Delhi District Court
State vs Sakib Khan on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH-01-005109-2020
SC No. 162/2020
FIR No. 559/2018
PS Jafrabad
U/s: 323/307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
State
Vs.
Sakib Khan,
S/o Sh. Sahid Khan,
R/o H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
.... Accused
Date of Institution of case 16.09.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 13.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 17.12.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, a PCR call vide DD No. 32B was received regarding gunshot injury to one person by someone at Gali No. 33, near Idgah Gali, Jafrabad, Delhi. Complainant Arshad Khan alleged that he was running a garment shop in the name of Brand Surplus House at 1 st and 2nd floor of State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 1 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:39:57 +0530 H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi. His neighbour Sakib also ran a garment shop and in his house, he had installed one embroidery machine, which was noisy. He told Sakib to close the said machine in time, then he used to have grudge with him.
2. On 18.09.2018 at about 11:30 am, Arshad reached near the shop of Sakib, then he showed him danda and started abusing him and Arshad told this fact to his younger brother Salman after reaching his shop. Then, Salman went to the shop of Sakib to ask as to why he was abusing Arshad, then he started abusing Salman also and then, Arshad and Talib, who was his worker,came out of the shop and Sakib started abusing them all and went inside his house and the complainant's side remained in the gali. Sakib came out with pistol and fired at Salman with intention to kill, then he also fired at Arshad and Talib and the bullet hit on the right thigh of Arshad, who fell down after being unconscious and he was taken to GTB Hospital.
3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR No. 559/2018 dt. 18.09.2018 was registered in PS Jafrabad u/s 307 IPC & 27 Arms Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Sakib Khan u/s 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against accused Sakib Khan.
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 307 IPC, 323/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act was framed against accused Sakib Khan by Ld. Predecessor on 07.12.2020. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:40:03 +0530 State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 2 of 32 ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
5. Admission/denial of documents u/s 330 BNSS (u/s 294 Cr.P.C.) was conducted on 11.09.2025 and additional admission/denial of documents was conducted on 04.12.2025 and accused Sakib Khan had not disputed the following documents:
(i) RC No. 167/21/18 dated 07.12.2018, Ex.PA1.
(ii) RC No. 168/21/18 dated 07.12.2018, Ex.PA2.
(iii) FSL Acknowledgment No. 2018/F-11343 dt. 07.12.2018 , Ex.PA3.
(iv) Opinion regarding nature of injuries given by Dr. Manvender Kumar, on the MLC No. A-3067/30/18 of injured Arshad Khan, Ex.PA4.
(v) Arrest memo of accused Sakib Khan dt. 23.09.2018, Ex.PW9/A.
(vi) MLC No. B-4891/30/18 of injured Salman Khan dt. 18.09.2018, Ex.PW5/A.
(vii) FSL report dated 31.08.2022, Ex. PA5.
(viii) FSL report dated 15.01.2021, Ex. PA6.
(ix) FSL report dated 25.04.2023, Ex. PA7.
(x) FSL report dated 18.07.2022, Ex. PA8.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with:
(a) Ct. Pankaj (mentioned at Sl. No. 23 in the list of witnesses).
(b) Dr. Manvender Kumar (mentioned at Sl. No. 24 in the list of witnesses).
(c) HC Satish (mentioned at Sl. No. 21 in the list of witnesses).
(d) SI Ravindra Chandra (mentioned at Sl. No. 13 in the list of witnesses).
(e) Dr. Tanya Sinha (mentioned at Sl. No. 17 in the list of witnesses).
(f) MHC(M) (mentioned at Sl No. 20 in the list of witnesses).State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 3 of 32
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:08 +0530
(g) Sh. VR Anand, AD FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 in supplementary list of witnesses).
(h) Dr. Naresh Kumar, SSO, FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 1 in supplementary list of witnesses). (I) Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, SSO FSL (mentioned at Sl. No. 4 in supplementary list of witnesses).
(j) Sh. Rohan Sharma, Junior F/ACE, FSL (at Sl. No. 3 in the supplementary list of witnesses).
(k) SI Devender Singh (mentioned at Sl. No. 5 in supplementary list of witnesses).
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution examined seventeen witnesses (17) in its favour to prove the case.
