Delhi District Court
State vs Junaid on 28 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA Courts : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 72/2024
FIR No. 6/2024
Police Station New Usmanpur
Under Section 307 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act
Instituted on 19.04.2024
Argued on 22.11.2025
Decided on 28.11.2025
Final Order Acquitted
State Vs. Junaid S/o Shahid R/o K. No. 485, Gali No. 7/4, Gautam
Vihar, Delhi-94
For State : Sh. Abhishek Pandey,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Defence: Sh. R. K. Kochar, Advocate for the accused.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:-
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall decide the charges levelled against the accused under sections 307 IPC and sections 25 & 27 of SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 1 of 18 Arms Act.
2. Vide order dated 22.04.2025, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under section 25 of Arms Act. Further, on 10.05.2024, charges were framed against the accused u/s 307 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The accused has pleaded not guilty to the said charges.
Prosecution Evidence:-
3. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in this case.
4. PW1 Sadiq deposed that the incident had occurred on 03.01.2024 at 7.30 pm while he was standing outside gali No. 7, Gautam Vihar, near Khadde Wali Masjid, Usmanpur, Delhi, along with Nabil and Naveen, when suddenly something hit him on the backside of his lower part of hip. He further deposed that he was not aware by what object he was hit and who threw the object.
5. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW1 denied that he had stated to the police that on 03.01.2024 at 07.30 pm, accused Junaid was consuming liquor. He further denied that he and Nadeem had quarrel with Junaid on the issue of drinking liquor. PW 1 deposed that he is not aware who caused injury to him and he cannot identify the object by which he was hit from behind.
6. PW 2 Khalil deposed that Navil is his brother. He deposed that on 03.01.2024, he sustained injuries and he took him to the hospital. He further deposed that police had never recorded his statement. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW2 denied that he had stated to the police and the incident had happened on 03.01.2024.
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 2 of 18
7. PW 3 Navil deposed that the incident occurred on 03.01.2024 at about 7:30 pm. He was present at Gautam Vihar, near Khadde Wali Masjid, when a sharp object suddenly came and hit his leg, causing injuries. He is not aware what was the object or who threw it. He further deposed that the police never recorded his statement.
8. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW 3 denied that he stated to the police that on the date of the incident, accused Junaid was consuming liquor near the tubewell at Gautam Vihar, Khadde Wali Masjid. He further denied that a quarrel took place between Sadik and Nadeem with Junaid. He further denied that Junaid threatened Sadik, or that Sadik tried to pacify him. He further denied that Junaid again threatened Sadik. He further denied that Junaid took out a pistol-like weapon from his left pocket and fired at Sadik, or that Sadik tried to save himself and the bullet hit his right leg. He further denied that he and Nadeem tried to stop Junaid. He further denied that Junaid fired again and the bullet hit his (witness's) right leg. He further denied that Nadeem was also hit by the bullet fired by Junaid in his left hand. He denies the suggestion and states that he did not see any assailant and is not aware of the object that hit him.
9. PW4 Nadeem has deposed that the incident had occurred on 03.01.2024 at about 7:30 pm. PW 4 further deposed that he was present at Gautam Vihar, near Khadde Wali Masjid. Suddenly, a sharp object came and hit his hand, due to which he sustained injuries. He further deposed that he was not aware of what the object was or who threw it.
He further deposed that police never recorded his statement.
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 3 of 18
10. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he denied that he told the police that accused Junaid was consuming liquor near the tubewell, that he quarreled with Sadik, threatened him, took out a pistol-like weapon, fired at Sadik, or that the bullets hit Sadik, Navil, or me, or that public persons gathered and Junaid fled. (Confronted with statement Mark A2.) The witness denies the suggestion that accused Junaid committed the offence on 03.01.2024, stating that he did not see any assailant and does not know what object hit him.
