Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Gupta on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-05: SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLSE01-001793-2019
SC No. 117/2019
FIR No. 458/2018
U/S. 307 IPC & SEC. 25/27 ARMS ACT
PS: KALKAJI
STATE Vs. DEEPAK GUPTA
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 117/2019.
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 12.03.2019.
3. Name of the complainant : Ms. Apurva Singh Gujjar.
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 17.12.2018.
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : Deepak Gupta
S/o. Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta
R/o. Village Lahara Pur, PS
Shahayal, Tehsil Vidhuna,
District Auriya, U.P.
6. Offence Complained of : U/s. 307 IPC &
Section 25/27 Arms Act.
7. Offence Charged : U/s. 307 IPC & Section 27
Arms Act.
: Additionally charged -
U/s. 25 Arms Act.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Convicted.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 30.05.2025.
11. Date on which Order Announced : 10.07.2025.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 1 of 31 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case against accused Deepak Gupta is that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, he went to residence of complainant Ms. Apurva Singh at H. No. J-3/94, 3 rd Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi, and fired at her with a country made pistol with intent to kill her. The complainant avoided being hit by bullet, by moving aside and the bullet hit the wall behind her. Complainant, her friend Prerna and her friend's brother Subham apprehended accused Deepak Gupta at the spot and called PCR. Police reached the spot and found a pistol lying on mattress alongwith one fired bullet with its lead and a pepper spray near door of the house. The pistol was found loaded with four live cartridges in its magazine. The accused was handed over to police and he was found in possession of a bag containing spare magazine loaded with 07 live cartridges, one buttondar knife, one pepper spray and a plastic bottle containing some petrol like substance. The FIR was registered on written complaint of complainant Apurva Singh Gujjar and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 307 IPC & Section 25/27 Arms Act.
2. Detailed arguments were heard on charge from Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 16/03/2019, accused Deepak Gupta was charged for offence U/s. 307 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act. Vide order dated 01/05/2023, accused was additionally charged for offence U/s. 25 Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and preferred trial.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 2 of 31
3. The prosecution lead evidence and examined 12 witnesses to bring home the charged offence against the accused.
4. (a) PW1/complainant Ms. Apurva Singh Gujjar deposed that in the year 2018 she used to reside at DDA Flat, Kalkaji, alongwith her friend Prerna. She deposed that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, someone knocked at the main door of their flat and when her friend Prerna opened the door, accused Deepak Gupta sprayed something on her face. She deposed that accused Deepak Gupta was known to her as he used to visit her at her work place at Soni Dental Clinic, Gandhi Vihar. She deposed that she alongwith her friend's brother Subham rushed towards the gate and when Subham tried to apprehend the accused, he fired at her with the gun that he carried with him. She deposed that she rescued herself by shifting to other side and the bullet hit against wall of the flat. Thereafter, they apprehended the accused and made a call at 100 number, on which police reached there and they handed the custody of accused to police. She deposed that she gave written complaint Ex. PW1/A to police against the accused. She deposed that accused was carrying a bag with him that, on being checked by police, was found containing one knife, magazine loaded with cartridges, two small bottles of around 40- 50ml containing some liquid. Police seized the said articles alongwith pepper spray and the firearm that accused used to commit the offence as well as the fired cartridge recovered from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. She deposed that police arrested the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, conducted SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 3 of 31 his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/D and prepared site plan Ex. PW1/E of the spot at their instance. She deposed that at the instruction of IO, someone clicked photographs of the spot. She stated that she could not tell if they (who photographed the spot) were police officials or private persons as they were in formal dress.
4.(b) PW1 identified the knife Ex. P-1, one empty plastic bottle 'Zurica', one empty half cut plastic bottle '7up Nimbooz Masala Soda' and two pepper spray bottles 'Soldier Self Defence Pepper Spray', Ex. P-3 (Colly.) as the same that were recovered from the bag Ex. P-2 of the accused. She also identified the pistol make Muacar as the same that accused Deepak Gupta used to commit the offence and the magazine alongwith cartridges, Ex. P-4 (Colly.) as the same that were recovered from green bag Ex. P-2 of the accused.
