Delhi District Court
State vs Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha on 2 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NORTH-EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. : 372/2018
State Vs : Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors.
FIR No. : 141/2018
U/s : 302/307/149/34 IPC, r/w 25/27 Arms Act.
PS : Seelmapur
CNR No. : DLNE010048002018
Date of Institution : 16.11.2018
Date of Judgment reserved on : 02.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 02.12.2025
Brief details of the case
A)Offence complained of : 302/307/34 IPC and Section25/27 Arms Act.
B)Name of the accused : (1) Akil, S/o Sh. Sharif Ahmed, R/o
E-13C/291, New Seelampur, J-Block, Delhi.
(2) Danish, S/o Sh. Nafish, R/o E-13C/290, J
Block, New Seelampur, Delhi.
(3) Smt. Chammo, W/o Late Sh. Nasiruddin,
R/o E-13C/291, J Block, New Seelampur,
Delhi.
(4) Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha, S/o Sh.
Nasiruddin, R/o E-13C/291, J-Block, New
Seelampur, Delhi.
(5) Shehzad @ Chota Nanha, S/o Nasiruddin,
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 1/33
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:05:27
+0530
R/o E-83/291, J. Block, New Seelampur,
Delhi.
C) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
D) Final order : Accused Danish, Akil, Smt. Chammo,
Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha and Shahjad @
Chota Nanha are acquitted for commission of
offence u/s 302/307 r/w Section 149 IPC.
Accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha is also
acquitted for commission of offence u/s 27
Arms Act. Accused Danish, Akil and Smt.
Chammo are convicted for commission of
offence u/s 174A IPC.
JUDGMENT
The case of prosecution
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2018, an information regarding an incident of firing and receiving of gut shot injury by some boys at place G-block, near Government School, Seelampur was received at PS Seelampur vide DD No. 24A. For necessary inquiry and action, the same was assigned to SI Krishna Pal who alongwith Ct. Niraj proceeded to the spot. The information of the incident was also shared with Inspector Nafe Singh, ATO Seelampur as well as Inspector Rajeev Ranjan, SHO and both of them also proceeded to the spot in their government vehicle. Further, SI Naveen Kumar and Ct. Banshi Dhar were also directed to reached at the spot. After the arrival of police team at the spot i.e. a public street in front of Madarsa Faiz-ul-Uloom, J-Block, New Seelampur, Delhi, SI Krishna Pal Singh and other members of the police team found that two empty State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 2/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:05:39 +0530 cartridges and a pair of blue-colored old slippers were lying in the street. Further, on the floor of Madrsa Faiz-ul-Uloom, some blood stains were also noticed. Upon inquiries, it was found that the injured persons had already been removed to JPC Hospital. Accordingly, SI Krishna Pal Singh also proceeded to the hospital after leaving Constable Neeraj at the spot for preservation of the crime scene. SI Naveen and Ct. Banshidhar were also directed to reach at the hospital and after reaching there SI Naveen obtained the MLCs and cloths of deceased Salman and two of other injured namely Mukim and Moinuddin (one of the accused in present case) from the doctor concerned in sealed parcels. After SI K. P. Singh also reached at the hospital, he collected the MLC of deceased Salman as well as other injured from SI Naveen and found that on the MLC of deceased Salman, the doctors have specified alleged history of "Firearm injury, patient brought dead". Further, the MLC of injured Mukim also specified alleged history of "gunshot, entry wound over left side of chest approx 1.5 cm". The MLC of injured Moinuddin also specified alleged history of "physical assault, laceration on left frontal region measuring 2.5X0.5 cm". Further, both the injured Mukim and Moinuddin were also already referred to GTB hospital for their further treatment. No witness of the incident was found in the hospital. Thereafter, SI K.P. Singh again returned to the spot where he met with an eye-witness of the incident namely Nazim and also recorded his statement/complaint regarding the incident wherein, he has stated the following facts:
