Delhi District Court
State vs Sahil@Nikhil on 15 January, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
NEW DELHI
SC 386/2022
STATE Vs. SAHIL @ NIKHIL & ORS.
FIR No. 211/2021
PS: Sagarpur
U/s. 307,114 & 34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
CNR No. DLND01-007122-2022
STATE VS. SAHIL @ NIKHIL & ORS.
SC No. : 386/2022
Date of offence : 30.04.2021
Accused : 1. Sahil @ Nikhil
S/o Late Sh. Satpal
R/o H. No. B-82,
Gali No. 7,
Nasirpur Harizan Basti,
Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
2. Fakir Chand
S/o Late Sh. Channi Lal,
R/o H. No. B-82,
Gali No. 7,
Harizan Basti Nasirpur,
New Delhi.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 1 of 78
2
3. Smt. Maya Devi
W/o Late Sh. Satpal
R/o H. No. B-82,
Gali No. 7,
Harizan Basti Nasirpur,
New Delhi.
Offence : U/s. 307, 114 & 34 IPC &
27 Arms Act
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 26.07.2021
Plea of accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused No. 1 Sahil @
Nikhil Convicted
Accused No. 2 (Fakir
Chand) & 3 (Smt. Maya
Devi) Acquitted
Date of committal : 05.08.2022
Date of arguments : 22.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons were committed for trial vide order dated 05.08.2022 by court of Ms. Manu Shree, Ld. MM-03, Patiala State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 2 of 78 3 House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
2. On 18.08.2022, police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Cr.P.C. was put before Sh. Harjyot Singh Bhalla, ASJ-04, PHC, New Delhi with a view to put accused on trial.
3. Brief facts on the basis of which charge sheet was filed in the present matter are as follows :-
3.1. The case of prosecution on 30.04.2021, on receipt of DD No. 114A, police officials i.e. ASI Mahender Singh alongwith Ct. Ashok of PS Sagarpur reached at H. No. B-82, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 7, Nasirpur, New Delhi, where they came to know that victim had gone to hospital. ASI Mahender had left the Ct.
Ashok at the spot for safety of the spot and he went to AIIMS hospital and MLC No. 500272609/21 of Vijay Kumar was taken by him. At the hospital, injured Vijay Kumar was inquired about the incident and he gave his statement that he was doing property dealer work. His house and house of his brother Late Sh. Satpal were adjoining, his father had divided the house in two portion and in year 2013 they got constructed two separate houses on the State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 3 of 78 4 land. His father was residing with children of his brother Satpal, who was a habitual drinker and his father under the influence of liquor started abusing him and his children. On 30.04.2021, at about 10:15 PM, his father stood at his gate and started abusing him and his wife. He went to him to make him understand. At that time, his bhabhi and his brother son Sahil @ Nikhil were present there but his father abusing him under the influence of liquor and they started beating him and thrown him out from the house. Thereafter, he and his wife took sticks and had beaten on the gate of his father but a bullet came from inside the house and the bullet hit the right side of his right leg. Thereafter, he and his wife ran towards their house and his nephew Sahil @ Nikhil had chased them, pointed out the pistols towards his head and fired several rounds of bullets stating that he will kill him and he would vacate the house from him. His bhabhi Maya and his father told Sahil to kill him. On the basis of his statement, FIR was lodged u/s 307 IPC.
3.2. During investigation, accused Sahil @ Nikhil was arrested and CCTV footage of place and time of incident was obtained. On interrogation, he admitted the commission of the offence. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 4 of 78 5 Sahil @ Nikhil for the offence u/s 307 IPC r/w 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Name of accused persons namely Fakir Chand and Maya Devi are mentioned in column No. 12 of the charge-sheet.
4. Charge under Section 27 Arms Act was framed against accused Sahil @ Nikhil and charge under Section 307/114/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Sahil @ Nikhil, Fakir Chand and Maya Devi on 21.03.2023. On the facts that on 30.04.2021 at about 10:15 pm at H. No. B-82, Gali No. 7, Harijan Basti, Naseerpur, Sagarpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sagarpur, Sahil @ Nikhil had used firearm with unlicensed pistol upon the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar and he has committed offence punishable u/s 27 of Arms Act. Further, on the abovesaid date, time and place, they all in furtherance of their common intention, accused Sahil had caused injury to the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar on his right calf (leg) with a firearm. Further, accused Fakir Chand and Maya Devi had instigated accused Sahil to fire upon complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar and accused Sahil had pointed pistol upon the head of the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar with intention to kill and fired more shots and they all committed offences punishable under Section 397/114/34 IPC.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 5 of 78 6 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. On 06.06.2025, accused persons have admitted following documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
1) FIR No. 211/2021 dated 01.05.2021; Ex.P1.
2) Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act regarding FIR No. 211/2021; Ex.P2.
3) Endorsement on the rukka;Ex.P3.
4) GD No. 10A;Ex.P4.
5.1 The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses:
S. No. Name of PW Exhibit Nature of document
1. PW-1 Ex.PW1A, Complaint, Site
Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex.PW1/B, Plan, Sketch,
Ex.PW1/C, Print-outs,
Ex.PW1/D MLC of himself
(colly),
Ex.PW1/X1
2. PW-2
Smt. Praveen
w/o Sh. Vijay
Kumar
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 6 of 78
7
3. PW-3 Mark PW3/A Memo
HC Akash
4. PW-4 Ex.PW4/A MLC
Dr. Alice L. Thiek
5. PW-5 Ex.PW5/A, Seizure memo ,
HC Ashok Kumar Ex.PW5/B, Blood gauge, one
Ex.P1(colly) transparent plastic
container containing
empty cartridges
6. PW-6
Ct. Vivek
7. PW-7 Ex.PW7/P1 17 photographs
HC Yatish Yadav (colly)
8. PW-8 Ex.PW8/A, Notice,
Chandra Prakash Ex.PW8/B, copy of letter,
Ex. PW8/C, letter,
Ex.PW8/P1 pen drive
9. PW-9 Ex.PW9/A Certificate u/s 65B
Aslekh Gupta Indian Evidence Act
for pen drive
10. PW-10 Ex.PW10/A, Report, detailed
HC Harikishan Ex.PW10/B report of the scene of
crime
11. PW-11 Ex.PW11/A Report
Babita Gulia
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 7 of 78
8
12. PW-12 Ex.PW12/A seizure memo
HC Phool Singh
13. PW-13 EX.PW13/A Attested copy of DD
ASI Shyam Singh No.114A,
14. PW-14 Ex.PW14/A, Seizure memo,
HC Vikal Singh Ex.PW14/B, arrest memo of
Ex.PW14/C, accused Sahil,
Ex.PW14/D, personal search
Ex.PW14/E, memo, disclosure
Ex.PW14/F, statement, pointing
Ex.PW14/G out memo, copy of
RC, copy of
acknowledgment
15. PW-15 Ex.PW15/A, Report, Report of
Dr. Naresh Kumar Ex.PW15/B allelic data
16. PW-16
Dr. Mohini Singh
17. PW-17 Ex.PW17/A, Copy of FIR No.
Insp. Gautam Ex.PW17/B, 243/21, arrest
Malik Ex.PW17/C, memo, disclosure
Ex.PW17/D statement, GD No.
49A dated
10.06.2021,
18. PW-18 Ex.PW1/X, MLC of injured
SI Mahender Ex.PW18/A, Vijay, endorsement,
Singh Ex.P1, computer copy of
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 8 of 78
9
Ex.P2, FIR, original rukka
Ex.PW18/B, & certificate u/s 65B
Ex.PW18/C, Indian Evidence Act,
Ex.PW18/D, DD No. 49A,
Ex.PW18/X application,
(colly), certificate u/s 65B
Ex.P-18/1, Indian Evidence Act,
Ex.P-18/2 print out of CCTV
footage, cotton
having blood stains,
gauze having blood
stains
19. PW-19 Ex.P-19/1 Pistol, cartridges
SI Mahesh Ex.P-19/2-7
Kumar
20. PW-20 Ex.PW20/A, Entry, entry, entry,
ASI Joginder Ex.PW20/B, entry, entry, entry
Ex.PW20/C, RC No. 208/21 &
Ex.PW20/D, 214/21
Ex.PW20/E, acknowledgment
Ex.PW20/F, slips,
Ex.PW20/G,
Ex.PW20/H
21. PW-21 Ex.PW21/A Sanction
Sh. Amit Goel
After recording statement of accused, the following defence State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 9 of 78 10 witnesses were examined.
1. DW-1 - -
Fakirchand
2. DW-2 - -
Smt. Maya Devi
6. In view of the admission of the accused, following witness is dropped from the list of witnesses:-
Sr. No. Name of the witness
1. PW SI Devender
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
7. The accused persons have admitted following documents:-
1) FIR No. 211/2021 dated 01.05.2021; Ex.P1.
2) Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act regarding FIR No. 211/2021; Ex.P2.
3) Endorsement on the rukka;Ex.P3.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 10 of 78 11
4) GD No. 10A;Ex.P4.
