunshot injury in the abdomen of her husband. PW5 further deposed that she and Amar Pandey took her husband to B.L. Kapoor Hospital and she made the call to PCR at 100 number and police officials reached at the hospital.
13. PW 6 Insp. Pankaj deposed that on 21.08.2014, he was posted with the mobile crime team as SI and on that day, he received an information from the control room regarding firing at block no. 24, West Patel Nagar; and that on receipt of the said information, he alongwith the other staff reached at the spot where, he met with the IO SI Vinay Kumar alongwith other staff members. PW6 further deposed that he inspected the spot and found an empty cartridge case of 7.62 mm and IO seized the same. He came to know that the injured had already been shifted to the hospital. C.L. Pramod (photographer) took the photographs of the spot from different directions on his (PW6) direction. He remained at the spot from 11.20 pm to 12 midnight. PW6 further deposed that he prepared the report regarding inspection of the spot which is Ex. PW 6/A and he handed over the same to IO.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 8 of 34
14. PW7 Ct. Narender has deposed that in the month of August, 2014, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar and on the day of incident, he was on night emergency duty at the PS alongwith SI Vinay Kumar and at about 10.00 pm, a call was received at the PS regarding bullet injury to a person and his admission in B.L. Kapoor hospital, and on receipt of the said information, he alongwith SI Vinay Kumar reached at B.L. Kapoor hospital. The concerned doctor intimated SI Vinay Kumar that the injured was unfit for giving statement and the name of the injured was revealed as Vipin Rajput. No eye witness was found at the hospital and therefore, they went to the spot, however on enquiry no clue could be obtained about the incident. They inspected the spot and found a cartridge case, which was taken into possession by SI Vinay Kumar vide memo Ex. PW7/A. PW7 further deposed that SI Vinay Kumar prepared rukka which was handed over to him for getting the case registered and after getting the case registered at PS, he returned to the spot with rukka and two copies of FIR which were handed over to SI Vinay Kumar. PW7 further deposed that the crime team members had already reached at the spot prior to his returning at the spot and the crime team members inspected the spot. SI Vinay Kumar recorded the statement of the In-charge of Crime Team. The other staff members from the police station also reached at the spot. PW7 further deposed that from the spot, he along with SI Vinay Kumar again went to B.L. Kapoor hospital and at that time they met with the wife of the injured in the hospital. The wife of the injured narrated the incident which was reduced into writing by SI Vinay Kumar. The wife of the injured pointed out towards a Verna vehicle, which was found parked near the hospital, while stating that at the time of the State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 9 of 34 incident, the injured was present in the said vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle was checked from inside and one half filled bottle of liquor, lying on the backside and two packets of Namkeen, lying on the dashboard were recovered. PW7 further deposed that surgery was done by the concerned doctor on the injured and thereafter, doctor handed over a sealed pullanda of the piece of cartridge, which was taken out from the body of the injured, to SI Vinay Kumar and SI Vinay Kumar further handed over the said pullanda to PW 7. PW 7 that outside the hospital, they met an eye witness whose name he did not remember. PW7 further deposed that from the hospital, they along with the abovesaid eye witness returned at the spot and from the spot, he went to the PS for depositing the pullanda. PW7 further deposed that the above-mentioned car was taken into possession by SI Vinay Kumar vide memo Ex. PW 7/B. The empty cartridge is Ex. P-1
15. PW8 Dr. Harpreet, Sr. Emergency Medical Officer, B.L. Kapoor Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi was deputed by the Medical Superintendent for deposing on behalf of Dr. Vibhor Tiwari who had left the said hospital. PW8 deposed that he can identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Vibhor Tiwari as he had worked with PW 8 and PW 8 had seen him writing and signing the documents. PW8 further deposed that as per record, on 21.08.2014, one injured namely Vipin Rajput was brought to the casualty with alleged history of penetrating injury with query of gun-shot injury. The above mentioned injured was medically examined by Dr. Vibhor Tiwari and in this regard, he prepared MLC No. 667/14 which is Ex. PW 8/A which bears the signature of Dr. Vibhor Tiwari at point A. As per record, the injured was referred to Surgery State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 10 of 34 Department. PW8 further deposed that as per record, the injured was having circular wound of 5 to 7 mm with irregular necrosed skin margin at umbilical region. There was no burn or tattooing on the person of the injured. As per record, it was also observed that there was a 5 to 7 mm tear mark in the shirt of the injured.