7. PW1 ASI Vijay Singh deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Jafrabad and he was assigned duty as Duty Officer from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 04:45 PM, Ct. Sohanvir brought a rukka sent by ASI Naresh, however, FIR could not be registered due to network problem, when network problem was solved, at about 09:59 PM, FIR was registered on the basis of said rukka and copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Sohanvir to be handed over to ASI Naresh as investigation was marked to him on the direction of SHO. PW1 had brought the original FIR register pertaining to FIR No. 559/2018 Ex. PW1/A and made endorsement on the rukka vide DD No. 6A, which was circled in red colour Ex.PW1/B. He also issued certificate u/s 65B IEA in respect of the present FIR Ex.PW1/C. State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 4 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:15 +0530
8. PW2 Arshad Khan deposed that he ran a shop of garments in the name of Brand Surplus at ground floor of H No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi and his neighbour Sakib also ran a shop of jacket at his house. On 18.09.2018 at about 11:30 AM, when he was roaming near his house, someone abused him and he went inside his shop and informed his brother Salman Khan that someone abused him. After sometime, PW2 along with his brother Salman Khan and his servant Talib came out from their shop and in the meantime, someone fired and hit PW2 on his right leg and his brother Salman on his leg. His servant Talib also got injured due to fire in his leg. PW2 became unconscious. PW2 regained his consciousness in GTB Hospital. Police officer met him, however, he had not inquired from PW2. PW2 remained admitted in the hospital for two days. Thereafter, he came to his house. Again said, he had informed the police about the incident. PW2 had not seen, who fired at them. PW2 had admitted in his cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP that he signed the complaint, Ex.PW2/A and it was not blank. Accused Sakib Khan had installed embroidery machine in his shop and there used to be noise due to said machine. PW2 asked accused to close his machine in time. PW2 also admitted that on 18.09.2018, at about 11:30 AM, he reached in front of the shop of accused. On 20.09.2018, IO came to his house and prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance, Ex.PW2/B. CCTV cameras were installed at his house at the time of incident.
9. PW2 correctly identified his underwear (make Jockey) and upon which Ex.C2 was written, Ex.P1 and his State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 5 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:21 +0530 supporter (make MAXX) upon which Ex.C3 written, Ex.P2 and his lower (make under armour) upon which Ex.C1 written, Ex.P3. PW2 correctly identified one green piece of mat, Ex.P4 and also correctly identified himself, wearing blue and white colour T-shirt and blue cap and his brother Salman wearing blue colour jeans and camal colour T-shirt and also his worker Talib wearing blue T-shirt and blue jeans and also his garment shop as seen in the CCTV footage in the CD, Ex.P6. PW2 correctly identified accused Sakib Khan in the Court as only his neighbour.
10. PW3 Dr. Raushan Kumar Yadav deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was working as JR, Accidental and Emergency Department, GTB Hospital and on that day, at about 12:30 PM, patient Arshad Khan was admitted in the casualty of GTB Hospital. As per the history given by patient Arshad Khan, he got gunshot injuries. PW3 examined him and prepared MLC, Ex.PW3/A. His detailed examination is from point X to X1. PW3 also handed over certain articles/exhibits to duty constable as mentioned at point P on Ex.PW3/A, after sealing the same.
11. PW4 Dr. Ram Krishan Chauhan deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was working as JR, Accidental and Emergency Department, GTB Hospital and on that day, at 12:37 PM, patient Talib was admitted in the casualty of GTB Hospital. As per the history given by the patient Talib, he got gunshot injuries. PW4 examined the patient and prepared MLC, Ex.PW4/A and his detailed examination was mentioned from point X to X1 on the MLC, Ex. PW4/A. PW4 handed over certain articles/exhibits to duty constable as mentioned at point P on Ex. PW4/A after State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 6 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:28 +0530 sealing the same.
12. PW5 Dr. Sandeep B Rathod deposed that he was posted in the GTB Hospital since 2018 and he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Samarth Mittal, who was posted in GTB Hospital as he had worked with him during the official discharge of his duties. Dr. Samarth Mittal had left the GTB Hospital and his present whereabouts were not available with the hospital records. He testified that as per MLC, Ex.PW4/A, Dr. Samarth Mittal had opined that as per ortho records, injury was "grievous" which was mentioned on the above said MLC from point B to B1 and also bears the signature of Dr. Samarth at point C. PW5 further testified that as per MLC NO. B-4891/30/18, of patient Salman Khan dt. 18.09.2018, Dr. Samarth Mittal had opined that "as per ortho records, injury was grievous", which was mentioned on the above said MLC from point A to A1 and also bears the signature of Dr. Samarth at point B and the above said MLC, Ex.PW5/A.
13. PW6 Mohd Talib deposed that he was doing the business of wholesale in Ready-made Garments. In the year 2018, he was working as a Salesman in the Garments Shop of Arshad in the name of Brand Surplus House in front of his said house. On 18.09.2018, he along with Arshad and Salman (younger brother of Arshad) was present at the said shop. At about 11:30 Am, Arshad told PW6 that accused Sakib Khan had abused him. After about 10 minutes, when PW6 was present at the said shop and dealing with the customer meanwhile, PW6 heard some noise from the gali and also heard the noise of gunshot fire. Thereafter, he came outside the shop and saw that public persons had already gathered there and State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 7 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:34 +0530 Arshad Khan was lying on surface and there was gunshot injury on the body of Arshad Khan on the left leg near thigh and PW6 had also sustained injury on his left knee. Blood was oozing out from the left leg of Arshad Khan. Salman had also sustained gunshot injury on his leg in the said incident. They were taken to GTB Hospital. Police official made inquiry from PW6 in the hospital regarding the said incident and recorded his statement. He had sustained injury in the said incident. PW6 correctly identified the accused Sakib Khan in the Court as only his neighbour.