8. PW1 Vijay Kumar is the injured complainant. He deposed that in the year 2013, his father had allotted the aforesaid land to him at Nasirpur and he constructed a house on the said land and the back side land was allotted to the family of his brother namely Sh. Satpal who had already expired. His brother left behind 5 children. In the year 2013 itself, he got constructed a house on the land given to his brother Satpal's family where his wife Maya Devi, his five children and his father started residing. Accused Fakir Chand is his father and he correctly identified him. Accused Maya is his sister-in-law, i.e. wife of his deceased brother Satpal and he correctly identified her and accused Sahil is the eldest son of his brother and Maya Devi and he correctly identified him. Regularly, (he did not remember exact days), in the year 2020, his father, accused Fakir Chand, used to come to his gate in a drunk condition and abused his wife and his daughter in a filthy language. He also abused everybody else. As he had been continuously acting in the said manner since 2020, he tried to make him understand and also he informed to his other relatives about the behaviour of his father. He also gave complaints to police and also to the senior officials i.e. ACP, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 11 of 78 12 DCP and Commissioner of Police. No action was taken by the police officials. There was no change in the behaviour of his father and the incidents continued.
8.1. On 30.04.2021, at about 10:00 to 10:15 PM, his father stood at his gate and started abusing his wife and his daughter. He went to him to make him understand. At that time, accused Maya and Sahil also came there and all the three accused started beating him with fists and kicks. He escaped from there and he ran towards his house. Thereafter, he and his wife took sticks and went to the house of accused and had beaten on the gate of the accused and asked them to talk with them. Accused Maya shouted and asked accused Sahil to kill them. Sahil had fired a bullet from inside the house and the bullet hit the right side of his right leg. Thereafter, he and his wife ran towards their house. Accused Sahil had two pistols in his hands and he chased them and he also pointed out the pistols towards his head. They manage to close their door. From outside, his father Fakir Chand shouted and told accused Sahil to kill his family. He also heard the shouts of accused Maya who also told Sahil to kill them. Accused Sahil fired several rounds of bullets and only when the guns became empty, he went to his terrace and called 100 State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 12 of 78 13 number. PCR reached the spot and took him in an ambulance to AIIMS, New Delhi for treatment.
8.2. On 01.05.2021, he was discharged from the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police outside his house/at the spot of incident. His complaint is Ex.PW1/A. Police had called crime team and crime team had inspected the spot and police prepared the site plan at his instance. The site plan is Ex.PW1/B. Police had lifted the blood from the spot. Police had also collected empty cartridges and one lead from the spot and also prepared the sketch of the said empty cartridges and lead. The sketch is Ex.PW1/C. Police had searched for accused Sahil but Sahil was not found. Print-out of the screen-shots of CCTV footage which are on record were shown to the witness. After going through the same, witness identified the presence of accused persons and accused Sahil identified as the person who can be seen holding two pistols. The print-outs are Ex.PW1/D(colly).
8.3. In the cross examination of PW1 he stated that he got separated from his father after two month of his marriage in the year 2005.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 13 of 78 14 8.4. Further, in cross examination when MLC Ex.PW1/X1 is put to him then he stated that he can not say why breathe of alcohol is mentioned in the MLC and he denied the suggestion that he was drunk on 30.04.2021.
8.5. It is also deposed by him in cross examination that he had gone to the gate of the house of Fakir Chand to pacify the matter and he was inside his house while the accused persons abusing him from their house.
8.6. During cross examination when PW1 is shown the video at time 22:15, in the CCTV footage a person wearing white T- shirt can be seen it is stated by him that I am visible in white T- shirt at this point.
8.7. In cross examination PW1 has stated that when the bullet hit him, the main door of the house of accused persons were closed and he was not able to see any of the accused persons through the main door as he was standing at some distance.
9. PW2 Smt. Parveen deposed that there was a constructed State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 14 of 78 15 house build up in a area of 80 sq. yard belonging to his father-in- law Fakir Chand. In the year 2013, he had divided the said property in two parts of 40 sq. yard each and gave one part to her husband and another part to her Jeth namely Satpal. Her husband incurred the expenses in the construction of both the houses. Her father-in-law used to reside in the another part which he had given to her Jeth. On 30.04.2021, at around 09:15 pm, her father-in-law Fakir Chand was abusing them and was using filthy language about her daughters. Her husband went in the house of her Jeth and tried to make him understand and requested him not to abuse in this manner but he ignored. He had beaten her husband. Her husband had escaped himself and came to their house and stated her that her jethani Maya, father- in-law Fakir Chand and Sahil @ Nikhil (son of her Jeth Satpal) had beaten him.
9.1. Thereafter, she picked a wooden stick and started beating the main gate of the house of her Jeth and asked them as to why they had beaten her husband. Her husband was standing behind her at that time. They saw through the main gate, inside the said house that her Jethani Maya asked Sahil @ Nikhil to kill them. Accused Sahil @ Nikhil started shooting pointing towards her State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 15 of 78 16 husband from his house. One bullet hit the right leg of her husband. They proceeded towards their house. Accused Sahil @ Nikhil chased them and again started shooting pointing towards her husband. Her husband closed the gate of their house. Her father-in-law was shouting at that time and asking Sahil @ Nikhil to kill her husband and also asked that he should not remain alive. She also heard the voice of her Jethani Maya. She also instigated accused Sahil @ Nikhil to kill her husband. Accused Sahil @ Nikhil kept on shooting by his pistol towards the main gate of their house. After the shooting stopped, they went on the first floor of their house. Her husband made a call at 100 number. Police came at the spot. She and her husband narrated the entire fact to the police. She correctly identified accused Sahil @ Nikhil, her father-in-law Fakir Chand and her Jethani Maya. Police officials seized fired cartridges from the outside of the gate and one fire cartridge from inside their house. Police officials marked circle mark on the point of firing inside our house and also outside the main gate of their house. Accused persons are still abusing them and threatening them that they kidnapped their daughters. They are afraid of them.
9.2. PW2 during her cross-examination admitted that her State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 16 of 78 17 Father in law had filed one case with respect to the property against her husband. Voluntarily the same was filed before DC Kapashera and her husband had won the said case. She did not see the accused persons beating her husband at that time. The same was told by her husband when he came back to their house.
10. PW3 HC Akash deposed that in the 2021, he was posted as constable at AATS South-West District. On 08.06.2021, he alongwith SI Mahesh Kumar and HC Hariom, ASI Praveen and HC Jaipal were present in the office of AATS. One secret informer was also present and disclosed that one person namely Sahil @ Nikhil, member of Tillu Tajpuria Gang who has illegal weapon with him always and he would come near SDMC Primary School, Manglapuri, Palam, Delhi. On this information, a raiding team comprising of aforesaid police officials and secret informer was proceeded. They proceeded from the office at around 01:45 am. They reached at around 02:15 am at Manglapuri Primary School. After around half an hour, one person came on a motorcycle. Secret informer pointed out towards him. They apprehended him. On interrogation, his name was revealed as Sahil @ Nikhil S/o Sh. Satpal Singh.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 17 of 78 18 10.1. From his possession, one pistol loaded with six live cartridges in its magazine were recovered. IO/SI Mahesh prepared sketch of the same and seized the same vide memo Mark PW3/A. IO prepared the tehrir. He took the same to PS Palam. Duty officer registered the FIR bearing No. 243/2021 u/s 25/27 Arms Act. After registration of the FIR, he came back to the spot. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was produced before the concerned court. On 10.06.2021, ASI Mahender Singh, IO of the present case came to the office of AATS, South-West, and inquired him. He narrated the entire facts to him. He recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He correctly identified the accused Sahil @ Nikhil.
10.2. PW3 during his cross-examination deposed that secret information was received by SI Mahesh. He had shared him. He had heard the name of Sahil @ Nikhil prior to his aforesaid arrest. He had not verified as to whether the accused Sahil @ Nikhil belongs to Tillu Gang or not. Voluntarily SI Mahesh might have verified about the same.
11. PW4 Dr. Alice L. Thiek deposed that he was summoned witness for MLC in the present case. In the year 2021, he was State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 18 of 78 19 posted as CCMO in the abovesaid hospital. The MLC No.71010 was prepared on 22.05.2021 by Dr. Mohd. Aiyaz Ali as per record. The MLC is Ex.PW4/A, bears the signature and stamp of Dr. Mohd. Aiyaz Ali at Point A. He identified his signature as he had worked with him and seen his signatures during the course of work. The MLC was prepared in respect of injured Vijay Kumar. As per record, the patient Vijay Kumar had come to the hospital in emergency on 22.05.2021 at about 11:55 am. The blood sample of patient Vijay Kumar was collected and sealed with the hospital seal and was given to the IO. As per record, the patient was brought by Ct. Phool Singh and the injury at apparent part to the patient was old wound present at right leg.
11.1. The record also mention that there was previous MLC made at Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Center vide MLC No. 500272609 dated 30.04.2021. It is mentioned in MLC that there was no active surgical as well as medical intervention required at that time.
12. PW5 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 30.04.2021, he was posted at PS Sagarpur. He was on emergency duty from State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 19 of 78 20 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. The information received in PS vide DD No. 114-A was informed to ASI Mahender. He was accompanying ASI Mahender. he alongwith ASI Mahender went to B-82, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 7, Naseerpur, Delhi. They came to know that the injured had already been taken to AIIMS trauma (hospital). In the meantime, another call received by ASI Mahender in respect of MLC of injured. ASI Mahender left to the hospital leaving him there at the spot. ASI Mahender had informed the crime team. ASI Mahender alongwith injured came back to the spot i.e. B-82, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 7, Naseerpur, Delhi. Crime team had also come there. The crime team clicked photographs of crime scene on different angles. The area was searched. Three empty cartridges were recovered at the passage i.e. gali and one empty cartridge was recovered from inside the gate. The blood was lying on the floor at the spot.