16. PW9 Ct. Satender Kumar has deposed that on 24.08.2014, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar and on that day he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Vinay Kumar and continued to remain with him till 26.08.2014. PW9 further deposed that on 24.08.2014, he alongwith Ct. Praveen and SI Vinay went to Baba Faridpuri, A-873 to make inquiry about the two tenants who were residing there and met with the daughter of the landlord namely Renu, who stated that from 22.08.2014 onwards i.e. from the date of incident, the above-mentioned tenants did not come there. PW9 further deposed that SI Vinay showed a video footage of the incident to Ms. Renu and on seeing the same Ms. Renu stated that the footage was showing one of her tenants namely Jaimal. SI Vinay collected the police verification record of the tenant along with a copy of the ID proof of Jaimal from Ms. Renu. PW9 further deposed that through the ID proof of Jaimal, they came to know that he was a resident of village Badi, District Sonipat, Haryana. Therefore, they went to the native place of Jaimal and at the house of accused Jaimal, they met his father who stated that accused Jaimal was not present and he had gone somewhere in Delhi.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 11 of 34
17. PW 9 further deposed that they collected the mobile number of Jaimal from his father. Later on, SI Vinay discussed the matter with the SHO and obtained the Call detail record of the mobile number of accused Jaimal. Through the Cell ID Chart, they came to know that accused Jaimal was present at village Beedhal, Tehsil Gauhana, District Sonipat, Haryana. They reached there and came to know that at above mentioned village, the maternal uncle of accused Jaimal was residing, who on interrogation, disclosed that accused Jaimal was present at village Raipur, District Sonipat, Haryana. Therefore, they went to village Raipur. SI Vinay collected the detailed information about the house of accused Jaimal at village Raipur. Therefore, they went to the house of accused Jaimal and from there, they apprehended accused Jaimal @ Jammal. PW9 further deposed that accused Jaimal was interrogated and during interrogation, he stated that on the day of the incident, his two other companions also assisted him in committing the offence and disclosed their names as Shiv Kumar and Jatin. The disclosure statement of accused Jaimal was recorded which is Ex. PW 9/A. The accused Jaimal was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 9/B and Ex. PW 9/C respectively. PW9 further deposed that pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Jaimal led the police to the house of accused Jatin at Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. There they met with the mother and sister of accused Jatin who told them that about two days ago, accused Jatin was arrested in a case at PS Gannaur. Therefore, they went to PS Gannaur and on inquiry, they came to know that accused Jatin was arrested in a case at PS Gannaur and thereafter, he was lodged in jail at Sonipat. PW9 further deposed that from Tehsil State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 12 of 34 Gannaur, they returned to Delhi alongwith accused Jaimal. At Delhi, accused Jaimal led them to the place of occurrence and a pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex. PW 9/D. The medical examination of accused was got conducted at Lady Harding Hospital. Thereafter, accused Jammal was taken to P.S Patel Nagar where he was put behind bars. PW9 further deposed that later on, once he went to Jail at Sonipat along with SI Nitish Kumar who made inquiry about the accused Jatin.
18. PW10 HC Parmod has deposed that on 21.08.2014 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Central District and on that day on receipt of call from the Control Room he along with SI Pankaj, In-charge, Mobile Crime Team and other team members reached in front of shop no. 22/16- 17, KBS Fair Price, West Patel Nagar where he took 11 photographs of the place of the incident. PW10 further deposed that out of the 11 photographs, only six photographs could be developed through the negatives. The photographs are Ex. PA to Ex. PF and their negatives are Ex. PX (colly.).