4.(c) PW1 deposed that she was a dentist by profession and accused Deepak used to visit her clinic at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. She stated that the incident occurred at her flat No. J-3/94, DDA Flats, Kalkaji. She replied that accused Deepak fired at her being her one side lover. She answered that " accused Deepak mujhse ektarfa pyar karta tha, maine mana kiya". She identified her signature on sketch memos Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H of pistol, magazine and knife respectively. She also identified 20 photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) of the spot as photographs of her flat/room where the incident occurred.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 4 of 31
4.(d) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 admitted that in the first week of September 2017, when accused Deepak Gupta visited her clinic i.e. Soni Clinic, she came to know that he too belonged to district Auraiya, U. P., and, thereafter, they had talking terms and they met only twice. She denied the suggestion that accused Deepak Gupta was not in one sided love with her. She admitted that on 07/10/2017 she went to Mumbai, where she met the accused, celebrated his birthday on 08/10/2017 and stayed with him till 11/10/2017 at Fern Residency, Mumbai. She voluntarily stated that she went to Mumbai for conference. She admitted that on 14/03/2018 accused Deepak transferred Rs.10,000/- from his ICICI Bank account to her account. She voluntarily stated that she returned the said money to him on very next day. She replied that she did not remember if accused transferred Rs.1,206/- on 10/02/2018, Rs.2,000/- on 13/02/2018, Rs.1,000/- on 02/05/2018 to her bank account through Paytm and also paid for her air ticket from Delhi to Mumbai on 13/02/2018 as well as train ticket charges from Mumbai to Delhi on 17/08/2018. She voluntarily stated that "agar diye honge toh maine wapas kar diye honge". She replied that she did not remember if accused Deepak visited her house on 18/12/2017 on the occasion of her birthday. She voluntarily stated that "agar aaya hoga toh jabardasti aaya hoga, maine nahi bulaya". She admitted the 07 printout photographs Mark D-1 (Colly.) as her photographs alongwith accused Deepak.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 5 of 31
4.(e) PW1 denied the suggestion that prior to going to Mumbai on 25/09/2017, she met the accused 5-6 times. She voluntarily stated that she met the accused once or twice. She denied the suggestion that she and accused decided to marry each other, before accused left Delhi for joining his duty at Mumbai on 25/09/2017. She admitted that she met accused's sister Jyoti at Green Park Gurudwara as well as at her house at Gandhi Vihar, Delhi. She voluntarily stated that she met accused's sister as he wanted to introduce his sister to her. She denied the suggestion that the sister of accused met her with marriage proposal of the accused. She replied that she did not remember if accused Deepak visited her at her flat i.e. J-3/94 (supra) on 09/03/2018 but stated that he visited her flat in the month of March 2018, without her permission. She denied the suggestion that on 09/03/2018 they decided to shift to Mumbai and, thereafter, her father visited the house of accused at his native place at Auraiya, U.P., with marriage proposal. She voluntarily stated that her father visited the house of accused to verify his credential. She denied the suggestion that after visit of her father at accused's house, they were sure to get married and, thereafter, accused started searching clinic for her at Mumbai. She denied the suggestion that on 08/06/2018 accused booked train ticket for her from Delhi to Mumbai and also booked a flat on rent basis. She replied that she did not remember if on 31/05/2018 she refused to go to Mumbai. She voluntarily stated that she refused the accused but she did not remember the date.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 6 of 31
4.(f) PW1 denied the suggestion that after her sudden refusal, accused got depressed and started chatting with her through Whatsapp, Facebook and messages. She voluntarily stated that it was one sided chatting. She admitted that she blocked the accused on Whatsapp, Facebook and messages. She replied that she did not remember if accused visited her clinic in the month of September 2018, after conversation with her father. She voluntarily stated that she did not remember the date but accused visited her clinic once and started speaking to her forcefully, however, she refused to speak to him and sent him back. She replied that she did not know if accused visited her at her flat on 17/12/2018 to know the reason of her refusal for marriage.
4.(g) PW1 admitted that there were other flats adjacent to her flat, however, she did not know if any person was residing in those flats. She denied the suggestion that many persons were residing in the flats, adjacent to her flat. She admitted that she had seen many persons passing through those flats. She replied that she never noticed if CCTV cameras were installed in the premises where she lived. She replied that she called police on the day of incident from her mobile phone, however, she did remember the said mobile number due to lapse of time and she was no longer using that number. She replied that she started calling PCR at 07:15AM, whereas, police picked her call at 07:30AM. She replied that she did not remember when police officials reached the spot, however, they came after 07:30AM. She admitted that she heard the firing sound. She voluntarily SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 7 of 31 stated that the accused entered the main door. She replied that she could not say if the firing sound was heard by residents of other flats. She replied that on hearing the firing sound, one uncle, aged more than 50 years, came at the main door of her house, however, she did not know him. She replied that she did not know if any public person was called outside the main door of her house, after arrival of police officials. She replied that she and Subham held the accused as he tried to run away from there after the incident.