12.1 ASI Mahender put four empty cartridges into transparent plastic container and wrapped the same with doctor tape and sealed with the seal of "MS". Blood was lifted with a gauge by ASI Mahender and same was kept in transparent plastic container and wrapped the same with doctor tape and sealed with the seal of "MS". ASI Mahender prepared the site plan of State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 20 of 78 21 the spot. Same is already Ex.PW1/B. Before putting the cartridge in container, ASI Mahender prepared the sketch of empty cartridge. ASI Mahender recorded a complaint and made report and the same was given to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the FIR registered on the basis of complaint given to him and came back to the spot and original copy of the complaint after endorsement of Duty Officer and copy of FIR and handed over the same to ASI Mahender.
12.2 The seizure memo of empty cartridges is Ex.PW5/A. Blood gauge is Ex.PW5/B. Sketch of empty cartridges prepared by ASI Mahender is already Ex.PW1/C. MHC(M) has produced one transparent plastic container duly sealed with the seal of "CFSL Delhi". This is the same container and empty cartridges kept inside which was lifted by ASI Mahender from the spot. Same were Ex.P1 (colly). ASI Mahender had given the exhibits to him and same was deposited by him to MHC(M).
12.3. PW5 during his cross-examination admitted that the spot is a densely populated area. Voluntarily, in night hours, it was not crowded. He had not asked any neighbour/adjoining houses for joining the investigation. He did not know whether ASI State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 21 of 78 22 Mahender had asked the neighbour/adjoining houses for joining the investigation. The photographer of crime team had come in his own vehicle. When the photographer was capturing pictures, he was present there. The victim Vijay was in conscious condition while giving his statement. Victim Vijay had given his statement at his house. Vijay had given his statement after coming from hospital. He could not tell the time when victim Vijay had given his statement.
13. PW6 Ct. Vivek deposed that on 06.07.2021, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as constable. On that day,he joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Mahender Singh. On that day, on the instruction of ASI Mahender Singh he took one sealed pullanda Mark B and blood sample of victim Vijay sealed with the seal of 'GGSGH' alongwith its sample seal vide RC No. 214/21 from MHC(M) who had deposited the same with the FSL. He deposited the same with FSL and took the acknowledge slip from there. He came back to PS Sagarpur and handed over the acknowledgment slip and copy of RC to MHC(M). Till the samples remained with him, no one tampered the same.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 22 of 78 23
14. PW7 HC Yatish Yadav deposed that on 01.05.2021, he was posted as photographer at Crime Team, South West District. On that day, on receipt of information regarding visit of scene of crime from control room, he alongwith HC Hari Kishan (crime team Incharge) reached at scene of crime i.e. B-82, Gali No. 7, Harijan Basti, Sagarpur where IO/ASI Mahender Singh alongwith other staff met them. On the instruction of IO and HC Hari Kishan, he clicked 17 photographs from various angles of the scene of crime. Same are Ex.PW7/P1(Colly).
14.1 PW7 during his cross-examination deposed that he had handed over the pen drive containing 17 photographs and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act to the IO. He did not have the copy certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. He had seen the judicial file but the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act is not available.
15. PW8 Sh. Chandra Prakash deposed that he is working as LDC in the abovesaid department. On 03.05.2021, a notice from IO/ASI Mahender Singh was received at their office to provide CCTV footage of cameras installed at Gali No. 23, Sadh Nagar, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 23 of 78 24 2nd Palam Colony, New Delhi (Box No. 331708) of 30.04.2021 from period 09:00 pm to 11:59 pm. The same is Ex.PW8/A. In response to the said letter, Asst. Engineer (Electrical) (CCTV, Wifi, Street Lights), sent a letter to Sh. Ashish Yadav, Project Manager, Bharat Electronics to provide the abovesaid CCTV footage as required by the IO. Copy of the letter is Ex.PW8/B(OSR). On 03.06.2021, a pen drive (32 GB) containing CCTV footage was received from Bharat Electronics alongwith certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and same were handed over to the IO through letter Ex.PW8/C, bearing the signature of Sh. Anoop Kumar Shukla, Asst. Engineer at Point A. He identified his signature as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his duties. The said pen drive is Ex.PW8/P1.
15.1. PW8 during his cross-examination admitted that he had not extracted the CCTV footage from CCTV camera installed at the spot.
16. PW9 Sh. Aslekh Gupta deposed that on 02.06.2021, he was working as Project Engineer in the abovesaid company. On that day, on receipt of letter bearing No. 54(22)/EEE-I/ CCTV, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 24 of 78 25 Wifi,StreetLights/2021-22/1461 dated 03.05.2021 already Ex.PW8/B. They had provided the pen drive containing CCTV footage of cameras installed at Gali No. 23, Sadh Nagar, 2nd Palam Colony, New Delhi (Box No. 331708) of 30.04.2021 from period 09:00 pm to 11:59 pm to PWD Department. The pen drive is already Ex.PW8/P1 and the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act issued by him is Ex.PW9/A. 16.1. PW9 during his cross-examination deposed that he is authorized by the company to extract the CCTV footage from CCTV installed at the different places.
17. PW10 HC Harikishan deposed that on 01.05.2021, he was posted as Incharge, Crime Team in South West District. On that day, he had received an information at about 12:20 am from Control room through telephone to reach at B-82, Gali no.7, Nasirpur, Harijan Basti, Sagarpur. On receipt of the said information, he alongwith photographer Yatish Yadav and other staff reached at the spot. He found three empty cartridge outside the said house and one bullet inside the house. Blood was also lying in the house. He gave Mark 1, 2 and 3 to the places where empty cartridge was found and exhibit 4 to the place where State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 25 of 78 26 cartridge was found. He gave Mark B1 to the place where blood was found. Photographer Yatish Yadav took photographs of the spot from different angles. He was also working as finger print official but no chance print was found at the spot. He prepared his report in this regard which is exhibited as Ex.PW10/A. He had also prepared his crime report and handed over to the IO. His detailed report of the scene of crime is Ex.PW10/B. 17.1. PW10 during his cross-examination deposed that photographer had clicked the photographs of the scene of crime. Blood stains were found inside the house. No chance print out could be found at the scene of crime. The report Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B were prepared at the spot. During all proceedings, IO was present there.
18. PW11 Ms. Babita Gulia deposed that on 28.06.2021, she was posted at CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and was working as SSO
- II, Ballistic. On that day, one sealed parcel was received in the office in connection with FIR no. 211/2021, PS Sagarpur for examination and was marked to her. On 09.07.2021, she opened the said sealed parcel. The seal on the parcel was intact and tallied with the specimen seal provided. On opening the parcel, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 26 of 78 27 it was found to contain three 7.62 MM pistol cartridge cases and one jacket piece of fired bullet. He gave mark C/1 to C/3 to the pistol cartridge cases and Mark BC/1 to the jacket piece of fired bullet. For the linkage of cartridge cases, C/1 to C/3 and one jacket piece of fired bullet BC/1, the pistol received in the CFSL vide case no. CFSL - 21/F-266 was taken and examinations were conducted and on the basis of examination, it was opined that the cartridge cases Mark C/1 to C/3 and the jacket piece of fire bullet BC/1 had been fired from the countrymade pistol (Chamber for 7.62 MM/0.30 inch) pistol cartridges marked as W/1 received in the CFSL vide case no. CFSL - 21/F-266 in parcel no. S-1. After examination, she prepared her detailed report and forward it to the ACP, Police station, Sagarpur alongwith the received parcel which was re-sealed with the seal of BGSSO-II, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. Her report is exhibited as Ex.PW11/A. 18.1. PW11 during her cross-examination stated that a 7.62 mm cartridge can be fired by a same caliber fire arm.
19. PW12 HC Phool Singh deposed that on 22.05.2021, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as Constable. On that day, on the State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 27 of 78 28 direction of IO of the present case, he took complainant namely Vijay Kumar to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital for his blood sample. Doctor took his blood sample and prepared MLC no. 71010/2021 and handed over to him the blood sample in a sealed plastic box. Doctor also handed over to him sample seal. He came back to the police station with Vijay Kumar and hand it over the above stated sealed pullanda to IO ASI Mahender Singh. ASI Mahender Singh took the seal into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. His statement was recorded in this regard.
20. PW13 ASI Shyam Singh deposed that on 30.04.2021, he was posted at police station Sagarpur as ASI and was working as Duty officer from 4 pm to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 10.23 pm, a PCR call was received and he registered DD no.114A regarding it. The attested copy of said DD is on the file and is exhibited as Ex.PW13/A. The said DD was marked to Emergency Officer, ASI Mahender for necessary action.