19. PW11 SI Hari Krishan has deposed that on 22.09.2014 one sealed parcel, sealed with the seal of SS along with the request for its examination was handed over him and that he opened the parcel and found one country made pistol and one live cartridge therein. He examined both the articles and gave his report that the country-made pistol is in working condition and the cartridge was a live one. He resealed the parcel with pistol and cartridge with the seal of HK and prepared his report which is Mark 11A.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 13 of 34
20. PW 12 HC Rajesh has deposed that on 22.08.2014 he was posted as MHC(M) at P.S Patel Nagar and on that day SI Vinay Kumar deposited one car and two sealed parcels at the malkhana along with copies of seizure memos. He made entry regarding the same in Register No. 19 pertaining to year 2014. Copy of entry no. 2536 is Ex. PW12/A. PW12 produced the original Register No. 19 pertaining to year 2016. As per serial no. 3235 on 03.08.2016, five live cartridges were handed over to SI Nitesh Mehra for the purpose of test firing at FSL. Copy of the Entry at serial no. 3235 in Register no. 19 is Ex. PW12/B. PW 12 also produced the RC Register pertaining to year 2016-17. As per RC No. 14/21/17, three sealed parcels along with 5 live cartridges were handed over to SI Nitesh Nehra to be deposited at FSL Rohini. Copy of RC No. 14/21/17 is Ex.PW12/C.
21. PW13 Inspector Nitesh has deposed that on 10.09.2014 he was posted as SI at P.S Patel Nagar and on that day, the case file of the present FIR was handed over to him for further investigation as the earlier IO was on training. He perused the case file and came to know that the earlier IO had already taken permission from the court for arrest and interrogation of accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni and accused Jatin Khatri who were lodged in Sonipat Jail in some other FIR. PW13 further deposed that after informing the Jail Superintendent he interrogated accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni at Sonipat Jail. Ct. Satender had accompanied him. PW13 further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A and accused Jatin Khatri was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/B. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 14 of 34 which is Ex. PW13/C and the disclosure statement of accused Jatin Khatri which is Ex. PW13/D. He gave intimation of the arrest of accused to the concerned Jail Superintendent and requested for production of both the accused in the court in muffled face. He returned back to the PS and recorded the statement of Ct. Satender. PW13 further deposed that on the next day, both the accused persons were produced before the concerned Ld. MM in muffled face and he moved applications for conducting their TIP, however, both of them refused to join the proceedings and both the accused were sent to JC. Thereafter, the concerned IO returned from his training and the case file was handed over to him.
22. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar, is the IO of the case and has deposed that on 21.08.2025 he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Patel Nagar and in the intervening night of 21/22.08.2014, he was on night emergency duty; and that his duty timings were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that at about 09:50 PM on receipt of DD No. 39-A regarding admission of one injured person at BLK Hospital, he along with Ct. Narender went to BLK Hospital where one injured Vipin Rajput was found admitted in the hospital but he was unfit for statement as informed by the concerned doctor. PW 14 Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that the wife of injured Ms. Shipra who had made the PCR call was present in the hospital and she informed him that injured Vipin Rajput was present with one known person namely Amar Pandey who had brought him to the house and informed her that he was shot; and thereafter she had brought her husband to the hospital. PW14 further deposed that the car by which the injured State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 15 of 34 was brought to the hospital, belonging to the injured DL 2C AD 6159 Hyndai Verna, was parked in front of the hospital; and that he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. On searching the vehicle, PW14 found certain articles such as liquor bottle, plastic glass and some namkeen lying in the car. PW 14 further deposed that thereafter he obtained the contact details of the witness Amar Pandey from the wife of the victim and he was telephonically asked to come to the hospital. Amar Pandey reached the hospital; and thereafter he along with Ct. Narender and Amar Pandey went to the spot i.e. Block 24, Main Road, Near Fair price Shop, West Patel Nagar. The Crime team was also called at the spot and the spot was inspected along with the members of the crime team and photographer at the instance of Amar Pandey. On inspecting the spot, one empty cartridge was found near the fair price shop which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-7/A; and that Amar Pandey informed him that when the victim Vipin Rajput was shot, he was sitting in his car and had not seen the entire incident.
23. PW14 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka on the basis of the DD No. 39A which is Ex. PW-14/A, handed over the same to Ct. Narender for registration of FIR and after about one hour, Ct. Narender returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him as investigation was marked to him. PW14 further deposed that the crime team inspected the spot and took photographs of the spot. He recorded statement of the members of crime team as well as of Amar Pandey and wife of the victim. He also prepared the site plan at the instance of Amar Pandey. PW14 further deposed that thereafter, he again went to the hospital where the concerned doctor handed over to him State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 16 of 34 a sealed pullanda and sample seal stated to contain the bullet piece recovered from the body of the injured which was seized by him vide memo Ex. PW-14/C. He also collected the MLC of the injured.