11. PW5 HC Pawan Kumar deposed that on 04.01.2024, PW 5 was posted as Duty Officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. He further deposed that at about 2:00 am, SI Dev Kumar handed over the tehrir to the witness, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered through the computerized system at the police station. He further deposed the printout of the FIR is Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed on the tehrir, the witness made the endorsement Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that he issued the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Dev Kumar. The witness handed over the copy of the FIR, the tehrir, and the certificate to him.
12. In his cross examination, PW 5 denied that the FIR is ante-dated or ante-timed. He stated that he does not know the name of the CCTNS computer operator who entered the data. He further stated that, in his presence, the IO did not record the statement of the computer operator, and the computer operator did not issue any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that he did not tell SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 4 of 18 the IO that the computer operator was working under his control or that the computer system was under his supervision.
He further deposed that that he does not remember the time when the certificate under Section 65B was prepared and completed. He further stated that the concerned SHO had not signed the certificate under Section 65B of the IEA, and in his presence, the IO also had not signed it.
13. PW 6 Ct. Deepak deposed that on 03.01.2024, he was on emergency duty. On that day, upon receipt of DD No. 79A regarding an incident of firing, he accompanied SI Dev Kumar to Gali No. 8, Gautam Vihar, New Usmanpur, at about 08:00 PM. Upon reaching the spot, they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to JPC Hospital. As per the direction of the IO, he remained at the spot while the IO proceeded to JPC Hospital. He further stated that on making local inquiry from the family members of the injured, he came to know that a quarrel had taken place near Khadde Wali Masjid. After some time, SI Dev Kumar returned to the spot. They then proceeded to Ballu ka tubewell near Khadde Wali Masjid. The crime team and FSL team were called to the spot. During inspection, the FSL team lifted an exhibit from the spot, i.e., one empty cartridge kept in a small white box. The IO seized the same. Thereafter, they returned to PS Usmanpur where the complainant, Mohd. Sajid, was found present. The complainant narrated the facts of the incident, and the IO recorded his statement, already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The IO prepared the tehrir and handed it over to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. He further stated that thereafter, the police officials along with the complainant again SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 5 of 18 reached the spot. At the instance of the complainant, the IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B, which bears his (Ct. Deepak's) signature at point B. The complainant informed that the accused Junaid was a resident of Gali No. 7, Gautam Vihar, near Khadde Wali Masjid. The complainant was then relieved from the spot.
14. Thereafter, the witness stated that a secret informer met the police party and disclosed that accused Junaid was present at Gali No. 7/4, Gautam Vihar, Khadde Wali Masjid. On receiving this information, they proceeded to the said address, where the secret informer pointed towards a person and then left the spot. That person was apprehended, and upon interrogation, he revealed his name as Junaid, son of Sahid (the accused present in Court). The witness further stated that after interrogation, the IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A. The IO also conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/B, bearing his signature at point A. During interrogation, accused Junaid admitted his involvement and stated that he could get recovered the weapon of offence i.e., the pistol. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex. PW6/C, bearing his signature at point A. The witness stated that the accused was produced before the concerned Court and one-day police custody remand was obtained. During further interrogation, the accused disclosed that he had earlier wrongly stated that Nadeem and Khalid had snatched a pistol from him, and further disclosed that he could get the said pistol recovered from a room situated on the third floor of his house. He then led the police team to that room, and at his instance, the pistol was recovered from his house. The pistol is Ex.
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 6 of 18 PW6/D, bearing his signature at point A, and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E, bearing his signature at point A.
15. PW 6 further stated that the seizure memo of the empty cartridge lifted by the FSL team from the spot is Ex. PW6/F, bearing his signature at point A. The accused also pointed out the place of the incident, and the IO prepared the pointing-out memo Ex. PW6/G, bearing his signature at point A.