14. PW7 Salman Khan deposed that he was running a showroom of ready-made garments at the ground floor at Jafrabad, Delhi with the name and style of Brand Surplus House.
On 18.09.2018, he was present at his aforesaid shop, his brother Arshad Khan was coming towards his aforesaid shop via street number 33 and some altercation (gali-galauj) took place between his brother Arshad Khan and accused. PW7 along with Mohd. Talib (salesman of his shop) came out from his shop and saw that some crowd had gathered near his house in the street. Someone fired a gunshot on his left leg. Thereafter, PW7 got unconscious and he regained his consciousness at GTB Hospital. After 3-4 days of the incident, police official came at the hospital and inquired from him. PW7 correctly identified one piece of blue colour jeans pant having blood stains on it, Ex.P5 as being the same jeans, which he was wearing at the time of incident. PW7 correctly identified himself and his brother Arshad wearing blue and white T-shirt and blue colour cap, seen on 18.09.2018 at 11:32:46 hrs. in the CCTV footage, run in DVD, Ex.P6 and also identified Talib wearing dark blue colour T-shirt and jeans and State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 8 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:40:41 +0530 also his garment shop.
15. PW8 Nuzhat deposed that on 18.09.2018, someone fired gunshots on her husband Arshad and his devar Salman Khan. Police official came at their house and took her signatures.
PW8 correctly identified her husband Arshad wearing blue and white T-shirt and blue colour cap, Salman wearing blue colour jeans and camel colour shirt with beard and also identified Talib wearing dark blue colour T-shirt and jeans and also the his garment shop, seen on 18.09.2018 at 11:32:46 hrs in the CCTV footage, run in DVD, Ex.P6.
16. PW9 HC Kuldeep Singh deposed that on 23.09.2018, he was posted as Constable at Jafrabad and on that day, he along with IO/ASI Naresh and SI Ravinder Chander went to Tent Wala School, Jafrabad in search of accused Sakib Khan. One secret informer met them and disclosed that accuseed Sakib Khan would go to his house through Eidgah Puliya, Main Road, Jafrabad, Delhi. IO formed the raiding party and they went to Road No. 66, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi and started waiting for accused Sakib Khan.
17. PW9 further deposed that at about 09:00 pm, accused Sakib Khan came from Eidgah Puliya Side and was going towards Gali No. 33 on the pointing out of secret informer, he was apprehended, arrested and personally searched vide memos dt. 23.09.2018 Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide statement dt. 23.09.2018, Ex.PW9/C. Accused Sakib Khan took them to the place of incident i.e. in front of H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 9 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:48 +0530 and pointing out the place of incident vide pointing out memo dt. 23.09.2018, Ex.PW9/D. PW9 had correctly identified accused Sakib Khan in the Court.
18. PW10 Saleem Ali deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was present in the Street No. 34, Jafrabad, Delhi and at about 11:30 am, he came to know that gunshots were fired in Street No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi and PW10 went there and found that three persons were injured namely Arshad Khan, Salman Khan and Mohd. Talib. PW10 with the help of other public persons took the above said injured persons to GTB Hospital in a private vehicle.
19. PW11 HC Sohanveer Singh deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as Constable at PS Jafrabad and on that day, he was on emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 32B regarding the firing incident, he along with ASI Naresh reached at the spot i.e. in front of H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi where they came to know that the shop belonged to accused Sakib Khan. There was blood on the artificial grass mat in the street and one live and one empty cartridges were also found at some distance.
20. PW11 further deposed that they came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital. In the meantime, Ct. Anuj came at the spot along with copy of DD No. 32B and handed over the same to ASI Naresh. Thereafter, they went to GTB Hospital leaving Ct. Anuj at the spot. In the hospital, IO collected the MLCs of injured persons namely Arshad Khan, Mohd. Talib and Salman, all the injured persons State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 10 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:40:53 +0530 were under treatment. IO recorded the statement of injured Arshad Khan. Duty Constable HC Karan Veer handed over 16 sealed pulandas along with sample seals to the IO. IO seized the above said sealed pulandas i.e. 5 pulandas of injured Salman, 6 pulandas of injured Arshad Khan and 5 pulandas of injured Talib. IO seized the same vide separate seizure memos, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C.
21. PW11 further deposed that IO handed over the rukka prepared by him to PW11 for registration of FIR. PW11 went the PS and got registered the FIR. He returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Naresh. Thereafter, IO mentioned the FIR number and other details in the above said seizure memos. IO prepared the sketch of above said live and empty cartridges, found at the spot vide sketch memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/D and seized them vide seizure memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/E after putting it in a transparent plastic container with the seal of NPS. Seal after use was handed over to PW11. IO took the exhibits i.e. blood gauze, a piece of blood stain mat, sample earth control, blood lying outside the shop etc. and put them in 6 separate plastic container and seized it vide seizure memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/F after wrapping it with a doctor tape and sealed it with the seal of NPS.