4.(h) PW1 admitted that police found the pistol lying on mattress. She replied that apart from police officials, she, her friend Prerna and Prerna's brother Subham were present at the time of recovery of pistol. She admitted that bullet did not hit anybody. She voluntarily stated that "chalai mere upper thi" (the bullet was fired at her). She replied that Prerna opened the door, on which accused forcefully entered inside the room and, thereafter, she and Subham went towards the door. She replied that she was not aware about arrival of accused at her flat, on the day of incident. She denied the suggestion that she was aware about arrival of accused on the day of incident, therefore, she already called Subham at her flat. She denied the suggestion that neither was accused carrying any pistol at the time of incident, nor did he fire at her. She denied the suggestion that the accused was not carrying green colour bag containing knife, magazine, two small bottles with some liquid and pepper spray. She denied the suggestion that the accused could not have fired at her as he SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 8 of 31 was in love with her. She replied that she did not remember the exact time but the police remained at the spot for more than 02 hours and was preparing documents at the spot. She replied that she did not remember the name of police officials who visited the spot, however, the name of one of them was Yashpal Singh. She denied the suggestion that police did not prepare any document at the spot. She admitted that the site plan was not prepared at her instance but was prepared on its own by police. She admitted that she signed the sketch of pistol and cartridges at the spot. She denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested at 02:30PM, whereas, the incident occurred at 07:00AM, on 17/12/2018, due to which she, Subham and Prerna had enough time to falsely implicate accused Deepak Gupta in present case. She denied the suggestion that accused Deepak visited her house to know about her refusal to marry him and he never fired at her, neither did he carry any green colour bag containing alleged articles. She denied the suggestion that pistol, knife and bag containing alleged articles were planted upon the accused. She replied that she did not remember if police lifted forensic samples from the place where bullet hit the wall.
5. PW2 Surendra Chaudhary, DCP, EOW, Mandir Marg, deposed that on 24/05/2022, he was posted as Addl. DCP, South- East, and, on that day, he accorded Sanction U/s. 39 Arms Act vide Letter No.842/SO/Addl. DCP-I/South-East Distt., New Delhi, dated 24/05/2022, Ex. PW2/A, after going through the case file as well as ballistic report, statement of witnesses SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 9 of 31 recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, charge-sheet, FSL report etc. against accused Deepak Gupta, in present case. He deposed that the gun was not produced before him for the purpose of Sanction U/s. 39 Arms Act since it was a matter of forensic ballistic analysis, however, the report of the same was considered by him.
6. PW3 Ms. Prerna Jain, friend/roommate of complainant Ms. Apurva Singh Gujjar, deposed that on 16/12/2018 she alongwith Apurva (PW1) was residing at J-3/94, 3 rd Floor, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, Delhi, and, on that day, her brother Subham Jain had come to their flat and stayed there in the night of 16/12/2018. She deposed that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, somebody knocked at the door of their flat. On opening the door, she saw that the boy standing at the door, started shouting "Apurva tum mujhse baat kyo nahi kar rahi ho, mujhe wapas kyo nahi le leti ho". She deposed that the said person created a scene, resulting which many public persons gathered there. She deposed that the boy tried to enter their room, however, her brother Subham stopped him and held him at the door of their flat and, thereafter, Apurva called police. Police reached the spot and took all of them to PS Kalkaji, where she was inquired about the incident and her signature were obtained on certain papers. She did not identify accused Deepak Gupta as the offender who came to their flat and created the scene.
7.(a) PW4 Subham, brother of Prerna (PW3), deposed that he did not remember the address and locality where his sister Prerna SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 10 of 31 used to reside in a rented accommodation since he came to Delhi for the first time 2-3 days prior to the incident that occurred on 17/12/2018. He deposed that on 17/12/2018 when he was sleeping at his sister's flat, somebody knocked at the door at about 07:00AM, on which his sister opened the door. He deposed that on hearing the shouting of his sister, he woke up and went towards the door, and saw that one person was shouting at the door by saying "Apurva Apurva, kaise kiya kyo kiya". He deposed that the said person was trying to enter the house forcefully and he tried to stop him, however, he entered the house forcefully. He deposed that he and his sister apprehended the offender and made him sit on ground. In the meanwhile, neighbours gathered at the spot. He deposed that Apurva was also standing inside the room; she was scared at that time. He deposed that somebody called police, on which police reached the spot and took all of them to police station, where police obtained his signature as well as signature of his sister on certain blank papers and, thereafter, dischargedw them. He deposed that, later on, he came to know that the name of said person was Deepak. He did not identify accused Deepak Gupta as the offender who committed the offence.
PW3 Prerna and PW4 Subham resiled from their statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC and were cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
7.(b) In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW3 and PW4 denied the suggestion that when Prerna opened the door, accused SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 11 of 31 tried to spray on her face, however, she saved herself by putting her hand on her face. They denied the suggestion that accused Deepak was having a pistol in his hand with which he fired at Apurva, however, Apurva saved herself by shifting aside and the bullet hit wall of the room. They denied the suggestion that Subham apprehended the accused and in that process the pistol fell on ground. They denied the suggestion that the police seized the pistol, fired bullet, pepper spray and bag of the accused from the spot. They denied the suggestion that bag of the accused contained 07 live cartridges/rounds, button-operated knife, plastic bottle of petrol, 7up bottle with some liquid in it and box of spray, and police prepared the sketch of said articles in their presence, on which they appended their signatures. PW3 and PW4 identified their signature at point 'B' and 'C' respectively on sketch memos Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, however, voluntarily stated that the police obtained their signature on blank papers. They denied the suggestion that police recorded their statement and read it over to them. They denied the suggestion that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, when Prerna (PW3) opened the door of her flat, one person sprayed on her face but she rescued herself by putting her hand on her face and, thereafter, the said person fired at Apurva (PW1/ complainant), who too somehow saved herself by getting aside and the bullet hit wall of the room (PW3 and PW4 were confronted with their statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC from point 'A' to 'A-1', wherein it was so recorded, however, both the witnesses denied to have made any such statement to police).