16. At this stage, the MHC(M) produced one yellow envelope bearing details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, containing particulars of the present FIR and addressed to the SHO, PS New Usmanpur, marked Ex. F1 and 1/2. The envelope was sealed with the seal of FSL AK Delhi. With the permission of the Court, the seal of the envelope was broken and it was opened. The MHC(M) then took out one transparent white box covered with transparent adhesive tape, beneath which torn doctor tape sealed with the seal of "DK" was found, bearing details of the present FIR, the IO/SI Dev Kumar, and the date 04.01.2024. The transparent box also bore a QR code. With the Court's permission, the transparent tape was removed and the box was opened. The lid of the box bore the details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, Ex. F1. From inside the box, one pistol was taken out. The same was shown to the witness, who identified it as the pistol recovered from the possession of accused Junaid. The pistol also bore the details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, Ex. F1. The case property was exhibited as Ex. P-1.
17. At that stage, the MHC(M) also produced one yellow envelope bearing details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, containing the particulars of the SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 7 of 18 present FIR and addressed to the SHO, PS New Usmanpur, marked Ex. EC1 and 2/2. The envelope was sealed with the seal of FSL AK Delhi. With the permission of the Court, the seal was broken and the envelope was opened. The MHC(M) took out one transparent white cylindrical box covered with transparent adhesive tape, sealed with the seal of "DK" and bearing the details of the present FIR. The cylindrical box also bore a QR code. With the Court's permission, the transparent tape was removed and the box was opened. The cylindrical box bore the details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, Ex. EC1 and 2/2. Its blue- coloured lid was opened, and from inside, one empty cartridge was taken out, which also bore the details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, Ex. EC1. Upon seeing the empty cartridge, the witness stated that it was the same empty cartridge lifted from the spot. The empty cartridge was exhibited as Ex. P-2. At that stage, the MHC(M) further produced one white envelope bearing details SFSL DLH/6229/BAL/641/24, containing particulars of the present FIR and addressed to the SHO, PS New Usmanpur, with an endorsement stating that two out of five 7.65 mm cartridges sent for test firing were being returned in unsealed condition. The MHC(M) stated that these were two live cartridges returned by the FSL after three live cartridges had been used for test firing. The said two live cartridges were received back by the MHC(M).
18. In his cross examination, PW 6 deposed that he did not remember the DD entry by which he was associated with the investigation and that he reached Gali No. 8, Gautam Vihar at about 7:30 pm where several public persons were present, but he did not know whether the IO SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 8 of 18 recorded the statement of any such person. He stated that the IO left the hospital within 10-15 minutes of his arrival and that the crime team reached the spot around 9:00 pm, remained for 30-45 minutes, conducted videography in his presence and lifted one empty cartridge for which a seizure memo was prepared bearing his signature. He denied that no cartridge was lifted in his presence or that he did not sign the seizure memo. He stated that he reached the police station around 10:30 pm and did not see the IO obtain the signature of Mohd. Sajid on any blank paper, and denied that no statement or tehrir was prepared or that Mohd. Sajid was not present. He stated that he again visited the spot on 04.01.2024 in the morning and signed the site plan at about 4:00 am, and denied that he was not present at the spot or during the preparation of the site plan. He stated that a secret informer met them at about 3:00 am and that the accused was brought to the police station between 4:00-5:00 pm. He did not remember making any arrival entry and admitted signing Ex. PW6/A to PW6/E. He stated that they reached the accused's residence between 3:00-4:00 am where 4-5 persons were present whose statements were not recorded, and that the accused resided on the 3rd floor of a 4-5 storey building. He stated that no videography of the pistol recovery was done and that neither he nor the IO put any identification mark on the pistol. He denied that no recovery was effected, that the accused was picked from Wednesday market, that he never visited the house of the accused, or that the IO and he falsely planted the pistol and fabricated the recovery. They remained at the house of accused at third floor for about half an hour.