22. PW11 further deposed that IO searched for the CCTV footage and he gave notice to Smt. Nuzhat W/o Arshad Khan R/o H. No. 1030, Street No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi and collected the DVR, two CDs (containing the CCTV footage of incident) along with certificate u/s 65B IEA. IO seized the DVR vide seizure State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 11 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:40:58 +0530 memo dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW8/A after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NPS. IO also seized the above said two CDs vide seizure memo dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW8/B after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NPS. Seal after use was handed over to PW11. Above said lady Nuzhat also handed over the certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the CD and DVR. They returned to the PS and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana. PW11 had correctly identified a piece of green colour grass mat, Ex.P4 and also one empty cartridge i.e. metallic piece and one live cartridge, (Ex.EB1 of FSL), Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
23. PW12 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as ASI/Fingerprint Expert in Mobile Crime Team, North-East District, Delhi and on that day, on receiving information at control room, he along with I/C Mobile Crime Team SI Rajender Singh and Ct. Javed (photographer) reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi where police officials of PS Jafrabad were already present. Ct. Javed had clicked photographs of the spot. IO recorded his statement and relieved.
24. PW13 HC Javed deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as Constable/Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, North- East District, Delhi and on that day, on receiving information at control room, he along with I/C Mobile Crime Team SI Rajender Singh and ASI Raj Kumar (fingerprint expert) reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi where police officials of PS Jafrabad were already present. PW13 had clicked State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 12 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:41:04 +0530 28 photographs of the spot from different angles with the official digital camera Nikon, Ex.PH1 to Ex.PH28 and also issued certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW13/A.
25. PW14 Retd. SI Rajender Singh deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, North-East, Delhi and on that day, he received a call from Control Room and IO had also called him telephonically. PW14 along with ASI Raj Kumar (Finger Print Proficient), Ct. Javed Khan (Photographer) reached at Shop No. 1030, Ground Floor, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi where they met ASI Naresh Kumar, who disclosed about the incident. PW14 got clicked the photographs of the spot from the photographer from different angles and he conducted the inspection of the spot. In front of Shop No. 1030, blood spot was found. Blood stains were found on artificial green grass mat, which was lying on the platform outside the shop. One empty shell and live cartridge were found near the said shop and IO was told to seize them. Then they returned back to PS Seemapuri. PW14 prepared the inspection report dt. 18.09.2018, Ex.PW14/A. PW14 had correctly identified 28 photographs, Ex.PH1 to Ex.PH28, which were clicked at the spot by the photographer.
26. PW15 HC Karamveer deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as Constable at GTB Hospital and on that day, he was handed over total 16 pullandas with 3 sample seal of 3 injured persons namely Arshad Khan, Salman Khan and Talib, which were sealed with the seal of MLC GTB Hospital. PW15 handed over the said pullandas and sample seals to IO/ASI Naresh, State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 13 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:41:10 +0530 which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/C.
27. PW16 HC Virender deposed that on 20.09.2018, he was posted as Duty Constable at GTB Hospital. Dr. Deepankar Verma (SR) handed over a sealed glass bottle, qua MLC No. B-4891/30/18 of injured Salman Khan. PW16 produced the same to IO/ASI Naresh along with sample seal, which were seized vide seizure memo, dt. 21.09.2018, Ex.PW16/A. On 08.11.2018, the concerned doctor handed over a sealed glass bottle qua MLC No. A-3068/30/18 of injured Talib. PW16 produced the same to IO/ASI Naresh along with sample seal, which were seized vide seizure memo dt. 08.11.2018, Ex.PW16/B.
28. PW17 Retd. SI Naresh deposed that on 18.09.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Jafrabad and on that day, he was on emergency duty along with Ct. Sohanbir. On receiving DD No.32B, Ex.PW17/A, he along with Ct. Sohanbir reached at H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Near Brand Surplus House (Shop) where he came to know that incident of firing had taken place. There was green colour mat with blood stains on it lying near the spot and at some distance, one live cartridge and one empty cartridge were found. They came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital. In the meantime, Ct. Anuj came at the spot along with copy of DD No. 32B and handed over the same to ASI Naresh. Thereafter, they went to the GTB Hospital leaving Ct. Anuj at the spot. In the hospital, IO collected the MLCs of injured persons namely Arshad Khan, Mohd. Talib and Salman, who were under treatment. PW17 recorded the State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 14 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:41:16 +0530 statement of injured Arshad Khan, Ex.PW2/A.