बयान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर सपरिवार रहता हूँ और Flower stand वगैरह Handi craft का काम Jafrabad Delhi में करता हूँ। करीब 4 दिन पहले Seelampur में रहने वाला Kallu मेरे घर के सामने से गुजर रहा था जो मैने Kallu से दआ ु -सलाम की इसके बाद Kallu वहाँ से चला गया जो Shazad @ Chotta Nanhe ने मुझे State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 3/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:05:48 +0530 Kallu से दआ ु -सलाम करते हूए देख लिया था अगले दिन Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe ने मुझे गली में बुलाया और बोला Kallu से हमारी दश्ु मनी चल रही है तू Kallu से कैसे दआ ु सलाम करते हो जो Kallu से बात करेगा वह हमारा दश्ु मन है और उसके बाद बोला कि ईद के बाद जो भीं Kallu से दोस्ती रखेगा उनको भी और Kallu को भी ठिकाने लगाएगें। जो आज रात दिनांक 04/06/ 2018 समय करीब 10:30 pm, Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe की माँ छम्मो मेरे घर पर आई और मुझे घर के बाहर बुलाकर मुझसे बोली कि भडवे तू Kallu के साथ दोस्ती कर रहा हैं मैने कहा खाला कि एसी कोई बात नहीं हैं जिस पर छम्मो बोली कि तूझे तो सबक सिखाना ही पड़ेगा। इसके बाद छम्मो मुझे धमकी देकर अपने घर चली गयी जो इसके बाद मैं छम्मो के घर के बाहर गया और Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe को बुलाकर पूछा कि भाई क्या बात है। छम्मो खाला भी मुझे अभी घमकी देकर आई है जिस पर Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe ने कहा कि अम्मी ठीक कर रही है तुझे जल्दी ही मजा चखाएगें। जैसे ही मैं वहां से अपने घर पहुच ं ा तो मेरे पीछे पीछे ही Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe उसका बड़ा भाई Moinuddin @ Bada Nanhe उनका बहनोई Akil उनका भानजा Danish व छम्मो मेरे घर पर आ गए और Moinuddin मेरे साथ हाथा- पाई करने लगा और Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe हाथ में Pistol लिए हुआ था । जो मेरे दो भाई भी वहा आ गए और बीच बचाव करने लगे। उसी समय Shahzad @ Chotte Nanhe ने मेरे ऊपर fire कर दिया जो मैं नीचे बैठ गया जो यह गोली मेरे भाई mukim के पैर में लगी और वह वही गिर गया। जो इसी दौरान गली में रहने वाला लड़का Salman भी आ गया और Moinuddin को बीच-बचाव करते पकड़ लिया जिसपर Shahzad ने उसको यह कहकर की द ू भी इनकी तरफदारी कर रहा है तूझे ही मजा चखा देते है। जो Danish व Aklil State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 4/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:05:55 +0530 ने Salman को पकड़ लिया और छम्मो ने Shahzad से कहा कि पहले इसी का काम तमाम कर दे। जो Shahzad ने तुरन्त छम्मो को कहते ही Salman वही गिर पड़ा और इसके बाद वे सभी वहाँ से भागने लगे और मेरे भाई Shahrukh ने उन पर डण्डा फेककर मारा और डण्डा जाकर Moinuddin के सिर पर लगा और वह वही गिर पड़ा और बाकी सब वहाँ से भाग गए। इसके बाद वहाँ गली मुहल्ले के लोग आ गए और किसी ने पुलिस को फोन कर दिया और थोड़ी देर में पुलिस वहाँ आ गई। पुलिस के आने के पहले ही आस पड़ोस के लोग उन तीनो को JPC Hosp. ले गए। जहाँ पे हमे पता चला कि Salman की मृत्यु हो चुकी है और Mukim व Moinuddin का इलाज चल रहा है। जो उपरोक्त छम्मो Shahzad @ chotte nanhe, Moinnuddin @ Bade nanhe, Akil, Danish व छम्मो के खिलाफ कानूनी कार्यवाही की जाए। आपने मेरा ब्यान लिखा व पठकर सुना या जो उपरोक्त पांचो स्क्स हमारी गली में ही रहते है जिनको मैं पहले से ही अच्छी तरह जानता हूँ। ब्यान सुन लीया ठीक है।
2. Accordingly, on the basis of the statement of eye-witness Nazim and the MLCs of the deceased and injured Mukim, the present case FIR for the commission of offences u/s 302/307/34 and Section 27 Arms Act was registered at PS Seelampur against all the named accused persons.