19. PW 7 SI Dev Kumar deposed that on 03.01.2024, he was on emergency SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 9 of 18 duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. At about 7:56 PM, DD Entry No. 79A regarding an incident of firing was assigned to him, and he along with Ct. Deepak reached the spot at Gali No. 7, Gautam Vihar, near Khadde Wali Masjid, Usmanpur, where he came to know that the injured persons had already been shifted to JPC Hospital. He left Ct. Deepak at the spot and proceeded to JPC Hospital, where injured Sadiq and Nadeem were under treatment, while injured Navil Khan was referred to a higher medical centre. Injured Sadiq was not fit to give a statement. He obtained the MLCs of the injured persons and received Sadiq's clothes in a sealed parcel, which he sealed as Ex. PW7/A, bearing his signature at point A. He returned to the spot, called the Crime Team and FSL, and lifted an empty cartridge from the spot, which he seized vide memo Ex. PW6/F, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he returned to the police station, where injured Sadiq narrated the facts of the incident, and he recorded Sadiq's statement as Ex. PW1/A (Sadiq's signature at point A, SI Dev Kumar's signature at point B). He also prepared the tehrir vide Ex. PW7/B, bearing his signature at point A, and handed it to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he along with Ct. Deepak and the complainant returned to the spot, where he prepared the site plan at Sadiq's instance, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point C. The complainant was then relieved. He stated that a secret informer met them and disclosed that accused Junaid was present at Gali No. 7, near Khadde Wali Masjid. On this information, they reached the address, where the informer pointed out a person who was revealed to be Junaid (present in Court). On interrogation, Junaid admitted his involvement and stated SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 10 of 18 that he could get the weapon of offence, i.e., a pistol, from Khaleel. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused (accused's signature at point B, his signature at point C). He thereafter arrested Junaid vide memo Ex. PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/B, both bearing signatures of the accused at point B and his signature at point C. The accused was produced before the concerned Court, and police custody was obtained. During further interrogation, Junaid disclosed that he had wrongly mentioned Nadeem and Khaleel and stated that he could get the pistol from his house. The supplementary statement of the accused was recorded as Ex. PW7/C (accused's signature at point A, his signature at point B).
20. PW 7 further deposed that the accused pointed out the place of the incident, and he prepared the pointing-out memo Ex. PW6/H (accused's signature at point B, his signature at point C). At the accused's instance, one pistol was recovered from a room on the third floor of his house. He prepared the sketch of the pistol as Ex. PW6/D (accused's signature at point B, his signature at point C) and seized the pistol vide Ex. PW6/E (accused's signature at point B, his signature at point C). The MLCs of the injured were deposited for final opinion regarding the nature of injuries. He also examined witnesses Mohd. Sadiq, Khaleel, Nadeem, and Navil, and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are exhibited as Ex. PW7/D, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW7/E, and Ex. PW7/F respectively. On his transfer, he handed over the file to MHC(R). PW7 further deposed that he could identify the case property, i.e., the pistol and empty cartridges, if shown to him. The pistol is already Ex. P-1 and the two empty cartridges are Ex. P-2. The accused SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 11 of 18 was correctly identified by him in court.
21. In his cross examination, PW 7 deposed that he had not obtained the signatures of any public person when the empty cartridges were lifted, no videography was prepared at that time, and no mark of identification was put on the cartridges. He obtained the signature of Constable Deepak on the seizure memo of the empty cartridges and denied that he had not prepared any seizure memo or obtained signatures at the spot. He did not record the statement of Ct. Deepak at the spot but recorded it later at the police station. The crime team reached the spot about one and a half hours after receiving the information, and the empty cartridges were not lifted by them. He did not remember the exact time he reached the police station on 03.01.2024, nor whether he made any arrival entry. He prepared the site plan at around 4-5:00 AM on 04.01.2024 and denied that he had falsely prepared the site plan or conducted all proceedings at the PS. He left the police station at 8:00 AM on 04.01.2024 and did not remember making any departure entry. He stated that he did not conduct any videography or photography at the place of recovery, did not prepare a site plan of the place of recovery, and did not record statements or obtain signatures of the inmates of the accused's house. He did not remember how many persons were present or the number of storeys in the accused's house, nor from which storey the pistol was recovered. They remained at the house for about 1-1.5 hours. He denied that no pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused at his instance or that he obtained any signature of Ct. Deepak on documents at the PS. He did not find any documentary proof to show that the accused resided at that house SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 12 of 18 and denied all suggestions to the contrary.