24. PW14 further deposed that on the next day, he along with his team consisting of several police officials searched for the assailants and they also did a house to house survey of various houses near the fair price shop where various tenants were residing. During the survey, one landlady namely Renu r/o A-863, Baba Farid Puri informed them that one tenant namely Jammal was residing in her property as a tenant and his two friends were also living there and all of them were not seen after the night of the incident. Renu also provided a photocopy of the voter ID card of Jammal which was available with her. PW14 further deposed that they went to the address mentioned on the ID card which was of village Badi, Sonipat. However, they could not find Jammal at his residence and his father Sh. Sardar Singh met them who provided the mobile number of accused Jammal. Thereafter, Jammal was searched on the basis of his CDRs and mobile phone location. PW14 further deposed that on 26.08.2014, accused Jammal was traced through his mobile phone and his location was found at Village Raipur, Sonipat, Haryana. They went there where accused Jammal was found at the house of his relative and accused Jammal was apprehended from there and arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-9/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW-9/C. PW14 further deposed that accused Jammal was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW-9/A. Accused Jammal was kept in muffled face. PW14 further State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 17 of 34 deposed that during interrogation, accused Jammal disclosed the names of his two associates who were accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar. Thereafter, police went for their search at Gannaur at the instance of accused Jammal but they could not trace accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar but it came to their knowledge that they have been arrested in some other case on the next day of the incident and were currently lodged in custody.
25. PW14 further deposed that he obtained the details of the said case from PS Gannaur. Thereafter, accused Jammal was brought to the spot and at his instance, pointing out memo Ex. PW-9/D was prepared. Medical examination of accused was got conducted and he was lodged in the lockup. PW14 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 27.08.2014, he went to the hospital where injured Vipin was found fit for statement and he recorded his statement. Thereafter, he produced accused Jammal before the concerned court in muffled face. He filed an application for conducting TIP of accused Jammal. The TIP was fixed for 05.09.2014. Accused Jammal was sent to JC. On the same day, he also moved an application for issuance of production warrants of accused Shiv Kumar and Jatin Khatri. On 02.09.2014, accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar were required to be produced on production warrants but they were not produced. He again moved an application for issuance of production warrants on which he was given permission to arrest and interrogate the accused persons in jail. Since w.e.f 03.09.2014, he was on training for 3 weeks during that period, accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar were arrested by SI Nitesh. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that he again took over the investigation of the case on 28.09.2014 and on State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 18 of 34 03.10.2014, he visited PS Gannaur as the weapon of offence was seized by the police officials of PS Gannaur in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act from accused Jatin Khatri. He recorded the statement of the concerned IO and police officials, however, the weapon of offence was not handed over to him as the same was required in the said FIR. PW 14 further deposed that on 09.11.2014, he moved an application before the concerned court having jurisdiction over PS Gannaur for custody of the weapon of offence. The application was allowed. Thereafter, he received the weapon from MHC(M) PS Gannaur and deposited in the malkhana of PS Patel Nagar. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the court. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS and further investigation was handed over to SI Nitesh. PW14 correctly identified accused Jammal in the court. Thereafter PE was closed.
Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
26. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri and their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused persons denied the prosecution version and stated that they are innocent. The accused persons further stated that they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged quarrel and no quarrel had taken place with them.