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 12 of 31 They denied the suggestion that while Subham was apprehending the accused, the pistol fell on ground, that was seized by police alongwith fired bullet and bag of accused containing magazine with 07 rounds/cartridges, buttondar knife, petrol bottle, 7up bottle and pepper spray box, and prepared their sketch (PW3 and PW4 were confronted with their statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC from point 'B' to 'B-1', wherein it was so recorded, however, both the witnesses denied to have made any such statement to police).
7.(c) Ld. Addl. PP pointed out towards accused Deepak Gupta and asked PW3 and PW4 if he was the same person who knocked at the door of the flat of complainant on the day of incident, however, both the witnesses did not identify the accused as the offender. They voluntarily stated that the offender was having beard at that time. They denied the suggestion that the accused won them over, therefore, they deliberately did not identify him as the offender and deposed falsely. PW3 replied that she did not know if the person who knocked at the door of her flat on the day of incident, was one sided lover of her friend Apurva. 20 Photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) of the spot, pistol with magazine, wall where the bullet hit, pepper spray, spray bottle, fired bullet and bag of the accused were shown to PW3 and PW4, however, both the witnesses stated that they could not identify them as the same were not of the room/flat of PW3 where the incident occurred. PW3 and PW4 denied the suggestion that they compromised with accused and, therefore, they deposed falsely.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 13 of 31
8. PW5 Rajesh Bhatia, owner of H. No. J-3/94, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, Delhi, deposed about giving third floor of the said house/building on rent vide Rent Agreement dated 01/04/2018 Ex. PW3/A, executed between him and tenants Prerna Jain (PW3) and Apurva Singh (PW1/complainant). He deposed that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and, later on, came to know about the incident from other tenants. On being asked leading question by Ld. Addl. PP, PW5 admitted that the aforesaid house was given to Prerna Jain and Apurva Singh, on rent. He admitted that the incident occurred on 17/12/2018. He voluntarily stated that he came to know about the incident from other tenants/neighbours.
9. PW6 Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., deposed that on 24/12/2018, on receipt of notice U/s. 91 CrPC at his office, he gave CAF & CDR Ex. PW6/B of Mobile No. 9540512724 that was issued in the name of complainant Apurva Singh and CAF & CDR Ex. PW6/C of Mobile No. 9958827279 that was issued in the name of accused Deepak Kumar to the IO, alongwith Certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW6/D, in that regard. He deposed that he did not remember if he gave CAF & CDR Ex. PW6/A of Mobile No. 8881175517 to the IO. He deposed that he did not tamper with data of the aforesaid mobile numbers.
10. PW7 SI Ashwini, Photographer, deposed that on 17/12/2018 he was posted as Constable with Crime Branch, SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 14 of 31 South-East, under Chitranjan Park police station and, on that day, he alongwith HC Rakam Singh went to the spot i.e. J-3/94 (supra), that he photographed by digital camera, on instruction of the IO. He deposed that at the spot they found one pistol lying on mattress near wall of the room as well as spots of firing on the wall. They also found one empty cartridge alongwith lead, one spray bottle and bag at the spot. He deposed that he gave the photographs to the IO. He identified 20 photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) as the same that were clicked by him at the spot.
In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 replied that he alongwith HC Rakam Singh went to the spot on receipt of information from Control Room, however, he did not remember the time when HC Rakam Singh received the information. He replied that he did not remember if any public person was present at the spot when they reached there. He replied that he could not say with certainty that the hole mark on wall of the room was of fired shot. He replied that they reached the spot at around 09:30AM and remained there for 30 minutes. He replied that he did not notice if IO made inquiry from any public person during their stay at the spot. He denied the suggestion that neither did they visit the spot, nor did he click photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) and all the proceedings were conducted at police station.
11. PW8 HC Rakam Singh deposed that on 17/12/2018 he was posted with Crime Team, South-East, Chitranjan Park and, on SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 15 of 31 that day, on receipt of information from Control Room, he alongwith Constable Ashwini (PW7) reached the spot, where Constable Ashwini clicked photographs of the spot, whereas, he inspected the scene of crime and tried to lift chance-prints but did not find the same there. He prepared crime scene report Ex. PW8/A. He identified 20 photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) as the same that were clicked by Constable Ashwini at the spot.