3. After the registration of the case FIR, further investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Nafe Singh. During the course of investigation, IO Inspector Nafe Singh got the dead body of the deceased Salman shifted to and preserved at State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 5/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:03 +0530 GTB hospital mortuary through SI Naveen Kumar and Ct. Banshidhar. The IO also got the scene of crime inspected and photographed by the crime team. A site plan of the spot was also prepared at the instance of eye-witness Nazim. The blood exhibits, pair of blue coloured slippers and both the empty cartridges found on the spot were also seized and sealed and deposited in Malkhana. A postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was also got conducted at GTB hospital mortuary vide PM number 958/18. The wearing pant as well as the blood sample of the deceased Salman alongwith sample seal of the concerned hospital were also seized and duly sealed and taken into possession. The clothes of the deceased and other injured collected by SI Naveen Kumar alongwith the seal of the doctor/CMO concerned were also seized and duly taken into possession and deposited with Malkhana in- charge.
4. On 05.06.2018, accused Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha was arrested from near C.R. Das School New Seelampur Delhi and his disclosure statement wherein he confessed the commission of the crime alongwith other accused persons was also recorded. A pointing out memo of the place of the incident was also prepared at his instance.
5. On 25.06.2018, an information regarding the arrest of accused Shahjad @ Chote Nanha in case FIR No. 171/18 u/s 25 Arms Act,PS Seelampur was also received through SI Shahid Ali and, accordingly, accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha was also arrested in the present case who on interrogation also confessed to the commission of the crime and made a disclosure statement. The accused also State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 6/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:10 +0530 disclosed that the fire arm recovered in case FIR No. 171/18 PS Seelampur was the same fire arm which was used by him during the commission of the offence for causing gun shot injuries to deceased Salman and injured Mukim. A pointing out memo of the place of the incident was also prepared at the instance of accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha and the efforts were also made to arrest the other co- accused and to ascertain the source of procurement of fire Arm/pistol after obtaining his police custody. However, no clue could be found and the other accused also remained untraceable.
6. During the course of the investigation, IO also obtained the blood samples of injured Mukim and accused Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha. The postmortem report relating to the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Salman was also obtained which opined the cause of his death as "haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injury to chest produced by projectile firearm. Injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". Futher, an opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by injured Mukim was also obtained from the concerned hospital/doctor which opined his injuries as 'grievous'. All the sealed exhibits were also deposited with FSL Rohini for expert opinion. A scene of crime inspection report was also collected from crime team North-east District. The PCR form was also collected from the police headquarter and a scaled site plan of the spot was also got prepared through draftsman Inspector Mahesh Kumar. The necessary proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. qua the absconding accused were also initiated. Thereafter, on the completion of investigation, a formal charge-sheet for commission of offences u/s 302/307/34 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act was filed in the court of the Ld. Magistrate against both the accused Moinuddin @ Bada State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 7/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:19 +0530 Nanha and Shahjad @ Chota Nanhe. After the compliance of section 209 Cr.P.C, the case was committed by the Court of Ld. MM before this court.
7. After the committal of the case to this Court, arguments on the point of charge were heard by the then Ld. Predecessor of this Court qua accused Shajad @ Chota Nanha and Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.01.2019, a formal charge for the commission of offence u/s 302/307/34 IPC was framed against both the accused. The accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha was also additionally charged for the commission of offence u/s 27 of Arms Act.
8. It is relevant to note here that during the course of trial, a supplementary charge sheet qua accused Danish, Chammo and Akil pursuant to their arrest was also filed in the court on dated 02.04.2019. Accordingly, after the filing of the supplementary charge sheet, arguments on the point of charge qua accused Danish, Akil and Chammo were also heard by the then Ld. Predecessor of this court on 10.12.2021. Thereafter, a formal charge for the commission of offence u/s 174A IPC was framed against accused Danish, Akil and Chammo. Further, they were also charged for the commission of offence u/s 302/307 r/w 149 IPC. By the same order, the earlier charges framed against accused Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha and Shahjad @ Chota Nanha vide order dated 09.01.2019 were also directed to be modified and the charges already framed against them were also altered to section 302/307 r/w 149 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. During prosecution evidence, in order to discharge its burden and prove its State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 8/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:26 +0530 case against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined total 35 witnesses.