22. PW 8 Alpana Kumar deposed that on 24.04.2024, two sealed parcels and five 7.65 mm cartridges were received for test firing in unsealed condition and marked to her for examination. Upon opening parcel no. 1, one improvised 7.65 mm pistol was received and marked as Ex. F1. Upon opening parcel no. 2, one 7.65 mm cartridge case was received and marked as Ex. EC1. Her report of the examination is Ex. PW8/A, bearing her signature at point A. She stated that the improvised pistol (Ex. F1) was designed to fire standard 7.65 mm cartridges and was in working order; the test firing was conducted successfully. The cartridge case (Ex. EC1) was found to be a fired empty cartridge. Three out of the five cartridges received for test firing were test fired through the improvised pistol (Ex. F1), and the test-fired cartridge cases were marked TC1 to TC3. The individual characteristics of the firing pin marks and breech face marks on Ex. EC1 and the test-fired cartridge cases (TC1-TC3) were examined under a comparison microscope (Leica DMC) and were found to be identical. Hence, Ex. EC1 was fired through the improvised pistol Ex. F1. She further stated that the exhibit marked F1 is a firearm and Ex. EC1 is ammunition as defined under the Arms Act, 1959. The remaining two cartridges out of five received for test firing were returned to the concerned Forwarding Authority in unsealed condition. The case exhibits sent for examination were sealed with the seal of A.K., FSL Delhi.
23. In her cross examination, she deposed that she had not received the parcels personally and had taken the assistance of one Scientific SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 13 of 18 Assistant in preparing the report in this case. She clarified that she did not mention the name of the person who assisted, as the report was prepared by her. She further stated that the articles, i.e., the pistol and cartridge, were not individually marked, but the parcels in which they were sent were marked. She denied the suggestion that she had prepared the report routinely at the suggestion of the IO.
24. PW 9 SI Ujjwal Rana deposed that on 12.03.2024, he was posted at PS New Usmanpur as SI. The investigation was assigned to him by MHC(R) on the direction of a senior officer. He prepared the charge sheet on 29.03.2024 after completing the investigation regarding accused Junaid and submitted the charge sheet before the concerned Court.
25. In his cross examination, PW 9 deposed that he had not called the complainant in this case, nor did he record the statement of any witnesses. He further stated that he had not prepared any other documents regarding the seizure of any articles. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely prepared the charge sheet against the accused.
26. PW 10 Subodh Kumar Goswami deposed that in 2024, he was posted as Additional DCP, North-East District. Upon perusal of the FIR and the case file along with all relevant documents, including the seizure memo and ballistic examination report dated 24.07.2024, he found that accused Junaid was liable to be prosecuted for possession of an improvised 7.65 mm pistol. Accordingly, he accorded sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of the accused under SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 14 of 18 Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act vide order dated 02.12.2024. He identified his signature on the sanction order at point A, and the order is exhibited as Ex. PW10/A.
27. In his cross examination, PW 10 deposed that he did not personally examine the weapon. He denied the suggestion that he had issued the sanction order (Ex. PW10/A) without sufficient material or that he had not applied his mind prior to issuing the order. He further denied that the sanction order was issued at the instance of any other person.