12. PW9 ASI Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 15/01/2019 he took one plastic sealed pullanda and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He deposed that on 16/01/2019 he took another sealed parcel vide RC No.05/21/19 and after depositing the same to FSL, Rohini, he received acknowledgment from FSL and handed it to the MHC(M). He deposed that till the period case property remained in his custody, it was not tampered with.
13. PW10 Dr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 15/01/2019 one parcel sealed with the seal of 'YP' of present case was received at office of FSL through HC Dinesh Kumar and the same was marked to him for examination. The seal on parcel was intact and, as per specimen, was provided with FSL Form. He deposed that one improvised pistol of 7.65mm bore, eleven 7.65mm cartridges, one 7.65mm cartridge case (percussion cap was found absent), one deformed bullet and one spare magazine, were taken from the parcel and he marked them as Ex. 'F1' (improvised pistol), 'A1' to 'A11' (7.65 cartridges), 'EC1' (7.65 cartridge case), 'EB1' (deformed bullet) SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 16 of 31 & 'M1' (improvised spare magazine) respectively. On examination, he found the improvised pistol marked Ex. 'F1' in working order and the test fire was conducted successfully by using cartridges marked Ex. 'A1' & 'A2'. The test fired cartridges cases were marked as 'TC1' & 'TC2' and two recovered test fired bullets were marked as 'TB1' & 'TB2'. The improvised spare magazine was corresponding to the magazine of improvised pistol of 7.65mm bore like Ex. 'F1'. The cartridge case marked Ex. 'EC1' was a fired empty cartridge and was fired through improvised pistol marked Ex. 'F1' as the individual characteristics of breech face marks and chamber marks present on Ex. 'EC1' and on test fired cartridge cases marked 'TC1' & 'TC2' were found identical when examined under comparison microscope.
PW10 deposed that the bullet marked Ex. 'EB1' was corresponding to the bullet of 7.65mm cartridge and was discharged through improvised pistol marked Ex. 'F1' as the individual characteristics of striations present on Ex. 'EB1' and on test fired bullets marked 'TB1' & 'TB2' were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. The improvised pistol Ex. 'F1' was a firearm, the magazine mark Ex. 'M1' was part of firearm, the cartridges mark 'A1' to 'A11', cartridge case marked 'EC1' & 'EB1' were ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959. He deposed that the exhibits were resealed with the seal of 'PP FSL DELHI'. He prepared his detailed report Ex. PW10/A. SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 17 of 31
14.(a) PW11 IO (Retired) SI Yashpal deposed that in the intervening night of 16-17/12/2018 he was posted as SI at PS Kalkaji and, on that day, on receipt of DD No.6A regarding firing at J-3/94, 3rd Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkahi, he alongwith HC Rajender reached the spot, where he met complainant Dr. Apurva, her friend Prerna and Prerna's brother Subham Jain, who produced accused Deepak Gupta and told him that he had fired at Apurva and sprayed something on face of Prerna Jain. He deposed that on inspection, he found bullet mark on wall of the room of said house and a pistol was lying on bed. He also found the used cartridge, khali khol (empty lead) and spray bottle lying near gate of the room. He deposed that he called crime team officials at the spot. He deposed that he checked the bag of accused Deepak and found one magazine loaded with 07 cartridges, one buttondar knife, a plastic bottle of 500ml with petrol in it and a plastic bottle of 300ml containing chloroform as told by accused. He deposed that crime team reached the spot, inspected and photographed it from different angles. He deposed that on checking the pistol was found loaded with 04 live cartridges. Thereafter, he prepared sketch Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H respectively of the recovered pistol, magazine and 04 live cartridges, 07 live cartridges and knife, sealed them in a pullanda with the seal of 'YP', seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and seal after use was handed over to HC Rajender.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 18 of 31
14.(b) PW11 deposed that, thereafter, complainant Apurva gave a written complaint Ex. PW1/A to him, on the basis of which he prepared rukka Ex. PW11/A and got the FIR registered through HC Rajender. He deposed that he called W/Constable Shashi from police station and sent Prerna Jain to AIIMS Hospital with her, for medical examination. After registration of FIR, HC Rajender returned to spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. He deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/E at the instance of complainant. After some time, Prerna returned to the spot. He deposed that he arrested accused Deepak and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW11/B. Thereafter, they returned to police station and deposited the case property in Malkhana. He deposed that he produced accused Deepak before the Court and obtained his one day PC remand through application Ex. PW11/C. Thereafter, they went to Noida, Sector-15, Naya Gaon, in search of the person from whom accused had purchased the weapon of offence but could not find him. He deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and, during investigation, sent the case property to FSL, moved application Ex. PW11/D for collecting CAF and CDR of mobile phone of accused as well as complainant Apurva, collected report and photographs from crime team officials and rent agreement from landlord of the house where the incident occurred, and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet in Court. He identified accused Deepak in Court.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 19 of 31