Defence Evidence
27. The accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 19 of 34 support of their defence.
28. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsels for the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
Appreciation of Evidence, Analysis of Contentions and Findings:
29. The version of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2014 at about 9:15 pm near house no. 24/9, West Patel Nagar, Delhi the three accused persons had a quarrel with the injured/ victim Vipin Rajput as his Hyundai Car had hit against them and thereafter all the three accused persons assaulted the victim/ injured, and accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri abused the victim and started beating him and further exhorted "maar isko" and the accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony fired a gun-shot at the victim with a pistol. Afterwards the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony and accused Jatin Khatri in case FIR no. 312/2014, PS Gannaur. Accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony absconded during trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 21.12.2017. The prosecution has therefore contended that both the accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
30. On the other hand both the accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri have denied the prosecution version and have contended that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they did not have any quarrel with the victim and they were not even present at the place of State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 20 of 34 the alleged incident. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 (injured) and PW 3 (eye-witness) in as much as PW 1 has deposed that it was accused Jatin Khatri who had shot the injured while PW 3 has deposed that it was accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony (who is P.O.) who had shot the injured. They have further argued that PW 1 has not deposed that the accused persons had given any beatings to him. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have further argued that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 3 cannot be relied upon in view of various other contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements therein. They have further contended that no such incident had taken place. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jatin Khatri has further argued that there is no cogent and viable evidence to show that the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from the accused Jatin Khatri. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have accordingly asserted that the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri deserve to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
31. The crucial point for determination is as to whether the accused persons Jammal and Jatin Khatri are liable for the offences under section 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
32. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have contended that the incident had not taken place at all and that is why there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the injured PW 1 and the eye witness PW 2 on vital aspects. They have further argued that it is quite surprising that neither PW1 nor PW3 immediately made a call at 100 number nor State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 21 of 34 did they raise any alarm and even no public persons interfered. During the cross examination of PW 1 and PW 3, certain suggestions were given to them in this respect. It is seen that both PW 1 and PW 3 have consistently deposed that three persons had a quarrel with the injured/ victim and one of them fired a gun shot at the victim. The contention regarding other contradictions in their testimonies would be discussed later on. The other issues that PW1 nor PW3 immediately made a call at 100 number nor did they raise any alarm and even no public persons interfered, are minor issues, which do not affect the veracity of the prosecution case qua the fact that the quarrel took place wherein the victim received a gun-shot injury, as different persons may react differently in a given scenario. The fact of the matter is that on the night of the incident the victim was admitted at B.L. Kapoor Hospital and his MLC Ex. PW 8/A shows that he suffered a gun-shot injury. PW 14, the IO has deposed that the concerned doctor had also handed over to him a sealed pullanda stated to contain the bullet piece recovered from the body of the injured which was seized by him vide memo Ex. PW-14/C. The empty cartridge was also recovered from the place of the incident. PW8 Dr. Harpreet from B.L. Kapoor hospital has also deposed that as per record, the injured was having circular wound of 5 to 7 mm with irregular necrosed skin margin at umbilical region and it was also observed that there was a 5 to 7 mm tear mark in the shirt of the injured. Thus, there is no doubt that the victim had suffered a gun-shot injury and therefore it cannot be said that no such incident took place.
33. However, the prime question is that who fired the gun shot at the victim. The case of the prosecution is that accused Shiv Kumar @ State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 22 of 34 Tony, Jammal and Jatin Khatri had assaulted the victim on account of a sudden quarrel as the vehicle of the victim had hit them and thereafter accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri had exhorted "Maar Isko" and thereafter accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony who was having a pistol with him had shot the victim. By way of his supplementary statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 10.11.2024 the victim identified the accused persons in the court complex after they had refused to participate in TIP and he was informed about the names of all the three accused persons and thereafter he categorically stated that accused Shiv Kumar had fired the bullet at him. In fact in his initial statement (under section 161 Cr.P.C.) also, which is Mark A, the victim/ injured had stated that the two accused persons had referred to the third accused, who had fired the gun-shot, as Tony. Coming to the evidence on record, PW3, the friend of the victim and the eye witness to the incident has deposed that accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri gave beatings to the victim and accused Shiv Kumar had fired the gun- shot at the victim.
34. In contradistinction to this position, PW1, the victim, has deposed that when he got down from the car the accused persons started fisticuffs and one of the boys fired a gun-shot at him and thereafter they fled from there. PW 1 identified accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri in the Court and stated that the accused Jatin had fired the gun-shot and he further stated that cannot identify the third assailant i.e. Shiv Kumar. PW 1 was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and despite pointing out by the Ld. Addl. P.P., he stated that he is unable to identify accused Shiv Kumar. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had stated to the State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 23 of 34 police that accused Shiv Kumar had fired the gun-shot at him. PW 1 was confronted with his supplementary statement (under section 161 Cr.P.C.) from point A to A-1 which was recorded on 10.11.2024 and he stated that he had not made any such statement. He also did not identify the alleged weapon of offence i.e. the pistol which was recovered.