10. PW1 is ASI Umesh Kumar who was posted as duty officer in PS Seelampur on 05.06.2018 and proved the registration of the case FIR vide DD No. 5A( Ex.PW1/E) on the basis of rukka sent by SI K.P. Singh through Ct. Neeraj. The rukka in question is Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on PW1 thereon is Ex. PW1/B. PW1 also deposed regarding the issuance of certificate u/s 65 B IEA with respect to generation of the computerized copy of the case FIR. He also proved the registration of DD No. 6A regarding the departure of ASI Bharat Bhushan, special messenger for forwarding of the copy of the case FIR to the Ld. Area Magistrate as well as senior police officials. PW1 also proved the factum of registration of DD No 24A and 25A which are Ex. PW1/B and PW1/H respectively regarding the receipt of information relating to the firing incident at J-Block, near Government School and admission of injured Salman (who was declared brought dead by the doctors) and of accused Moinuddin in JPC hospital.
11. PW2 ASI Surender Singh is also a duty officer who deposed that on 04.06.2018 at about 11:18 pm he had received an information regarding firing and receiving bullet injury by some boys at J-Block, near Government School, Seelampur, Delhi and he recorded the same vide DD No. 24A (Ex. PW1/G). He also deposed that on the same day at about 11:25 pm he had also received an information through HC Nijakat Ali regarding the admission of the injured in JPC hospital which was recorded vide DD No. 25A( Ex. PW1/H).
12. PW3 is Dr. Kunal Kishor who was posted as Causal Medical Officer in JPC hospital on 04.06.2018 and has deposed regarding the medical examination of State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 9/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:35 +0530 patient Salman vide his MLC No. 14923 Ex. PW3/A, patient Mukim vide his MLC No. 14921 Ex. PW3/B and of patient/accused Moinuddin vide him MLC No. 14922 Ex. PW3/C.
13. As per the MLC of patient Salman Ex. PW3/A, who was brought with the alleged history of gun shot by one Imran, the following injuries were notice on his body during his medical examination:
(i) An entry wound present over sternum area measuring about 1cm in diameter.
(ii) Laceration over left arm measuring 1 cm into 0.5 cm.
(iii) BP of patient Salman was not recordable, pupil were dilated bilaterally and were not responding to light, ECG was showing flat line and as such the patient was declared brought dead.
14. As per the MLC of patient Mukim Ex. PW3/B (who was also brought by one Imran with alleged history gun shot injury) the following injuries were notice on his body during his medical examination:
(i) An entry wound over left side of his chest measuring approximately 1.5 cm, diameter was also observed on his examination.
15. As per the MLC of patient/accused Moinuddin Ex. PW3/C, the said patient was brought to casualty by one Danish with following injuries:
(i) Physical assault and on his examination.
(ii) Laceration over his left frontal region 2.5 cm X 0.5cm was also noticed.
16. PW3 has also deposed that after the medical examination, blood samples were taken from the all injured and the cloths which were they were wearing were State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 10/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:44 +0530 also preserved, sealed and handed over to the police.
17. PW4 Sh. Mohd. Aslam, is brother-in-law (sala) of deceased Salman and he has simply deposed regarding the identification of the dead body of the deceased at mortuary vide his statement Ex. PW4/A.
18. PW5 Sh. Mukeem, PW6 Sh. Nazim, PW9 Sh. Shahrukh are the real brothers. PW11 Ms. Nazma is the mother of PW5, PW6 and PW9. PW5 Sh. Mukeem is one of the injured of the incident. PW6 Sh. Nazim is the complainant of the case. PW9 and PW11 are also allegedly eye-witnesses of the incident.
19. PW13 is Sh. Kutubuddin @ Kallu, who had allegedly met with PW6 which was objected to by accused Shahjad and his family members. PW14 is Sh. Saeedur Rehman and PW25 Imran are other public and alleged eye-witnesses of the incident.