29. PW17 further deposed that Duty Constable HC Karam Veer handed over 16 sealed pulandas along with sample seals to PW17. He seized the abovesaid sealed pulandas i.e. 5 pulandas of injured Salman, 6 pulandas of injured Arshad Khan and 5 pulandas of injured Talib, which were seized vide separate seizure memos, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C respectively. PW17 prepared the rukka Ex. PW17/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sohanbir for registration of FIR. He went to PS. After registration of FIR, Ct. Sohanbir returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to PW17. Thereafter, he mentioned the FIR number and other details in the above said seizure memos. Crime team was called at the spot. PW17 prepared the sketch of above said live and empty cartridge, found at the spot vide sketch memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/D bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Anuj at point C and seized them vide seizure memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/E bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Anuj at point C after putting in a transparent plastic container with the seal of NPS. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sohanbir.
30. PW17 further deposed that he took the exhibits i.e. blood gauze, a piece of blood stain mat, sample earth control, blood lying outside the shop etc. and put them in 6 separate plastic container and seized it vide seizure memo, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW11/F bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Anuj at point C, after wrapping it with a doctor tape and sealed it State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 15 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:41:25 +0530 with the seal of NPS. PW17 searched for the CCTV footage and gave notice to Smt. Nuzhat and collected the DVR, two CDs (containing the CCTV footage of incident) along with certificate u/s 65B IEA. PW17 seized the DVR vide seizure memo dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW8/A after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NPS. PW17 also seized the above said two CDs vide seizure memo dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW8/B after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of NPS. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sohanbir.
31. PW17 further deposed that he recorded the statements of Mohd. Talib, Salman Khan, Saleem Ali, Nuzhat and Arshad Khan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. They returned to PS and he deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statements of HC Karambir, SI Rajender Singh, ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Javed, Ct. Anuj and Ct. Sohanbir u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 20.09.2018, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/B at the instance of Arshad. On 21.09.2018, he collected the sealed pullanda produced by HC Virender (Duty Constable, GTB Hospital) and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A.
32. PW17 further deposed that on 23.09.2018, accused Sakib Khan was arrested from Road No. 66, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded by PW17, Ex.PW9/C. Accused Sakib Khan took them to the spot and pointed out the place of incident and PW17 prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW9/D. Accused Sakib Khan was produced before the court and his two State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 16 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:41:31 +0530 days PC remand was taken and his supplementary disclosure statement was recorded, Ex.PW17/C. PW17 searched for the co- accused persons along with accused Sakib Khan, but in vain. On 08.11.2018, he collected the sealed exhibits from HC Virender and seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. On 07.12.2018, he got deposited the exhibits of the present case at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 167/21/18 and RC No. 168/21/18 through Ct. Pankaj and recorded his statement along with HC Satish [MHC(M)]. During investigation, PW17 collected the final opinion regarding nature of injuries on the MLCs of injured persons.
33. PW17 had correctly identified a piece of green colour grass mat, Ex.P4 and one empty cartridge i.e. metallic piece and one live cartridge, (Ex.EB1 of FSL), Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. PW17 correctly identified Arshad wearing blue and white T-shirt and blue colour cap, Salman wearing blue colour jeans and camel colour shirt with beard and also identified Talib wearing dark blue colour T-shirt and jeans and also the said garment shop, seen on 18.09.2018 at 11:32:46 hrs in the CCTV footage, run in DVD, Ex.P6. PW17 had correctly identified 28 photographs, Ex.PH-1 to Ex.PH-28 in which the spot, green mat and empty cartridges are seen. PW17 prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the court. PW17 had correctly identified accused Sakib Khan in the Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS
34. Statement of the accused Sakib Khan was recorded u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) on 12.12.2025 and he denied the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that all the State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 17 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:41:38 +0530 witnesses are interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated by the police official in the present case without any fault on his part and he is innocent and praying for acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING Arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused
35. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and complainant had named him in the FIR due to some confusion and he had no enmity with complainant or any other injured and he never abused them as alleged in the FIR and he was peacefully running his shop. Accused had not fired either of the victims Arshad, Salman and Talib and that is why they had not identified him in the Court as the assailant and in the CCTV footage, he was not seen firing at any of them and even other prosecution witnesses have acknowledged the same and he had not caused any injury to any injured persons. He had not done anything against the complainant or others in furtherance of common intention with any co-accused. No weapon was recovered from his possession by the police. Even after cross- examination by Ld. Addl PP, the said public witnesses failed to identify accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and he be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
36. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that accused had fired at the complainant, Salman and Talib and as per their MLCs, there were gunshot injuries and they all have correctly State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 18 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:41:44 +0530 narrated the incident that had happened with them on 18.09.2018 at 11:30 am, near the shop of complainant and also proved the motive of crime as complainant had told accused to close the machine in time as it was too noisy and accused had grudge against him and other police official had correctly identify the accused in their testimony and accused was seen firing in the CCTV footage, proved on record to the injured persons and injury opined to Salman Khan and Talib was grievous in nature and that of Arshad Khan was simple in nature, which also corroborates the version of said witnesses, who have also identified accused Sakib, who were their neighbours and said MLCs are proved being admitted by accused. Thus, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
37. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
38. The charge against the accused is u/s 307 IPC, 323/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
Section 307 IPC 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.
39. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove its case and out of them, the star witnesses were injured PW2/Arshad, PW6/Talib and PW7/Salman and, being eye- witnesses.
State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 19 of 32Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:41:49 +0530 PUBLIC WITNESSES/INJURED
40. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Arshad Khan, who alleged that he was running a garment shop in the name of Brand Surplus House at 1 st and 2nd floor of H. No. 1030, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi and his neighbour Sakib Khan was also running a garment shop and in his house, he had installed one embroidery machine, which was noisy. He told Sakib to close the said machine in time, then he used to have grudge with him. On 18.09.2018 at about 11:30 am, Arshad reached near the shop of Sakib, then he showed him danda and started abusing him and Arshad told this fact to his younger brother Salman after reaching his shop. Then, Salman went to the shop of Sakib to ask as to why he was abusing Arshad, then he started abusing Salman also and then, Arshad and Talib, who was his worker, came out of the shop and Sakib started abusing them all. Sakib came out with pistol and fired at Salman, Arshad and Talib with intention to kill and they sustained injuries.
41. PW2 deposed that on 08.09.2018 at 11:30 am, someone abused him and he informed his brother Salman Khan and they both and their worker Talib came out of the shop and someone had fired at them and bullet hit on the right leg of PW2 and also Salman and Talib. PW2 categorically deposed that he had not seen the person, who fired at them and he had not deposed as to who had abused him and identified accused Sakib Khan only as his neighbour and not the assailant, who abused him or fired at him or others.
State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 20 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:41:55 +0530
42. PW2 was declared hostile and during cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted his signature on his complaint, Ex.PW2/A, but stated that he had not gone through the contents of the same, but admitted about the installation of noisy embroidery machine by Sakib Khan. PW2 denied that due to said reason, Sakib was annoyed with him and showed him danda and started abusing him and he met his brother Salman and informed that Sakib abused him or that Salman went to shop of Sakib about the same, then he was also abused by Sakib and when they along with Talib came out of shop, Sakib again abused them. PW2 also denied that Sakib came out with pistol and fired at Salman with intention to kill and then he fired at PW2 and Talib to kill or that PW2 got injured. PW2 denied the same even after he was confronted with complaint, Ex.PW2/A.
43. PW2 also denied that Talib went inside the shop of Sakib to catch him or that Sakib and Ubaid had beaten Talib and ran away from there or that accused persons were not traceable. PW2 denied these facts even after he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, Mark-PW2/A1. PW2 identified his underwear, supporter and lower, Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and grass mat, Ex.P4, but there are of no use when accused has not been identified as a assailant.
44. On being shown the CD/DVD, Ex.P6, at time stamp 11:32:40 hrs, on 18.09.2018 i.e. on the time and date of offence, PW2 correctly identified himself, Salman and Talib and also the place of incident, but did not identify the person firing at them as seen in the video. Also, in the said video, the face of said person State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 21 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:03 +0530 firing was not visible and thus, identity of accused as assailant is not established even from the CCTV footage.
45. PW6 Talib deposed that he was the salesman in the shop of Arshad namely Brand Surplus House near his house and on 18.09.2018, he along with Arshad and Salman, was present at said shop at Jafrabad, Delhi and at about 11:30 pm, Arshad had told that his neighbour Sakib abused him, but PW2 Arshad had not deposed that accused Sakib had abused him and these are contrary versions and the version of PW6 is hearsay in nature on this aspect.
46. PW6 further deposed that after 10 min, when he was in the shop, he heard some noise of gunshot in the gali and he came out and saw that Arshad Khan was lying on surface with gunshot injury on his left thigh and blood was oozing and he had also sustained injury on his left knee. Salman also sustained gunshot injury in his leg. PW6 deposed that he had not told police as to who had fired and that he had sustained injury in the said incident.
47. PW6 was declared hostile and during cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied that on 18.09.2018, he was at the shop of Arshad, he informed him that accused Sakib had abused him and Arshad sent his brother Salman to shop of Sakib to ask why he abused Arshad and Sakib also abused Salman. PW6 also denied that he and Arshad came in gali and Sakib started abusing them and went upstairs in his house and came with pistol and fired at Salman due to which he sustained injuries in his leg and also fired at Arshad, who also State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 22 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:42:10 +0530 sustained injury or that whenPW6 tried to save them, accused Sakib had fired at him with intention to kill him and when he tried to save himself, he also sustained gunshot injury on his left thigh. PW6 also denied that he followed the accused Sakib in his shop where he and Ubaid had beaten PW6 and fled away. PW6 denied these facts even after, he was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Mark-X.Thus, PW6 had also not identified the accused Sakib as assailant.