35. Therefore, PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution that accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony had fired the gun-shot at him. This is a glaring inconsistency in the testimony of PW1 and PW3. In fact the testimony of PW 1 on this point is at complete variance with the prosecution case and his own supplementary statement dated 10.11.2024 under section 161 Cr.P.C. which he has not very surprisingly disowned. Coming to the weapon of offence, PW 14 has deposed that the weapon of offence was recovered from accused Jatin Khatri in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act. However, there is no cogent and viable evidence to establish that the pistol was recovered from accused Jatin Khatri. No witness in respect of the recovery of the said pistol in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur has been examined nor the seizure memo has been properly proved. The statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Naresh from PS Gannaur recorded in this case shows that the said pistol was recovered from accused Shiv Kumar. Considering the evidence on record it would be difficult to hold that it was the accused Jatin Khatri who had fired the gun-shot at the victim. Accused Shiv Kumar has been declared as a proclaimed offender. The FSL report (by which the prosecution seeks to link the recovered bullet with the recovered pistol) is therefore not relevant in so far as the present accused persons Jammal and Jatin Khatri are concerned.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 24 of 34
36. Now assuming for the sake of arguments that it was the accused Shiv Kumar who had fired the gun shot at the victim, as has been deposed by PW 3, then the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri, if at all can be held liable for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC, it can only be with the aid of section 34 IPC.
37. Now Section 34 IPC enacts a rule of vicarious criminal liability that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all thereby making every such person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In the judgment titled as Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad reported as AIR 1955 SC 216 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, enunciating the principles with respect to section 34 IPC, observed that:
"......33. Now in the case of section 34we think it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all:
Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [(1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 148, 153, 154.]. Accordingly, there must have been a prior meeting of minds. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention, namely the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In a case like that, State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 25 of 34 each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others; and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case: Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King- Emperor [(1924) L.R. 52 I.A. 40, 49] and Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [(1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 148, 153, 154.]. As their Lordships say in the latter case, "the partition which divides their bounds is often very thin: nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice".
34. The plan need not be elaborate, nor is a long interval of time required. It could arise and be formed suddenly, as for example, when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault. There is then the necessary meeting of the minds. There is a pre-arranged plan however hastily formed and rudely conceived. But pre-arrangement there must be and premeditated concert. It is not enough, as in the latter Privy Council case, to have the same intention independently of each other, e.g., the intention to rescue another and, if necessary, to kill those who oppose.
35. In the present case, there is no evidence of any prior meeting. We know nothing of what they said or did before the attack-not even immediately before.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 26 of 34 Pandurang is not even of the same caste as the others, Bhilia, Tukia and Nilia are Lambadas, Pandurang is a Hatkar and Tukaram a Maratha. It is true prior concert and arrangement can, and indeed often must, be determined from subsequent conduct as, for example, by a systematic plan of campaign unfolding itself during the course of the action which could only be referable to prior concert and pre- arrangement, or a running away together in a body or a meeting together subsequently. But, to quote the Privy Council again, "the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case".
38. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is clear that there was a quarrel on account of the fact that the vehicle of the victim hit the accused persons. The material on record further reveals that the victim was consuming liquor and was also somewhat aggressive though PW 3 was trying to diffuse the situation. Thus, it is case of a sudden quarrel and it cannot be said that there was pre-meditated plan in execution of which the accused persons attempted to murder the victim. Whether such common intention developed at the spot is naturally the next question. It is trite that intention is a state of mind and cannot be proved by direct evidence and has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances and the events which preceded, attended and followed the crime.
39. None of the witnesses have deposed that the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri had exhorted the accused Shiv Kumar or had restrained State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 27 of 34 or caught hold of the victim or had in any other manner assisted accused Shiv Kumar in shooting the victim. There is no evidence as to what they said before or at the time of or after the incident of shooting from which such common intention to shoot the victim could be deciphered. The accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri were not in possession of any weapon. In fact, there in no evidence to the effect that at that point of time they were even aware that accused Shiv Kumar had a pistol or that he was going to use the said pistol in the incident. There is only one piece of evidence which may support this theory which is that PW3 has deposed accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri were continuously beating the victim even after the gun-shot injury. However, this piece of evidence pales into insignificance as the victim/ injured himself has not stated this fact and this apparent contradiction persuades this Court not to place any reliance on the same. There is no other evidence that the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri shared common intention with the accused Shiv Kumar to shoot the victim or did any act in furtherance of the same.