14.(c) In cross-examination by Ld Defence Counsel, PW11 replied that he received DD No.6A at about 07:36AM and reached the spot alongwith HC Rajender at about 07:45AM - 07:50AM. He replied that he found accused Deepak alongwith Subham (PW3) at the entrance gate, whereas, complainant Apurva and her Prerna were present inside the room. He replied that accused Deepak was carrying pithoo bag. He denied the suggestion that accused was not carrying any such pithoo bag containing Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P3 (Colly.) and Ex. P4 (Colly.) as stated by him. He replied that he did not remember if crime team lifted fingerprints from case properties in his presence. He admitted that he did not show the place of bullet mark on wall of the room in site plan. He denied the suggestion that there was no bullet mark on wall of the room, therefore, he did not show them in site plan. He replied that from 01:00PM to 02:15PM - 02:20PM, he made local inquiry from inhabitants of the flats, however, he did not remember from whom he made inquiry with regard to present case. He replied that on being inquired about hearing the fire sound, the neighbours of complainant replied that since it was cold season and they were inside their respective house, they could not hear the bullet sound. He replied that no public person was ready to join investigation, therefore, he could not join them as witness. He replied that disclosure statement of accused was recorded at the spot, however, no public person joined the same. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from possession of the accused and the alleged recovery was planted upon him. He denied the suggestion that he SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 20 of 31 never visited the spot and all the proceedings were conducted while sitting at police station.
15. PW12 ASI Rajender Kumar joined investigation alongwith IO SI Yashpal Singh (PW11) on 17/12/2018, on receipt of DD No.6A regarding firing at J-3/94 (supra) and deposed about proceedings conducted by IO at the spot. He deposed similar to PW11/IO SI Yashpal Singh and corroborated him about apprehension of accused Deepak Gupta at the spot, recovery of pistol, one used cartridge with its empty lead and one spray from the spot, recovery of one magazine with 07 live cartridges/rounds, one plastic bottle containing petrol, one 7up plastic bottle containing chloroform, one buttondar knife and one pepper spray from bag carried by the accused, preparation of sketch of recovered case properties, registration of FIR and the arrest of accused.
In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 denied the suggestion that accused was not carrying any pithoo bag containing articles Ex. P-1, P-2, P-3 (Colly.) and P-4 (Colly.). He replied that he did not remember if crime team took fingerprints from the pistol, pithoo bag and knife. He replied that IO made no inquiry from neighbours at the spot about hearing of fire sound of bullet, in his presence. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from accused Deepak Gupta in his presence and the case property was planted upon him. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and all the proceedings were conducted while sitting at police station.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 21 of 31
16. Since accused Deepak Gupta, through his statement recorded U/s. 294 CrPC r/w Section 313 CrPC on 19/03/2025, admitted following documents, the requirement to prove them through concerned prosecution / public witnesses was obviated :-
i) Ex. A-1 : Registration of FIR;
ii) Ex. A-2 : Certificate U/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act;
iii) Ex. A-3 : DD No. 27A dated 17.12.2018;
iv) Ex. A-4 : DD No. 6A dated 17.12.2018;
v) Ex. A-5 : Copy of Road Certificate & acknowledgment
of FSL (Colly.); &
vi) Ex. A-6 : DAD Notification dated 17/02/1979.
17. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to accused Deepak Gupta and his statement was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. In explanation to incriminating evidence, the accused asserted that he was innocent and the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against him. He stated that he and complainant/PW1 were in love with each other for a long period and their marriage was fixed by her father. He stated that complainant suddenly refused for the marriage proposal and when he went to her residence to know the reason of refusal, she called police and got him arrested by leveling false allegations against him. He did not avail of the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence.
18. I have heard the elaborate final arguments from both sides. The evidence is analyzed as under:-
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta
FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 22 of 31
Victim's Deposition:
19. PW1 Apurva Singh deposed that in the year 2018 she used to reside at DDA Flat, Kalkaji, alongwith her friend Prerna. She deposed that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, someone knocked at the main door of their flat and when her friend Prerna opened the door, accused Deepak Gupta sprayed something on her face. She knew accused Deepak Gupta as he used to visit her at her workplace at Soni Dental Clinic, Gandhi Vihar, as a patient. She deposed that she alongwith her friend's brother Subham rushed towards the gate to apprehend the accused. The accused fired at her with a gun but she dodged the bullet that hit against wall of the flat. Thereafter, they apprehended the accused and called police at 100 number, on which police reached there and they handed the custody of accused to police. She deposed that she gave written complaint Ex. PW1/A to police against the accused. She deposed that accused was carrying a bag with him that, on being checked by police, was found containing one knife, magazine loaded with cartridges, two small bottles containing around 40ml-50ml liquid. Police seized the said articles alongwith pepper spray and the firearm that accused used to commit the offence. Police also seized the fired cartridge recovered from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. She identified the seized knife Ex. P-1, green bag Ex. P-2, plastic bottle and two peppers spray bottles Ex. P-3 (Colly.). She identified seized pistol, cartridges with magazine, fired cartridge and live cartridges Ex. P-4 (Colly.).