21. PW14 HC Vikal Singh deposed that on 03.06.2021, he was posted at police station Sagarpur as Constable. On that day, ASI Mahender handed over to him one letter and directed him to State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 28 of 78 29 visit PWD office, 13th floor, MSO Building, I.P Estate, Old PHQ to collect the pen drive of CCTV Footage. He went there and handed over the said letter to PWD official and PWD official handed over to him one pen drive with Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He came back to police station. He handed over the pen drive and certificate to ASI Mahender. ASI Mahender took the same into police possession vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW14/A. On 10.06.2021, he again joined the investigation in this case alongwith ASI Mahender and reached at ATS/South West, Delhi Cantt. Office where one wanted accused in their case namely Sahil @ Nikhil was arrested in Case FIR no. 243/2021 u/s 25/27 Arms Act, PS Palam by ATS official. IO ASI Mahender made inquiries from the said Sahil @ Nikhil and formally arrested him in the present case vide arrest memo exhibited as Ex.PW14/B and he was also personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW14/C. Disclosure statement of accused Sahil @ Nikhil was also recorded by ASI Mahender and is Ex.PW14/D. Thereafter, ATS official produced accused Sahil @ Nikhil before Ld. Duty MM, Dwarka Court where ASI Mahender took one day PC remand of accused Sahil @ Nikhil from the Ld. Duty MM. During PC remand, accused pointed the place of incident i.e. House no. B-
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 29 of 78 30 82, Gali no.7, Harijan Basti, Nasirpur and pointing out memo of the place of incident was prepared by ASI Mahender at the instance of accused Sahil @ Nikhil. Pointing out memo is exhibited as Ex.PW14/E. Thereafter, accused was taken to GGS Government hospital for his medical examination and accused was sent to Lock up of PS Delhi Cantt.
21.1. On 11.06.2021, he again joined the investigation of this case and alongwith the accused Sahil @ Nikhil searched for co- accused Punnu and also case property of the present case. They alongwith the accused reached at area of Narela and Khera Khurd and Bawana but nothing was found. Accused was again medically examined from Safdarjung hospital and produced before Duty MM, Patiala House Court and he was sent to JC. On 28.06.2021, he again joined the investigation of this case and on the direction of ASI Mahender collected from the Malkhana, one sealed parcel relating to the present case vide RC No. 208/21/21 and deposited the same at CFSL, CBI office, Lodhi Colony and collected the acknowledgment. The copy of RC is exhibited as Ex.PW14/F and copy of acknowledgment is exhibited as Ex.PW14/G. As long as sealed parcel remain in his possession, its seal remain intact and was not tampered by anyone. Accused State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 30 of 78 31 correctly identified the accused Sahil @ Nikhil and he was arrested in his presence.
21.2. PW14 during his cross-examination deposed that on 10.06.2021 his duty hours were from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. ASI Mahender asked him to join the investigation of the present case at about 9:30 - 10:00 am. He joined the investigation of the present case on 10.06.2021 and 11.06.2021. On 28.06.2021, he left the PS Sagarpur alongwith sealed parcel, at about 10:30 am to deposit the same in the FSL. He had put his signature on the Road Certificate. He did not remember the contents of the documents which were taken by him to FSL on 28.06.2021 alongwith the sealed case property. He did not remember the initial of the seal which was on the case property.
22. PW15 Dr. Naresh Kumar deposed that he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL, Rohini since 1994. Two sealed parcels in connected with the present FIR were received in the department on 06.07.2021. He examined both the parcels. On biological examination, blood was detected on both the exhibits. The DNA could not be isolated from source of Exhibit 1 due to degradation and human male DNA profile was State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 31 of 78 32 generated from the source of Exhibit 2. His detailed report is Ex.PW15/A, and the report of allelic data is Ex.PW15/B, bearing his signatures at Point A on all the pages.
23. PW16 Dr. Mohini Singh deposed that she was deputed by MS concerned to depose on behalf of Dr. Mahipal, Jr. Resident who had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known to the hospital. As per record, one Vijay Kumar was brought before Dr. Mahipal by one Lalit Kumar with the alleged history of sustaining injury in an assault on 30.04.2021. As per record, Dr. Mahipal had medically examined Vinay Kumar vide MLC No. 500272609 on 30.04.2021 at about 11:20 pm. There was fire arm injury over right lower leg (bullet was not present inside the wound). She identified the signatures of Dr. Mahipal at Point X and Y as she is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Mahipal. The said MLC is already Ex.PW1/X. 23.1. PW16 during her cross-examination admitted that she was not present at the time when patient Vijay Kumar was examined. She did not have any personal knowledge of the present case. She was just deposing a per record.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 32 of 78 33
24. PW17 Insp. Gautam Malik deposed that on 08.06.2021, he was working in AATS as SI. On that day, investigation of FIR No. 243/2021 u/s 25/27 Arms Act, PS Palam was handed over to him by the order of senior police officials. He went to the spot i.e. near SDMC Primary School, Manglapuri, Palam. On reaching at the spot, SI Mahesh alongwith members of the raiding team and accused Sahil @ Nikhil were found present at the spot. He correctly identified the accused. Accused was in custody of SI Mahesh. Ct. Akash reached the spot with computer copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and same were handed over to him. Copy of FIR No. 243/2021 is Ex.PW17/A. 24.1. SI Mahesh told him the facts of the case and apprised about the investigation conducted by him. SI Mahesh handed over him a sealed plastic container Mark S1 sealed with the seal of "MK" and seizure memo of the same. SI Mahesh also handed over the documents which were prepared by him to him. He made interrogation from accused Sahil @ Nikhil and arrested him vide his arrest memo Ex.PW17/B. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW17/C. Accused Sahil @ Nikhil disclosed that he was gang member of Sunil @ Tillu Gang. On State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 33 of 78 34 30.04.2021, he fired upon Vijay (complainant of this case) by two pistols. Out of which one pistol was recovered in FIR No. 243/21, PS Palam by SI Mahesh. He gave this information to concerned IO of PS Sagarpur vide GD No. 49A dated 10.06.2021. Same is Ex.PW17/D. His statement was recorded by the IO of this case. During recording of his examination-in- chief on 06.06.2025, it is stated that SI Mahesh handed over him a sealed plastic container Mark S1 sealed with the seal of "MKFSL4". The plastic container which was handed over to him was sealed with the seal of "MK".
24.2. PW17 during his cross-examination stated that the place of incident was situated in a thickly populated area. He did not call any person from the locality to join the investigation. He stayed at the spot till 09/10:00 am. No public person had joined the investigation at the time of recording of disclosure statement of accused Sahil @ Nikhil.
25. PW18 SI Mahender Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 30.04.2021 / 01.05.2021, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as ASI. On that night, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 am State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 34 of 78 35 to 08:00 pm. On that night, at about 10:25 pm, an information was received in their PS regarding gun shot injury. On which GD No. 114A Ex.PW13/A was recorded. Same was marked to him by the order of SHO concerned. On receiving of the aforesaid information, he alongwith Ct. Ashok went to the spot i.e. H. No. B-82, Harijan Basti, Gali No. 7, Naseerpur, Delhi. No eye witness was found present there. He came to know that injured had been moved to hospital. He made an information to control room for sending the crime team at the spot. On receiving of DD No. 10A dated 01.05.2021, he came to know injured had been admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center. He instructed Ct. Ashok to remain at the spot for safeguard. He went to AIIMS Trauma Center where injured was found admitted in the hospital vide his MLC. he got collected the MLC Ex.PW1/X of injured Vijay. he also came to know that injured already been discharged from the hospital. He came back to the spot. Crime team had already reached at the spot. Crime team took the photographs. Injured had also reached at the spot. Three empty cases and one tip of bullet was found lying at the spot. Blood was also lying at the spot. He prepared the sketch plan of empty cartridges and tip of the bullet. Same is already Ex.PW1/C. On measuring, length of the empty cartridges was found to be 25 mm and length of the tip State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 35 of 78 36 of the bullet was found to be 10 mm. 7.62 x 25 SABS was written on the bottom of the cartridges. All the aforesaid empty cartridges and tip of bullet was kept in a plastic container. Lid was put on the same. Doctor tape was wrapped and same was sealed with the seal of "MS" and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Blood lying at the spot was lifted through a gauge and same was kept in a plastic container. Lid was put on the same. Doctor tape was wrapped on the same. Same was sealed with the seal of "MS" and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The seal was handed over to Ct. Ashok after use. He recorded the statement of Vijay Kumar Ex.PW1/A. He read over his statement, affirming it as correct. Injured Vijay put his signature at Point A. He attested his signature vide his endorsement at Point B. From the facts, it was revealed that an offence u/s 307 IPC had been committed. Accordingly, he made endorsement Ex.PW18/A on the statement of injured Vijay and prepared the rukka. Same was handed over to Ct. Ashok for getting the FIR registered. After sometime, Ct. Ashok reached at the spot with computer copy of FIR Ex.P1, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.P2. Same were handed over to him. He prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of injured Vijay. He searched for accused Sahil @ State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 36 of 78 37 Nikhil but despite his best efforts he could not be traced. He made interrogation from accused Fakir Chand (grandfather of accused Sahil) and Maya Devi (mother of accused Sahil). He also made inquiry from the wife of injured and he recorded her statement. He alongwith Ct. Ashok came back to the PS and deposited the case property with MHC(M). He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses.