48. PW7 Salman Khan deposed that he was running a shop of Brand Surplus House, at Jafrabad, Delhi and on 18.09.2018, he along with his brother Arshad Khan, was also present there and some altercation took place between accused Sakib and Arshad Khan and he and Talib came out of shop and saw that crowd had gathered and someone fired gunshot at his left leg and he categorically stated that he could not identify the said person, who fired gunshot and also failed to identify the accused Sakib as assailant in Court, who had fired at him. PW7 identified his cloth, Ex.P5 at the time of said offence. PW7 identified himself, Arshad and Talib in the DVD, Ex.P6 run in the Court at time stamp 11:32:46 hrs on 18.09.2018, but failed to identify the person, who was firing as his face was not visible.
The Court has also seen the video footage, in which the person firing is not seen by face.
49. PW7 was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied that at about 11:30 am, his brother Arshad came at his aforesaid shop and disclosed that their neighbour Sakib was abusing him and then, PW7 went to State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 23 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:16 +0530 accused Sakib's shop leaving, his brother and Talib at his aforesaid shop or that he asked Sakib why he was abusing his brother at which accused Sakib started abusing him and in the meantime, his brother Arshad and servant Talib came. PW7 denied that accused Sakib along with one of his employee went inside his shop and accused took out a pistol from his shop in his hand and fired a gunshot on him with intention to kill him, but PW7 received gunshot on his left leg or that accused Sakib again fired a gunshot on his brother Arshad and also fired gunshot on Talib or that his servant Talib tried to catch hold of accused Sakib, but he managed to escape from the spot. PW7 denied these facts even after, he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW7/A. Thus, PW7 had also not identified the accused Sakib as assailant.
50. PW8 Nuzhat is wife of complainant Arshad Khan and deposed that on 18.09.2018, someone fired gunshot at Arshad and Salman. PW8 was declared hostile. In the said CCTV footage, she identified Arshad, Salman, Talib and garment shop of Arshad, but failed to identify accused Sakib in the video firing at them. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted the seizure of said DVR, CD vide memo dt. 18.09.2018 from her vide memos, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and she issued certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW8/C, but volunteered that police took her signature on blank papers. PW8 denied that she handed over DVR and CD of CCTV footage of firing on Arshad and Salman to IO in compliance of notice which were seized or sealed or that she gave said certificate voluntarily. She State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 24 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:25 +0530 denied the same. PW8 denied these facts even after, she was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, dt. 18.09.2018 Ex.PW8/D. Thus, PW8 had also not identified the accused Sakib as assailant.
51. PW10 Saleem Ali deposed that on 18.09.2018 at about 11:30 am, he came to know of the gunshot fired at Street No. 33, Jafrabad Delhi and found that Arshad Khan, Salman Khan and Mohd. Talib were injured and he took them to GTB Hospital.
52. PW10 is not an eye-witness. PW2, PW6, PW7 and PW8 have not identified accused Sakib as assailant and even in CCTV footage, they failed to identify him as the person, who had fired PW2, PW6 and PW7, during their deposition in Court and thus prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused Sakib, who fired at said injured persons.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
53. PW3 Dr. Raushan Kumar Yadav proved the MLC of Arshad Khan, Ex.PW3/A and his detailed examination is from point X to X1. As per same, there were two punctured wounds and there was alleged history of fire arm injury and the accused had admitted the said MLC and the opinion on the said MLC, which is Ex.PA4 was admitted by accused as per which nature of injury was simple in nature.
54. PW4 Dr. Ram Krishan Chauhan proved the MLC of Talib, Ex.PW4/A and his detailed examination from point X to X1. As per which there was one punctured wound and there was alleged history of fire arm injury and PW5 Dr. Sandeep B Rathod State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 25 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:31 +0530 proved the opinion given by Dr. Samarth Mittal, on nature of injury as grievous on the said MLC. PW5 also proved that nature of injury of Salman Khan in his MLC, Ex.PW5/A (admitted by accused) was grievous in nature as opined by Dr. Samarth Mittal.
55. PW3, PW4 and PW5 were not cross-examined by accused and nature of injuries are not disputed as grievous and simple, but since, identity of accused as assailant is not established, the opinion of said injury even though proved by prosecution, is of no help to prosecution.