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 23 of 31 In answer to the question why accused Deepak fired at her, PW1 replied that accused Deepak had one sided crush on her but she turned him down (accused Deepak mujhse ektarfa pyar karta tha, maine mana kiya). She identified 20 photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) of the place of incident.
Defence of the Accused :
20.(a) The accused cross-examined PW1 Apurva Singh with defence suggestions that they had long-standing love relationship from September-2017 to May-2018 and their marriage was proposed and fixed. Accused cross-examined PW1 with suggestion that PW1 visited him at Mumbai, whereas, he also visited home of PW1. PW1 was cross-examined with suggestion that her father went to house of accused Deepak at his native place at Auraiya, U.P. with marriage proposal. PW1 gave evasive replies to defence suggestions.
b). PW1 did not remember if on 31/05/2018 she refused to go to visit the accused at Mumbai, although, accused had booked train ticket for her and had also made arrangements for her stay at Mumbai. PW1 denied that because of her sudden refusal, accused became depressed and started chatting with her through Facebook, Whatsapp and messages. PW1 voluntarily stated that it was one sided chatting. She admitted that she blocked the accused on Facebook, Whatsapp and messages.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta
FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 24 of 31
c). PW1 did not remember if accused visited her clinic in
December-2018 after having conversation with her father. She voluntarily explained that she did not remember the date but accused once came to her clinic and attempted to forcibly speak to her but she refused and sent him back.
d). PW1 stated that she did not know if accused came to her house at J-3/94, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi, (place of incident) on 17/12/2018 to ask why she refused to marry him. PW1 admitted that she heard the noise of firing as accused came inside the main door of her flat but she did not know if the noise of firing was heard by residents of other flats. She stated that she called police on day of incident through her mobile number. She replied that she and Subham held the accused after the firing. She stated that accused attempted to run away from there because of which they held him. PW1 admitted that police recovered the pistol that was lying on gadda (mattress) in the hall of her flat. She admitted that the fired bullet did not hit anybody. She explained that she was the target (chalai mere upper thi).
e). PW1 denied that she was aware about arrival of the accused to her flat on the day of incident that is why she had already called Subham there. She denied that accused was neither carrying any pistol at the time of incident nor fired at her. She denied that accused was not carrying green bag containing knife, magazine, two small bottles containing some liquid and pepper spray. She denied that accused could not have fired at her as he SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 25 of 31 was in love with her. She denied that the pistol, knife, and the bag as well as its contents were planted upon the accused.
f). The accused admitted that he visited the complainant at her flat at the time of incident; his defence was that he was not carrying any weapon, he did not fire at the complainant and the weapons were wrongfully planted upon him.
Corroboration by Police Witnesses :
21.(a) PW11 SI (retired) Yashpal and PW12 ASI Rajender Kumar deposed that on 17/12/2018, on receipt of DD No.6A (Ex. A-4) regarding firing at flat No. J-3/94 (supra), when they reached the spot, complainant, her friend Prerna and Prerna's brother Subham Jain produced accused Deepak Gupta and told that he fired upon complainant Apurva and sprayed something on face of Prerna. On inspection of the spot, they found bullet mark on wall of the flat and a pistol lying on the bed. They also found used cartridge (khali khol) and spray bottle lying near gate of the room. They found that accused Deepak was carrying a bag containing one magazine loaded with 07 live cartridges, one button-operated knife, a plastic bottle of 500ml containing petrol and a plastic bottle of 300ml containing chloroform, as disclosed by the accused. On checking, the recovered pistol was found loaded with 04 live cartridges. PWs 11 & 12 deposed that the case properties found at the spot were seized and FIR was registered on statement Ex. PW1/A of complainant Apurva Singh. PWs 11 & 12 corroborated the testimony of PW1 SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 26 of 31 regarding arrest of accused from the spot and recoveries made from there.
b). In cross-examination, PWs 11 and 12 denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused Deepak and the recovered case property was planted upon him. PW11 admitted that he had not shown place of bullet mark on wall of the room in site plan Ex. PW1/E. There is nothing in evidence to doubt the credibility of deposition of PW11 and PW12 or to conclude that recovery of arms and ammunition was planted upon the accused. The defence allegations in this regard were perfunctory and devoid of substance.
c). It is observed that non-depiction of spot of impact of bullet on the wall in site plan Ex. PW1/E was small lapse on part of IO and did not affect the credibility of prosecution case.