25.1. On 03.05.2021, he wrote a letter Ex.PW8/A to JE PWD for providing CCTV footage of the cameras installed at Gali No. 23, Shad Nagar-II, Palam Colony, Delhi of the relevant date and time. In reply to the aforesaid letter, Asst. Engineer (Electric) made a letter Ex.PW8/B, instructing project manager to freeze the aforesaid CCTV footage. He searched for the accused but despite his best efforts, he could not be traced. On 22.05.2021, he instructed Ct. Phool Singh to accompany injured Vijay to Guru Govind Singh Government Hospital for his blood sample. Ct. Phool Singh came back to the PS from the aforesaid hospital and handed over him one plastic container sealed with the seal of "GGSGH" containing blood sample of injured alongwith its sample seal. He took the same into possession vide memo State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 37 of 78 38 Ex.PW12/A. Ct. Phool Singh also handed over MLC of injured Vijay Ex.PW4/A. He had deposited the aforesaid case property with MHC(M). He recorded the statement of Ct. Phool Singh. On 03.06.2021, Ct. Vikal was instructed to go to PWD office in order to collect CCTV footage. Ct. Vikal handed over him one pen drive Ex.PW8/P1 containing the relevant footage of the incident and a certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/A. He took the aforesaid pen drive into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/A. He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses. On 10.06.2021, an information was received from AATS regarding arrest of accused Sahil @ Nikhil in FIR No. 243/21, PS Palam Village vide DD No. 49A Ex.PW18/B. On receiving of the aforesaid information, he alongwith Ct. Vikal went to office of AATS South West situated at Delhi Cantt. he went with Ct. Gautam and collected copy of FIR No. 243/21 Ex.PW17/A, arrest memo Ex.PW17/B, disclosure statement Ex.PW17/C in which accused Sahil admitted his guilt in the crime. He also got collected seizure memo Mark PW3/A from the concerned IO. After interrogation, he arrested accused Sahil @ Nikhil vide his arrest and personal search memo already Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C respectively. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sahil @ Nikhil already State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 38 of 78 39 Ex.PW14/D. The accused Sahil was produced before the court concerned. He moved an application Ex.PW18/C before the court concerned for one day PC of accused. Accused was taken on one day PC. He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses. Accused Sahil took them to the place of incident and pointed out the place where he fired upon his uncle Vijay Kumar. He prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW14/E, at the instance of accused Sahil. He search for co-accused Punnu. Accused Sahil was medically examined in the hospital. On 11.06.2021, accused Sahil was produced before the court concerned and was sent to JC. Section 25/27 Arms were added in this case. On 28.06.2021, he sent the Ex.A to CFSL through Ct. Vikal vide RC No. 208/21/21 in reference with CFSL result received in FIR No. 243/21, PS Palam. Ct. Vikal came in the PS after depositing the case property. Ct. Vikal handed over the acknowledge slip and copy of RC to MHC(M). Copy of the same was also handed over to him. On 06.07.2021, other sealed exhibit Mark B was sent to FSL through Ct. Vivek vide RC No. 214/21. Ct. Vivek came in the PS after depositing the case property. Ct. Vivek handed over the acknowledge slip and copy of RC to MHC(M). Copy of the same was also handed over to him.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 39 of 78 40 25.2. He perused the CCTV footage in which accused was appearing committing the offence. During the course of investigation, he got collected certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act from ASI Shyam Singh Ex.PW18/D. He also collected scene of crime report Ex.PW10/A, photographs Ex.PW7/P1(colly). He got the CCTV footage and took the print outs of the footage Ex.PW18/X(colly) and same was filed with the case. He also collected crime team report Ex.PW10/B and same was filed in the court. He completed the investigation. He prepared the challan and same was filed in the court. He collected CFSL result Ex.PW11/A and FSL report Ex.PW15/A and same were filed through supplementary charge-sheet. He also collected sanction u/s 39 Arms Act and same was filed before the court. He identified the accused Sahil @ Nikhil, Maya Devi and Fakir Chand. When MHC(M) produced one plastic container duly sealed with the seal of Court. Seals were intact on opening of the plastic container. It was found to contain 3 empty cartridges and one tip of bullet. Same identified by the witness to be the empty cartridges which were lifted by him from the spot. Same was already Ex. P-1 (collectively). One pen-drive (32 GB) containing CCTV footage was shown to the witness who identified the same to be the pen-drive which was taken by him State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 40 of 78 41 into possession and was produced before him by Ct. Vikal belongs to the spot and was taken from the CCTV camera installed by PWD Department. The pen-drive was displayed on the court computer. There were 11 videos and 8 photos in the aforesaid pen-drive. The aforesaid footage were dated 30.04.2021 from 9.00 pm to 11.59 pm. In the aforesaid videos, at 10.17 pm to 10.20 pm, accused was seen firing from both of his hands by two pistols. Witness also identified the photographs Ex.PW18/X (collectively) of pen-drive which was already on record and in which accused was firing and same were appearing in the pen-drive when the same was displayed. One sealed envelope Mark 1 sealed with the seal of NKFSL, DELHI was produced by MHC(M). Seals were intact. On opening of the same, it was found to contain one plastic container. On opening of the same, it was found to contain a cotton having blood stains. Same was identified by the witness P-18/1 to be the blood which was lying at the spot and lifted by him from the spot on a cotton. Same was Ex.P-18/1. One sealed envelope Mark 2 sealed with the seal of NKFSL, DELHI is produced by MHC(M). Seals were intact. On opening of the same, it is found to contain one plastic container. On opening of the same, it was found to contain a gauze having blood stains. Same was identified by the witness P-
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 41 of 78 42 18/2 to be the blood which was lying at the spot and lifted by him from the spot on a gauze. Same was Ex.P-18/2.
25.3. In cross examination the witness has admitted that in the CCTV footage, complainant and his wife are seen hitting the door of the house of accused persons with a weapon. He also admitted that in the footage the complainant is seen entering in the house of accused persons and complainant seen coming out with some cloth in his hand from the house of accused persons.
26. PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 08.06.2021, he was working in AATS South West District as Sub Inspector. On that day he received a secret information that one person namely Sahil @ Nikhil who was member of Sunil @ Tillu Tajpuria gang would be coming in the area of Sagarpur in order to meet one of his associate on motorcycle at near SDMC primary school, Manglapuri with a illicit weapon. The secret informer also told him aforesaid Sahil in attempt to murder case of PS Sagarpur. On this information, he prepared a raiding party. On the secret information, Sahil @ Nikhil was apprehended by him and other members of raiding team. From the possession of accused Sahil, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 42 of 78 43 one pistol was recovered. On checking of the aforesaid pistol, six live cartridges recovered. He prepared sketch plan of said pistol and live cartridges and it was taken as possession vide memo Mark PW-3/A. He prepared a rukka FIR No. 243/21, u/s 25/27 Arms Act was recorded at PS Palam and further investigation of this case was handed over to SI Gautam. He handed over the documents prepared by him. He also handed over the custody of accused Sahil @ Nikhil to SI Gautam. He correctly identified Sahil @ Nikhil on VC. He identify the case property if shown to him. One sealed plastic container sealed with seal of PD is produced by MHC(M), PS Palam. Seals were intact on opening of the plastic container, one pistol alongwith magazine, two live cartridges and four fired cartridges were taken out. The pistol is identified by the witness as Ex.P-19/1, cartridges are identified as the witness P-19/2-7 respectively. He stated that all the cartridges were live at the time of recovery (Ld. Addl. PP submits that four cartridges were fired at FSL during the examination).
26.1. PW19 during his cross-examination admitted that he had not recorded the disclosure statement of Sahil @ Nikhil. Nothing was disclosed by accused Sahil @ Nikhil regarding involvement State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 43 of 78 44 in this case before him. The sketch plan of pistol and live cartridges were not on record.
27. PW20 ASI Joginder deposed that on 01.05.2021, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as HC. On that day he was working as MHCM. On that day, ASI Mahender deposited with him a sealed pullanda Mark A, sealed with seal of MS containing empty cartridges and another sealed pullanda Mark B sealed with the same seal containing blood on gauze. He deposited the said pullandas vide entry at Sr. No. 2739. The said entry Ex.PW20/A. It was in his handwriting. On 22.05.2021, ASI Mahender deposited with him a sealed pullanda sealed with seal of GGSGH containing blood sample of Vijay Kumar alongwith its sample seal. He deposited the same pullanda vide entry at serial number 2789. The said entry EX.PW20/B. It was in his handwriting. On 28.06.2021, one sealed pullanda was sent to CFSL CGO Complex through Ct. Vikal vide RC No. 208/21. He made entry in this regard, same is Ex.PW20/C. On 07.07.2021, one sealed pullanda was sent to FSL, Delhi through Ct. Vivek vide RC No. 214/21. He made entry in this regard, same is Ex.PW20/D. On 28.06.2022, one sealed pullanda along with one envelope State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 44 of 78 45 containing result sealed with the seal of CFSL, CBI was received from CFSL CGO Complex through Ct. Praveen. He made entry in this regard, same is Ex.PW20/E. On 07.02.2022, two sealed pullanda alongwith one envelope containing result sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi was received from FSL, Delhi through Ct. Pankaj. He made entry in this regard, same is Ex.PW20/F. He had brought RC register. Copy of RC No. 208/21 and 214/21 alongwith respective acknowledgments slip are Ex.PW20/G and Ex.PW20/H respectively. Till the samples remained with him, none of the samples were tempered. His statements were recorded by the IO on 28.06.2021 and 06.07.2021.