40. There is another aspect in the matter. During cross examination, PW3 has stated that on the night of the incident the police officials had also taken him to the place of the incident where in one of the houses CCTV cameras were installed and all of them had seen the CCTV footage of the incident. However, no such CCTV footage has been proved on record. This was a vital piece of evidence to establish the actions of the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri and since this vital piece of evidence has been kept away from the scrutiny of the Court adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution on this count.
State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 28 of 34
41. In somewhat similar facts in the judgment titled as Wakil Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2005 Cri.L.J. 3410 the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held:
"........8. Having heard the learned counsel for appellants and for the State as also after perusing the entire evidence on record and considering the law of common intention on the basis of the above- mentioned Apex Court pronouncements, it emerged that the incident occurred all of a sudden on a spur of moment when deceased Mahesh was asked by the appellants to go some step ahead inside the bus. At that juncture, deceased Mahesh denied to go ahead because there was no space in front of him. During this period, some verbal hot talk took place between the appellants and deceased and appellant Wakil Khan took out knife from his pocket and caused as many as five blows in quick succession on the person of deceased. Even if all the evidences of eye witnesses are accepted, the appellant Tajuddin and Bhuru Khan cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC because there is absolutely no evidence that the appellants were having pre-meeting of minds, premeditation and pre- plan for committing murder of deceased Mahesh and in furtherance of the common intention appellant Wakil Khan caused injuries by knife. There is also no evidence on record that while causing five knife blows by appellant Wakil Khan, the deceased was held or caught hold of continuously by appellant Bhuru Khan. Admittedly, appellants were not having State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 29 of 34 any previous enmity with the deceased and they were also not having any prior information about travelling of deceased Mahesh in the bus. Appellants Bhuru Khan and Tajuddin were not having any weapon in their possession. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for convicting the appellants Bhuru Khan and Tajuddin under Section 302/34 of IPC....."
42. The inevitable conclusion is that there is not even an iota of cogent and viable evidence on record to establish that the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri shared any common intention with accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony to fire a gun shot at the victim or did any act in furtherance of the same. The necessary concomitant is that they cannot be held liable for the offence under section 307 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC. Further since it has not been established accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri had used any fire arm in the incident they cannot be held liable for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act.
43. The only question which remains to be answered is as to whether the accused persons can be convicted for a minor offence of beating the victim.
44. It is seen that PW 1 has not clearly deposed that the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri had beaten him. Though PW 3 has stated so but his cross examination reveals that he was sitting in the car and came out later on. When the injured has himself not clearly stated that he was beaten by the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri, the testimony of PW 3 State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 30 of 34 cannot be given over importance. The expression used by PW1 during his testimony is that the accused persons started scuffling with him. It may be noted that this expression 'scuffling' has a bilateral connotation implying a quarrel or fight from both sides as opposed to the words 'assault' or 'beating'. The material on record further reveals that the victim was consuming liquor and was also somewhat aggressive and had hit the accused persons while driving his vehicle. Thus what followed was initially a quarrel from both sides. Moreover, the MLC of the victim does not reflect any other injuries apart from the gun shot injury. Thus the allegation of the victim being beaten by the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri also cannot be held liable for the offence under section 323 IPC.
45. It may be noted that in the judgment titled as "S. L. Goswami v. State of M.P." reported as 1972 CRI. L. J. 511 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"....In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 31 of 34 would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt....."
46. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
47. In the judgment titled as Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
".......Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place State v. Jammal etc. FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 32 of 34 of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 33 of 34 AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249; State through CBI v.
Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017;
and Ramesh Harijan v. State v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979)...."
Conclusion:
48. On the basis of the material available on record I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged offences against the accused persons Jamaal and Jatin Khatri. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. The accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri are accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable under section 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
49. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court Date: 2025.07.16
15:59:05 +0530
on the 16.07.2025).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 34 of 34