d). PW7 SI Ashwini deposed that on 17/12/2018, as member of crime team that visited the spot i.e. Flat No. J-3/94, 3 rd Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, he took photographs of the spot with digital camera. He stated that at the spot one pistol was lying on mattress near wall of the room and there was spot of firing on wall of the room. He stated that one empty cartridge and one lead piece were also lying at the spot. He stated that one spray bottle and bag were also found lying at the spot. He identified 20 photographs Ex. P-5 (Colly.) of the aforementioned articles lying at the spot. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony as his job was only to inspect the spot of incident and to photograph it.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 27 of 31 Limited Corroboration by Hostile Witnesses :
22.(a) PW3 Prerna Jain and PW4 Subham Jain supported the prosecution case to a limited extent. They deposed that on 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, a boy came at Flat No. J-3/94, DDA Flats, 3rd Floor, Kalkaji, Delhi, where PW3 Prerna and PW1 Apurva Singh resided together, created a scene and forcibly attempted to enter the flat. PW4 Subham Jain stopped the boy and made him to sit on the floor in their flat. In the meantime, PW1 Apurva called police. Police officials came there and took all of them to police station.
b). In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PWs 3 & 4 denied that the said boy was accused Deepak Gupta and he tried to spray something on face of PW3. They denied that accused Deepak aimed a pistol at Apurva and fired at her but Apurva moved aside and dodged the bullet, that hit wall of the room. They denied that accused Deepak was carrying a bag from which magazine with live cartridges, one button-operated knife and two bottles containing petrol and other liquid were seized by police. They admitted their signatures on outline sketch memo Ex. PW1/F of seized pistol as well as live and empty cartridges. They also admitted their signatures on outline sketch Ex. PW1/G of magazine and 07 live cartridges as well as on seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. They stated that their signatures were taken by police on blank papers.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta
FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 28 of 31
c). Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW3 and PW4, who were
independent witnesses, were hostile to prosecution case and their testimonies reflect that accused Deepak was falsely implicated in this case and case property was falsely planted upon him. In reference to appreciation of evidence of hostile witness, the law is well established that evidence of a hostile witness is not totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but it can be subjected to closure scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of prosecution or defence may be accepted. The evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether; it remains admissible and it is open for the Court to rely on dependable part thereof that is found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence [Ref. State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Mishra AIR (1996) SC 2766, Siddhartha Vashisth @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1].
d). From the deposition of PW3 and PW4 as well as from defence raised by the accused in cross-examination of PW1 and statement recorded U/s. 313 CrPC, it is proved that accused Deepak Gupta went to flat of the complainant on day of incident and attempted to forcibly enter her flat. PW3 and PW4 admittedly signed the outline sketches of seized pistol, magazine and cartridges Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G as well as seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, albeit alleged to be blank documents when they signed them. To this limited extent, PW3 and PW4 corroborated the prosecution case.
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta
FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 29 of 31
Forensic Evidence :
23. PW5 Dr. Punit Puri proved his forensic ballistic report Ex. PW5/A, as per which he forensically examined the improvised pistol of 7.65mm bore Ex. 'F1', eleven 7.65mm cartridges Ex. 'A1 to A11' one 7.65mm cartridge case Ex. 'EC1', one deformed bullet Ex. 'EB1' & one spare magazine Ex. 'M1'. He deposed that the improvised spare magazine Ex. 'M1' corresponded to magazine of improvised pistol Ex. 'F1'. The empty cartridge case Ex. 'EC1' had been fired through the improvised pistol Ex. 'F1'. The bullet Ex. 'EB1' had been discharged through improvised pistol Ex. 'F1'.
PW5 deposed that improvised pistol mark Ex. 'F1' was a firearm, magazine Ex. 'M1' was part of firearm, whereas, the cartridges Ex. 'A1 to A11', cartridge case Ex. 'EC1' and discharged bullet Ex. 'EB1' were ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959.
Conclusion :
24. From the evidence, it is proved that accused Deepak Gupta was a jilted lover and he was annoyed or depressed by complainant's refusal to marry him. On 17/12/2018, at about 07:00AM, he went fully armed with dangerous weapons including loaded unlicenced firearm, extra magazine loaded with live cartridges, knife and dangerous chemicals to residence of complainant and fired at her with pistol with intent to kill her. He SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 30 of 31 was overpowered by complainant and her friends, and the weapons were seized from him. The preparedness of accused as reflected by number of weapons carried by him show his intent to kill the complainant.
In view of foregoing observations and analysis, accused Deepak Gupta is convicted for offence U/s. 307 IPC & Section 25 & 27 Arms Act. The sentence shall be announced after hearing submissions from both sides.
Digitally
Announced in the open court signed by
VISHAL
dated: 10.07.2025 VISHAL SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.07.10
16:06:40
+0530
(VISHAL SINGH)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 117/2019 State Vs. Deepak Gupta
FIR No. 458/2018 PS : Kalkaji Page No. 31 of 31