28. PW21 Amit Goel deposed that on 10.05.2022 he was working as Addl. DCP South West District, Delhi. On that day, he perused the documents of this case i.e. arrest memo, statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents relied upon by the investigating agency alongwith Ballistic Examination report. After going through the record, he satisfied himself that on 20.04.2021, three empty cartridges and one cartridge top was found lying on the place of incident i.e. in front of house no. B 62, Gali No. 7, Harijan Basti, Naseerpur, State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 45 of 78 46 New Delhi without license which was in contravention in Section 3 of Arms Act. On 08.04.2021, accused Sahil @ Nikhil was arrested in FIR No. 243/2021 PS Palam under Section 25/27 Arms Act. One pistol and 6 live cartridges were recovered from his possession during investigation. The aforesaid accused disclosed that on 30.04.2021 at about 10:15 pm he had shot one person namely Vijay at Harijan Basti, Naseerpur Delhi with the aforesaid pistol. He satisfied himself that accused Sahil @ Nikhil had committed an offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act vide FIR no. 211/2024 PS Sagarpur under Section 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. By virtue of powers conferred upon him under Delhi Police Act in pursuance of Section 39 Arms Act, he gave sanction under Section 39 Arms Act for the prosecution of accused Sahil @ Nikhil. The aforesaid sanction Ex.PW21/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
29. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded innocence and stated that they have falsely implicated in the State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 46 of 78 47 present case. Accused Fakir Chand and accused Maya Devi wanted to lead defence evidence.
30. DW1 Fakirchand deposed that he was a government servant and retired from CBSE Office as Superintendent. On 30.04.2021, at about 10:00-10:30 PM, Vijaychand, his son, entered into his premises forcefully. Vijay was under the influence of liquor at that time. Vijay lifted a pipe which was lying in their premises and started beating him like an animal. He also gave beatings to his daughter in law Maya Devi and her children. Vijay also tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter in law Maya Devi. Vijay had entered into their premises in pre- planned manner and this fact can be verified by the CCTV footage which were already on record. Vijay had committed the such act as he was enmity with him. Vijay was in habit of making false allegations against them in connivance with his wife. Vijay used to tell that he was having illicit relation with his daughter in law. Vijay claims that he had constructed the entire house. Vijay wants to grab his property. This fact can be proved by the complaints made by him before the SDM as well as other authorities against Vijay wherein he has filed his respective replies. Vijay is in habit of telling lie. He made a complaint State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 47 of 78 48 against Vijay and his wife on the day of incident however, police did not entertain his complaint. The Predecessor of this Court had given directions to register the FIR against Vijay and his wife however, police only register a NCR instead of registering the FIR.
30.1. DW1 during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State deposed that he used to drink. Vol. he used to drink occasionally. He during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State admitted that he had filed an eviction suit under Senior Citizen Maintenance Act before SDM, South West, Dwarka. On 21.09.2021, an FIR No. 411/2021 u/s 336/506/509 IPC, on 16.12.2021, an FIR No. 508/2021 u/s 336/506/509 IPC were registered against him by Ms. Praveen w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar. Vol. it were a false FIRs. On 26.10.2022, an FIR No. 711/2022 u/s 323/341 r/w 34 IPC was registered against him by his son Vijay Kumar. Vol. it were a false case. Savitri was his wife. She was expired due to burn injuries. An FIR was registered against him on 01.03.1993 u/s 302/498(A)/306 IPC with regard to the death of his wife. He denied all the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 48 of 78 49
31. DW2 Smt. Maya Devi deposed that Vijay used to enter in their house and used to beat her father in law Fakir Chand and other family members including her. On the day of incident i.e. 30.04.2021, Vijay Kumar entered into their premises and started beating her father in law. When she intervened into the matter, Vijay Kumar also gave beatings to her. Vijay Kumar torned her clothes and outraged her modesty. All the incidents were covered in CCTV Footage which was already on record and the facts told by her could be verified by the aforesaid CCTV footage. After beating her and her father in law, Vijay Kumar came outside from their premises. They bolted the door of their premises from inside. Vijay Kumar again came at the door of their premises with his wife and daughter. Vijay Kumar and his wife were carrying an axe and a 'danda'. Both the aforesaid persons tried to break the door of her premises in order to give beating again to them. She approached the police for making her complaint, however, police officials did not take any action against Vijay Kumar, his wife and his daughters.
31.1. DW2 during her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State admitted that there are other cases beside this case against accused Sahil. She did not know if an FIR No. 711/2022 u/s State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 49 of 78 50 323/341 r/w Section 34 IPC was registered against her, her father-in-law and other family members by Vijay Kumar. She was bailed out in this case by the police. She denied all the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
ARGUMENTS
32. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant has jointly submitted in their arguments that the accused Sahil @ Nikhil opened fire upon the complainant Vijay, causing a fire arm injury to his right leg and the manner, direction and repetition of firing clearly demonstrate intent to cause death. At the time of incident accused Fakir Chand was uttering abusive and offensive language towards the wife and daughter of the complainant and the complainant approached accused Fakir Chand to request him to refrain from such behaviour and at the same time accused Maya Devi alongwith Sahil co-jointly assaulted the complainant causing injuries by way of fist and kicks blows as a consequence of assault the complainant withdraw from the place of occurrence and return to his residence. Thereafter complainant alongwith his wife proceeded to the house of accused persons and knocked at their State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 50 of 78 51 main gate. And at that stage on the instigation of accused Maya Devi accused Sahil @ Nikhil opened fire upon the complainant and the bullet struck the right side of the right leg of victim Vijay while the fire arm shot aimed at chest level. Thereafter accused Sahil emerged on the street armed with two unlicensed pistol firing towards the complainant house while Maya Devi and Fakir Chand stood beside him, signaling and instigating him to fire on the complainant and at his house. The said facts are fully established by the witnesses of the prosecution and the CCTV footage dated 30.04.2021 particularly between 10:17 PM pm till 10:20 pm. It is also submitted that the MLC of the victim merely records the presence of alcohol and it is not a conclusive proof of liquor consumption. Further recovery of empty cartridges and fire arm has also supported the prosecution case and accused Sahil is an active member of Tillu Tajpuria Gang and he is a notorious criminal. Lastly it is submitted that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused(s) has committed offence of attempt to murder in furtherance of their common intention i.e. u/s 307/34 of IPC and liable to be convicted.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 51 of 78 52 32.1 Further, in support written submissions on behalf of victims is filed in which reliance is placed on following cases:-
i. Abdul Khalid Saifi @ Khalid Saifi Versus State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (CRL. REV. P. 988/2024, CRL. M.A. 22608/2024 & CRL. M.A. 22609/2024) (of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi). ii. Ranchhodbhai Manjibhai Chovatia Vs. Pravinbhai Kalubhai Italiya (R/SCR.A /5554/2015) (of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat).
iii. Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 (equivalent citation 81 IND. CAS. 353).
33. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the allegations against accused Maya Devi and Fakir Chand is totally false as claimed by the victim of repeated complaints to DCP and other police officers against Fakir Chand is not supported by any evidence on record. There are no independent eye witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove their case while the whole case of the prosecution is based on the fabricated evidence of complainant and his wife. Initially the police has not arrested or made accused or file any chargesheet against Maya Devi and Fakir Chand but only on the order of Ld. MM u/s 173(8) CrPC the old Fakir Chand and State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 52 of 78 53 Maya Devi are made accused. It is also submitted that in CCTV footage it is clearly visible that complainant Vijay was the aggressor and he entered the house of Fakir Chand forcefully to outrage modesty of Maya Devi as he was seen to be standing outside the house of Fakir Chand and forcefully entering into the house of Fakir Chand but when he was countered by Fakir Chand and his family members then he ran away and chunni of Maya Devi is clearly visible in the hand of complainant Vijay when he was coming out from the house of the accused. To cover up the sham incident he has narrated a false story to his wife with regard to attack on him and even after that they both i.e. Vijay with stick in his hand and his wife with axe in their hands again went to the house of accused persons and started hitting their door with those weapons continuously due to which the incident took place. It is also submitted that the injury is not on vital part and the pistol was not aimed at vital part thus no intention was to cause death . The MLC of the complainant is supporting that the complainant Vijay was under the influence of liquor and he went to the house of accused to outrage the modesty of his sister in law Maya Devi. It is also submitted that the injury to Vijay can be self inflicted as no shell found in the house of accused or blood in the gully while the blood is found in the house of complainant. Lastly it is State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 53 of 78 54 submitted that the gun shot was made from behind the closed door and by no stretch of imagination it is believed that the fire with the intention to cause death. The Fakir Chand is implicated falsely as the complainant is the son of Fakir Chand and had the intention to usurp the property of accused Fakir Chand. The medical report of the complainant states that he has sustained only simple injury. In support of his statement Ld. Counsel for accused has also filed written submissions and relied on the following judgments:
i. Sivamani Vs. State of Madras, 2023 SCC (Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023 judgment dated November 28, 2023). ii. Naresh Kumar Vs. State CRL.A. 745/2017 Judgment dated 29.10.2025.
34. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (Evidence has to be examined whether the alleged facts are proved, disproved or not proved on the anvil the principle of beyond reasonable doubt) State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 54 of 78 55
35. Before proceeding further for appreciation of evidence qua accused No. 1 (Sahil @ Nikhil), accused No. 2 (Fakir Chand) and accused No. 3 (Smt. Maya Devi) it is relevant to mention here that the act of Sahil @ Nikhil i.e. accused No. 1 different than that of accused No. 2 and 3 i.e. Fakir Chand and Smt. Maya Devi respectively. As on accused No. 1 the allegation is of overt act by causing gun shot injury, while on accused No. 2 and 3 is of only of instigating accused No. 1. (In the latter part of this judgment for the sake of brevity the accused's will be referred only as accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3). Thus in the first part in the following para's of this judgment appreciation of evidence qua accused No. 1 is done and in the latter part of this judgment appreciation of evidence qua accused No. 2 and 3 is made.