28. On 09.10.2024, accused has admitted document i.e. i)I/C communication along with PCR form and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is now Ex. A1 (Colly)( witness is mentioned at serial No.6). ii) Registration of the present FIR along with certificate under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act by DO/HC Pawan and same is Ex. A2(colly) (witness is mentioned at serial No.7), iii) Dr. Farhan Akhtar, CMO who prepared three MLCs No. 20658, 20659 and 20660 are now Ex. A3, A4 and A5 respectively (witness is mentioned at serial No. 9), iv)Dr. Shavang Yadav, SR who gave final opinion on MLC No. 20658 is now Ex. A6 (Witness is mentioned at serial No.10), v)Dr. Murli Mohan, SR surgery gave final opinion on MLC N0. 20660 is now Ex. A7(witness is mentioned at serial No.11).
Statement of accused:-
29. After examination of all the witnesses, statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 14.11.2025 to which he did not wish to lead defence evidence.
Findings:-
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 15 of 18
30. As per the case of the prosecution, accused had fired at Mohd. Sadiq and Nadeem, also one Nadeem had suffered injuries on his hand. The MLCs are on record to substantiate the injuries as are narrated in the charge sheet. But none of the injured persons have supported the case of prosecution.
31. It is deposed by PW1 Sadiq that on 03.01.2024 at about 07.30 pm, he was standing alongwith Nabeel and Naveen when suddenly something hit him on the back side of lower hip. He further deposed that he does not know what hit him and he was taken to the hospital. Hence, this witness has not supported the case of prosecution.
32. PW 2 has also not supported the case of prosecution. PW 3 Naveen who is also injured deposed that some sharp object hit on his leg and he is not aware who has hit him. Similarly, PW 4 Nadeem also deposed on the same lines.
33. Since, all the injured persons have not supported the case of prosecution that they had suffered bullet injuries and other injuries due to the act of accused, hence, charges for offence 307 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act are not proved against accused. However, there is a charge u/s 25 of Arms Act also against the accused as a pistol was recovered at his instance.
34. A perusal of seizure memo of pistol, Ex.PW6/E would show that recovery was effected from 'first floor' of accused person's house. It is not mentioned in the seizure memo, if this is own house of accused or rented house, it is not mentioned who was present in the house of accused at the time of offence, it is not mentioned who opened the door of the house.
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 16 of 18
35. PW 7 SI Dev Kumar is IO of the case who deposed that recovery was made from a room situated on the third floor of the house. Hence, there is discrepancy that from which floor the recovery of pistol was made.
36. Further, IO deposed in cross examination that he does not remember how many persons were present in the house of accused. He further stated that he does not remember how many stories are in the house of accused though he had deposed that he remained at the house of the accused for about one and an half hour. Further, no public person has been arrayed as a witness in this case towards the recovery of weapon. It is not stated by IO in his examination in chief that he asked any public person to join the investigation.
37. PW 6 Ct. Deepak was present alongwith IO during the recovery of weapon. In his cross examination, he deposed that when they reached at the residence of accused, 4-5 persons were present there. But IO has not mentioned anywhere anything about these witnesses. IO has not explained why they are not made witness. Further, this witness deposed that the house of accused is built up till 4-5 stories and accused alongwith his family was residing at third floor. He further deposed that he does not know who resides on the first floor and second floor.
38. Perusal of the documents and statements on record would show the material discrepancy in the case of prosecution towards the recovery of weapon of offence.
39. PW 2 states that his family members were present but IO states that he does not know if family members were present. Further, he does not explain why public persons were not asked to join the investigation SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 17 of 18 when search of accused was made. In view of the discussion, there are several discrepancies in the recovery of pistol also and version of prosecution as well.
Conclusion:-
40. In the overall circumstances of the case, prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused Junaid beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused is hereby acquitted for the charged offence under sections 307 IPC and section 25 & 27 of Arms Act.
Digitally signedAnnounced in Open Court TWINKLE by TWINKLE
WADHWA
WADHWA Date: 2025.11.28
16:35:42 +0530
as on 28.11.2025.
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
Additional Sessions Judge-02
North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No. 72/2024 State Vs. Junaid page 18 of 18