56. FSL Report of the DVD and CD, Ex.PA7 was admitted by accused as per which there is no alteration in the continuous video footage. FSL report of the DVR containing CCTV footage, Ex.PA8 was admitted by accused along with certification u/s 65B IEA vide which CCTV footage of the relevant date and time was extracted. The said footages and report do not help the case of prosecution as accused has not disputed the same, but none of the witness identified accused from the said footages put to them. Accused also admitted the FSL report of Balistic, Ex.PA5, which proved that there was one live cartridge of 7.65 mm and one fired bullet of 7.65 mm and there is one empty cartridge of 7.65 mm and the same are ammunition as defined in Arms Act, but again, when the identity of person, who fired them, is not established, it is of no consequence. Accused also admitted the FSL report, Ex.PA6, as per which DNA could not be isolated from exhibits in which blood was detected due to degradation/inhibition and male human DNA was generated from source of exhibit O i.e. jeans State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 26 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:42:36 +0530 pant having brown stains of Talib, but he had not named accused Sakib as assailant.
57. Thus, even the medical/forensic evidences is not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused as the person who fired at injured persons with intention to kill them.
POLICE WITNESSES
58. PW1 proved the registration of FIR, Ex.PW1/A, endorsement on rukka, Ex.PW1/B and requisite certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW1/C, but its contents were not proved considering the testimony of PW2.
59. PW9 HC Kuldeep is the witness of arrest of accused Sakib and his personal search, Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, but that is not disputed by accused. His disclosure, Ex.PW9/C was recorded, but nothing was recovered as consequence of the same, thus, it is in admissible in view of embargo 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act and even pointing out memo, Ex.PW9/D has no consequences and not proved by independent witness.
60. PW11 HC Sohanvir deposed that he visited the spot and then, collected the MLC of injured persons and sealed pulandas were handed over to the IO, which were seized and IO prepared the sketch of live and empty cartridges found at the spot vide sketch memo, Ex.PW11/D and they were seized, Ex.PW11/E and IO collected the other pulandas of injured persons Salman, Arshad and Talib, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C respectively, which is also corroborated by PW15 and IO collected the CCTV footage (DVR and two CDs) and correctly identified grass mat, Ex.P4 and empty and live State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 27 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:42 +0530 cartridges, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, but the identity of accused as assailant could not be proved from the said video.
The version of PW11 was also corroborated to PW17/IO on above aspects.
61. PW12 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that he visited the spot and Ct. Javed clicked the photographs and PW13 HC Javed proved the said 28 photographs, Ex.PH1 to Ex.PH28 and he issued certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW13/A, but the same is not disputed by accused.
62. PW14 also corroborated the version of PW12 and PW13 regarding said photographs and he proved the inspection report of the spot dt. 18.09.2018, Ex.PW14/A and blood stains were found at the spot and on the artificial green grass mat, but that is not disputed by accused as his identity as assailant is not proved.
63. PW16 is the witness of seizure and sealing of samples of Salman and Talib by IO and concerned doctor and even that is not disputed by accused. PW17/IO proved that he recorded the statement/complaint of injured Arshad Khan, Ex.PW2/A, but the injured has not proved the contents of the same. The live and empty cartridges were recovered, are of no significance as identity of accused is not established. Site plan was prepared by IO, Ex.PW2/B, but that is not disputed by complainant as he suffered injury. The arrest of accused is not disputed and so as the collection of DVR and CDs by the IO as in the same, the face of person firing is not seen and nor identified by any injured persons. The disclosures of accused Sakib are not admissible as State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 28 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:42:48 +0530 there is no recovery. PW17/IO had also not identified accused Sakib from the DVD, Ex.P6 containing video footage of firing as his face is not visible, though he had not identified all injured persons, garment shop and the spot. In his cross-examination, PW17 admitted that in the site plan, he had not mentioned the place of recovery of said cartridges and the direction in which accused fled, which also goes in favour of accused. There is no independent eye-witness to the incident despite the spot admittedly being a thickly populated area and IO had admitted that all injured were conscious at the time of their medical and incident and thus they would have seen the assailant, but they could not identify accused Sakib as assailant.
64. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father's name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
65. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (351 BNSS), accused Sakib Khan denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and took the defence that all the witnesses are interested witnesses State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 29 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.12.17 16:42:55 +0530 and he was falsely implicated by the police official in the present case without any fault on his part and he is innocent.
66. The evidence led by prosecution is not reliable, cogent and has lot of infirmities as there are lot of material variations, omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of all the public/eye-witnesses/injured and others led by the prosecution, and it failed to prove the identity of accused as assailant and thus, the defence of accused is of no importance as foundational facts have not been led by prosecution.
Consequently, prosecution could not prove the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, 323/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that he fired at injured persons with intention to kill or used the fire arms and caused beatings to the injured persons.
67. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
68. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 30 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:42:59 +0530 benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
69. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and 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 accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that 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 and 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 persons.
CONCLUSION
70. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sakib Khan qua offence punishable u/s 307 IPC & 323/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 31 of 32 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.12.17 16:43:05 +0530 record.
71. Consequently, the accused Sakib Khan is acquitted of the offence u/s 307 IPC, 323/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 17th DAY OF December 2025.
Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.12.17 16:43:10 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/17.12.2025 State Vs Sakib Khan FIR No. 559/2018 PS Jafrabad Page 32 of 32