APPRECIATION AND FINDING QUA ACCUSED NO. 136. The charge on accused No. 1 is framed u/s 307/114/34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. As Section 34 IPC reads as:
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 55 of 78 56 When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
It is settled that, Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create any substantive offence. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 IPC against all the accused will be discussed in the end while appreciation of evidence for all the accused(s), when their joint liability in the commission of the offence be considered and the same appreciation, analysis and finding for Section 114 IPC be done. Firstly; appreciation for accused No. 1 is done for Section 307 IPC.
37. To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, it is relevant to reproduce Section 307 IPC which reads as:-
"Section 307 Attempt to murder.
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 56 of 78 57 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 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.-- 2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 2[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]"
37.1. Thus, essential consideration to be proved by the prosecution for Sec 307 IPC are:-
i. The nature of that act; ii. The intention or knowledge of the person;
iii. The circumstances under which the act is done; iv. It by that act death is caused he would be guilty of murder.
38. For attracting Section 307 IPC the importance is of the intention or knowledge and not the consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The court has to consider whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge that such act death is caused he would be guilty of murder.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 57 of 78 58
39. Intention and knowledge may also be gathered from weapon of offence used, nature of injuries and other attending circumstances of the incident.
40. Now the present case and the evidence on record has to be appreciated in the light of aforesaid principles ie whether the prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC against accused No. 1.
41. The star witness of the present case is PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar i.e. complainant / injured. He deposed against accused No. 1 that, accused No. 1 is the eldest son of his brother and on 30.04.2021, at about 10:00 to 10:15 pm he went to make accused No. 2 understand then the accused No. 3 and accused No. 1 also came and all three accused persons started beating him with fists and kicks. He escaped from there and he ran towards his house. Thereafter, he and his wife took sticks and went to the house of accused and had beaten on the gate of the accused and asked them to talk with them. Accused No. 1 had fired a bullet from inside the house and the bulled hit the right side of his leg. Thereafter, he and his wife ran towards their house. Accused No. 1 had two pistols in his hand and he chased them and also State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 58 of 78 59 pointed out the pistols towards his head. Accused No. 1 fired several round of bullets and only when the guns became empty, complainant went to his terrace and called 100 number. He had also deposed that police has prepared the site plan at his instance, lifted the blood from the spot and also collected empty cartridges and one lead from the spot. After going through the print out of the screen shots of CCTV footage he identified accused No. 1 as the person who can be seen holding two pistols.
42. Testimony of PW1 Vijay Kumar is further corroborated by the testimony of his wife PW2 Smt. Praveen who deposed that when her husband (PW1) told her that accused No. 3, accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 had beaten him, she picked a wooden stick and started beating the main gate of the house of her jeth and asked them as to why they had beaten her husband an she saw through the main gate, inside the said house that her jethani Maya asked accused No. 1 to kill them. Accused No. 1 started shooting pointing towards her husband from his house. One bullet hit the right leg of her husband. They proceeded towards their house. Accused No. 1 chased them and again started shooting pointing towards her husband. Accused No. 1 kept on shooting by his pistol towards the main gate of their house. After State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 59 of 78 60 the shooting stopped, they went on the first floor of their house and her husband made a call at 100 number.
43. The deposition of PW1 and PW2 is further strengthened by the MLC Ex.PW1/X of PW1. The deposition of PW16 Dr. Mohini Singh has corroborated MLC i.e. Ex.PW1/X. She deposed that as per record one Vijay was brought before Dr. Mahipal by one Lalit Kumar with the alleged history of sustaining injury in an assault on 30.04.2021. As per record, Dr. Mahipal had examined vide MLC NO. 500272609 on 30.04.2021 at about 11:20 pm. There was fire arm injury over right lower leg. She identified the signatures of Dr. Mahipal as she was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Mahipal.
44. By the deposition of PW5 HC Ashok Kumar and PW18 ASI Mahender Singh the preparation of site plan of the spot Ex.PW1/B, the seizure memo of empty cartridges Ex.PW5/A, is proved and thus, firing on the spot is corroborated.
45. The deposition of witnesses is further corroborated by CCTV footage of the incident, the same is the most important State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 60 of 78 61 piece of evidence. PW8 Sh. Chandra Prakash has deposed that on notice from IO/ASI Mahender Singh to provide CCTV footage of camera installed at gali No. 23, Sadh Nagar, 2 nd Palam Colony, New Delhi (Box No. 331708) of 30.04.2021 from period 9:00 pm to 11:59 pm and on 30.06.2021, a pen drive (32 GB) containing CCTV footage was received from Bharat Electronics alongwith Certificate u/s 65B, Indian Evidence Act and the same was handed over to the IO through letter Ex.PW8/C. The said pen drive is Ex.PW8/P1. In deposition of PW14 HC Vikal Singh he stated to hand over the pen drive and certificate to ASI Mahender. ASI Mahender took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. 45.1. PW18 SI Mahender Singh (I.O.) has deposed that Ct. Vikal handed over him one pen drive Ex.PW8/P1 containing the relevant footage of the incident and a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that he perused the CCTV footage in which accused was appearing committing the offence. The pen drive (32GB) containing CCTV footage was shown to the witness and the witness identified the same. The pen drive was displayed on the court computer. There were 11 videos and 8 photos in the pen drive.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 61 of 78 62 The footage were dated 30.04.2021 from 9:00 pm to 11:59 pm. In the videos, at 10:17 pm to 10:20 pm, accused was seen firing from both of his hands by two pistols. It is also relevant to mention here that PW18 SI Mahender Singh (I.O.) in his deposition has proved the whole investigation and his testimony remained irrebutable in cross examination.
46. It is also relevant to mention here that, the deposition of police witnesses who were a part of the investigation is only ancillary to the eye witness description given by the victims. The outcome of the trial essentially hinges upon the eye witness account of the injured i.e. PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar and his wife PW2 Smt. Parveen. The complainant injured, PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar in his testimony has described the mode and manner how accused No. 1 has caused injury to him by firing through pistol and it is settled law that an injured witness has great weightage and special status in law. As injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene and the injured person will not falsely implicate any innocent person and let go the actual culprit unpunished.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 62 of 78 63
47. From the following judgments the law with regard to the credibility and importance of injured witness can be understood:
47.1. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa V State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 it was held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
47.2. In State of MP V Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414, the Supreme Court observed that the evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence.
47.3. In Abdul Sayeed V State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259 , the Supreme Court held that the question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 63 of 78 64 course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.
47.4. In State of Uttar Pradesh V Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , evidentiary value to be attached to the statement of an injured witness was expressed in the following words:-
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence."
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 64 of 78 65
48. On the basis of discussion held in the foregoing paras of this judgment and settled position of Law this court is of the view that the testimony of injured witness has to be believed as it has special status in law until and unless there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony. In the case at hand testimony of the injured witness PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar with regard to accused No. 1 there is no such major contradiction and discrepancies which makes his testimony doubtful.
49. This court is not able to agree with the submission of Ld. defence counsel as no public person was included in the investigation and the accused No. 1 is falsely implicated. It is relevant to consider here that quality of evidence is important than the quantity of evidence for proving or disapproving the fact and appreciation of evidence is on the principle which make the court to believe in the existence or non-existence of a fact that is proved or not proved or disproved. The test is for the trustworthiness and credibility of evidence is very well explained in the observation of Hon'ble Supreme court in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera Vs. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 65 of 78 66 not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veer Singh & others Vs. State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under:-
"Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable."
50. As far as the submission of Ld. defence counsel with regard to accused No. 1 is concerned that, the injury was not on the vital part and simple in nature and gun shot was made from behind closed door is not acceptable as not only one gun shot was fired but multiple gun shots were fired by accused No. 1 and only one has hit the complainant. Further for section 307 IPC intention to cause death is important whether injury is caused or not, thus, nature of injury is not relevant. Even if it is believed State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 66 of 78 67 that the complainant and his wife were aggressor then also when they ran away and went inside their house even after that accused No. 1 chased them and continued firing gun shots and if any of the gun shots has hit the vital part of the complainant or his wife then the act of the accused No. 1 is with the intention or knowledge that if death is committed then it will amount to murder.
51. Thus, in the case at hand as far as accused No. 1 is concerned the testimony of complainant / injured PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy as is not suffering from any infirmity and the same is corroborated by his injury as well as testimonies of PW2 Smt. Praveen and PW18 ASI Mahender Singh. The testimonies of witnesses with regard to accused No. 1 are reliable, consistent and corroborated each other. The case against accused No. 1 qua section 307 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
52. The charge u/s 27 Arms Act against accused No. 1 is concerned in the deposition of PW19 SI Mahesh Kumar he has stated that from the possession of accused Sahil, one pistol was recovered and the pistol was identified by the witness as Ex.P-
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 67 of 78 68 19/1. PW21 Amit Goel stated that he was working as Addl. DCP South West District, Delhi. He perused the documents of this case alongwith ballistic examination report. After going through the record, he satisfied himself that three empty cartridges and one cartridge top was found lying on the place of incident i.e. in front of house No. B 62, Gali No. 7, Harijan Basti, Naseerpur, New Delhi without license which was in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act. Sahil @ Nikhil was arrested in FIR No. 243/2021 PS Palam under Section 25/27 Arms Act. One pistol and 6 live cartridges were recovered from him and he disclosed that on 30.04.2021 at about 10:15 pm he had shot one person namely Vijay at Harijan Basti, Naseerpur, Delhi with said pistol. He satisfied himself that accused Sahil @ Nikhil had committed an offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act vide FIR No. 211/2024 PS Sagarpur u/s 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. By virtue of powers conferred upon him under Delhi Police Act in pursuance of Section 39 Arms Act, he gave sanction u/s 39 i.e. Ex.PW21/A Arms Act for the prosecution of accused Sahil @ Nikhil. On perusal of the aforesaid sanction and testimony of witnesses this court is convinced that offence u/s 27 Arms Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused No. 1.
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 68 of 78 69 (Analysis, Appreciation and findings qua Section 307 IPC against accused No. 2 and 3)
53. The allegation on accused No. 2 and 3 is of instigating and provoking accused No. 1 causing injury to PW1 Sh. Vijay, complainant. It is also relevant to mention here that the investigating agency has not made them accused and after completion of investigation at the time of filing final report u/s 173 CrPC i.e. chargesheet, it was filed only in the name of Sahil @ Nikhil i.e. accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 and 3 were kept in column No. 12 of the chargesheet. It was on the application u/s 173(8) CrPC on behalf of the complainant, the Ld. MM-03, PHC, vide order 19.07.2022 has passed the directions for accused No. 2 and 3 to face trial and with the observation that the truth or falsity of the allegations of the complainant made in the FIR shall be visited at the relevant stage of trial by the concerned Trial Court and summons were issued to accused No. 2 and 3 by the Ld. MM-03, PHC.
54. It has to be minutely examined whether, evidence of PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar and PW2 Smt. Praveen is proved beyond reasonable doubt without any surmises and conjectures for State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 69 of 78 70 incriminating accused No. 2 and 3. On Perusal of complaint Ex.PW1/A the only allegation is as follows:
"Karib 10:15 pm par mera pitaji aapne gate per khada hokar mujhe aur meri patni ko gaali-galoch de raha tha toh main aapne pitaji ko samjhane gaya toh ghar main mere pitaji wa bhahi wa bachche wa bhai ka ladka Sahil @ Nikhil bhi maujhood tha jo maine samjhaya lekin nashe main gaali-galoch karta raha aur unhone mujhe marpeet dhake deekar mujhe bahar nikaal diya jo ish baare main meri patni ko bhi pata chala toh hum dono aapne ghar se lathi dande lekar mere pitaji ke gate par maarne lage jo ushe dooran andar se goli chalne ke aawaz aaye jo mere dahine paer ke pindi par goli lage jo hum dono bhag kar ghar main ghus gaye jo peeche se mera bhatija Sahil @ Nikhil s/o Swargiya Satpal R/o H.No. B-82, Gali No. 7, Harijan Basti, Nasirpur, Age 24 saal aapna gate khool kar hamare peeche bhag kar aaya aur usne meri seer ke taraf pistol taankar goliyo chalaye aur kah raha tha ke aaj main tera kaam tamam kar deta hu aur tere se main maakan khali karakar chodunga aur meri bhabhi Maya wa mera pitaji wah jhagde main khade the aur mujhe maarne ke liye kah rahe the. Jo mera bhateja Sahil @ Nikhil pata uprokht ne mujh par goli chalakar mujhe chhot pahuchahe hai. Jiske khilaf kanooni karyawahe ke jaye".
State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 70 of 78 71 Thus from the aforesaid complaint it is clear that only allegation stated in complaint Ex.PW1/A for accused No. 1 and 2 is they were standing there and saying to accused No. 1 to beat him and no where in Ex.PW1/A it is mentioned that the accused No. 1 and 2 has instigated accused No. 1 to kill the complainant. While in his testimony before the court he has exaggerated as "accused Maya shouted and asked accused Sahil to kill us"............. "From outside, my father Fakir Chand shouted and told accused Sahil to kill my family. I also heard the shouts of accused Maya who also told Sahil to kill us". The comparison of the allegations against accused No. 2 and 3 as shown in bold letters above i.e. in complaint Ex.PW1/A and court testimony are in the nature of material omission as PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar has developed his statement later on in testimony and the same is an afterthought improvement in the statement. As PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar has tried to rope accused No. 1 and 2 for section 307 IPC by materially making improvement from his earlier version of complaint.
55. The statements of PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar and PW2 Smt. Praveen when seen and compared with CCTV footage video as State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 71 of 78 72 contents in Ex.PW8/P1 (pen drive) then the following time lines in the video can be observed:
Relevant Time Action in video 10:17 pm to 10:20 pm Complainant Vijay Kumar was seen lurking or spying (staying hidden outside the house of accused persons) without being seen, possibly with intent to gather some information but suddenly he barged into the house of accused persons, prima facie seems forceful entry, none of the accused persons were visible contradictory to the claim of complainant and thereafter complainant came out of the house and a dupatta / chunni type cloth was in his hand when he came out. At this moment also the accused persons are not visible. Then again the complainant PW1 Sh. Vijay State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 72 of 78 73 Kumar and his wife PW2 Praveen went to the house of accused persons and at 22:16:41 pm they started beating vigorously on the door of the accused with axe like weapon in the hand of PW2 which she stated to be wooden stick and with a wooden stick in the hand of PW1. Then the shot came at 22:17:35 pm from the closed door and at 22:17:49 pm Sahil accused No. 1 came out and started firing but at the same time accused No. 3 Smt. Maya Devi tried to seem pacify accused no.
1 at 22:18:31 pm but accused No. 1 has given a sort of blow to accused no. 3 Smt. Maya Devi and waved his hands to his family members like he was State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 73 of 78 74 telling them to go away and not to stop him.
55.1. From the aforesaid CCTV footage it is visible/clear that the complainant PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar has barged into the house of accused(s) and PW2 in her testimony has stated that her husband i.e. PW1 has told him that accused No. 1, 2 and 3 has beaten him when he went to request the accused(s). However, in the aforesaid video the conduct of PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar as barging into the house of accused forcefully does not seems to be in the nature of request. Further, both PW1 and PW2 started beating vigorously with weapons (axe/stick) in their hand on the door of accused persons. This will normally cause alarm to any prudent person and sat him on guard i.e. in defence and the conduct of accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, when accused no. 1, was firing as visible in CCTV footage was not of aggressors and seems to be of pacifier and the conduct of accused no. 1 seems to be an independent conduct. This may be one of the main reason due to which accused no. 2 and 3 were not implicated by the prosecution during the course of investigation. And the alleged involvement of accused No. 2 and 3 is an afterthought. It is also State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 74 of 78 75 relevant to consider position of law as in Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 1076/2014 decided on 31.01.2025, 2025 INSC133 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"13.Therefore, the version of PW-6 in her statements recorded on 2ndApril 1998 and 6thApril 1998 regarding providing dowry and regarding demands of dowry are omissions. She also stated that she told the police that the accused had fled from their house. However, she admitted that even this fact is not mentioned in any of the three statements. She claimed that she has stated some of the instances of demand of dowry in her statement dated 23rd June 1998. The statement was recorded more than two and half months after the incident;and therefore, what is stated therein is an afterthought".
Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussion and separating the grain from the chaff this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed miserably to satisfy the standard of proving beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offence u/s 307 IPC by accused no. 2 and 3 and when two views are possible then the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No. 2 and
3.
56. It is also relevant to again consider Section 34 of IPC which deals with common intention and the acts done by several State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 75 of 78 76 persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 IPC is reproduced as follows:
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
56.1. On perusal of Section 34 IPC, it is evident that it lays down only the rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in order of common intention, each of them will be held jointly liable. Common intention under Section 34 IPC is a species of constructive liability which renders every member of a group who shares such intention responsible for the criminal act committed by any one of them when such act is done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention has not to be confused with similar intention. To establish Section 34 IPC, pre-consent, presence and participation in respect of each accused must be established. Further, section 114 IPC which reads as:
"Section 114 Abettor present when offence is committed:
Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 76 of 78 77 punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence".
As held in earlier paras of this judgment act of accused no. 2 and act of accused No. 3 seems not that of aggressors but trying to pacify accused No.1 and overt act of accused No. 1 was an independent act may be in the heat of passion due to quarrel without any premeditation or instigation or abetment from other accused persons. Thus, in the opinion of this court neither section 34 IPC (i.e. common intention) nor Section 114 IPC (i.e. abetment by instigation) is attracted against accused persons.
57. For accused No. 1 Sahil @ Nikhil as discussed in forgoing paras of this judgment, the essential ingredients to make out a case of an attempt to commit murder and hurt while attempting to commit murder i.e. Section 307 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt as well as offence u/s 27 Arms Act is also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt but at the same time for the offences under section 307/114/34 of IPC the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the same against accused No. 2 Fakir State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 77 of 78 78 Chand and accused No. 3 Maya Devi beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION The accused persons namely Fakir Chand and Smt. Maya Devi are acquitted for all the offences in the present case.
Accused Sahil @ Nikhil is convicted for the offence u/s 307 IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
The bail bonds of accused persons namely Sahil @ Nikhil, Fakir Chand and Smt. Maya Devi are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
Case property, if any, is confiscated to state be disposed off as per rules after period of appeal and in case of appeal, as per the direction of Hon'ble Appellate Court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 15th January 2026 (SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 Patiala House Courts New Delhi/15.01.2026 State Vs. Sahil @ Nikhil and Ors. Page no. 78 of 78