20. PW5 Sh. Mukim, one of the injured of the incident, during his examination- in-chief dated 24.09.2022 has deposed in the court that during the period of incident he was doing the business of making iron flower stand with his brothers Shahrukh (PW9) and Nazim (PW6) in the area of Seelampur. PW5 deposed that one Kallu (PW13) was known his brother Nazim. About one week prior to the incident in question, the said Kallu met his brother Nazim in the street. On the next day, accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha came to Nazim and during the conversation he asked Nazim as to why he was talking to Kallu and that he was having enmity with the said Kallu. Thereafter, some verbal altercation took place between accused Shahjad and his brother Nazim and accused threatened him by saying "tum jada State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 11/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:06:53 +0530 ban rahe ho eid ke baad bataunga tum dono ko". PW5 also deposed that on 04.06.2018 at about 10-10:30 pm accused Chammo also came to their house and called his brother Nazim and while abusing him and asked him as to why he is having friendship with Kallu. When Nazim to reply accused Chammo that there is no such thing, she also threatened his brother Nazim saying " Koi baat nahi tujhe bhi bataynge". Thereafter, she proceeded back to her house.
21. PW5 further deposed that after some time accused Shahjad came to their house and called his brother Nazim and took him towards his house. Nazim was trying to make accused Shahjad understand that there was no such thing as they were thinking, however, accused Shahjad started abusing his brother Nazim and also threatened him. Thereafter, PW9 brought Nazim back to their house. PW5 also stated that after about 2-4 minutes, accused Shahjad, Moinuddin, Akil, Danish and Chammo again came to their house and started abusing them and called Nazim outside and started beating him. On hearing the noise, PW5, PW9 and their mother PW11 also came out. PW5 saw that accused Shahjad and Moinuddin were having pistol in their hands and both of them fired some gun shots in the air due to which the public persons present there fled away. Thereafter, accused Shahjad fired towards the head of his brother Nazim but somehow the bullet did not hit him. When PW5 tried to intervene in the quarrel, accused Shahjad fired upon him and bullet hit him below the rib of his abdomen. PW5 also deposed that after hearing the noise, one Salman (deceased) who was also residing in the area and was friend of PW5 also came there and try to pacify the quarrel. However, accused Akil and Danish caught hold of Salman and accused Chammo also started abusing him as well as PW5 and his brothers and also instigated accused Shahjad to kill Salman by saying "ye bahut ban raha hai, pahle ise hi goli maar". Upon this, accused Shahjad State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 12/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:00 +0530 fired upon Salman and due to the bullet injury he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the spot.
22. PW5 also deposed that he was taken to JPC hospital by his relative Imran and deceased Salman was also taken to JPC hospital by his brother Imran. Later on PW5 came to know that Salman had expired. However, he was referred to GTB hospital.
23. PW5 further deposed that after the incident though accused Shahjad, Akil, Danish and Chammo had fled away from the spot, however, when accused Moinuddin was trying to flee away from the spot, PW9 had hit him with a danda due to which he had received injuries on his head and had fallen down on the ground.
24. PW5 also correctly identified all the accused persons in the court by their name and faces.
25. PW6 Sh. Nazim, the complainant of the case, during the recording of his examination-in-chief dated 24.09.2022 has also deposed the same facts as were disclosed by PW5. It was also deposed by PW6 that the incident in question started when one day one Kallu/ PW13 who was known to PW6 met him outside his house whereupon firstly accused Shahjad and thereafter his mother started objecting to the same and also extended threats and used abusive language. PW6 also deposed that thereafter on 04.06.2018, the accused persons came outside their house where a verbal altercation started with accused Shahjad @ Chota Nanha despite his all efforts to make him understand that his meeting with Kallu had nothing to do with State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 13/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:07 +0530 the accused persons, however, accused Shahjad did not listen to him and thereafter, he also fired towards him with a firearm, however, the bullet hit in the abdomen of his brother PW5. He also deposed regarding the firing upon deceased Salman by accused Shahjad and the active role played by accused Akil, Danish and Moinuddin who had caught hold of the deceased Salman and the instigation done by accused Chammo provoking the accused persons to fire upon him.
26. PW6 also deposed that after the incident all the accused persons started running from the spot, however, his brother PW9 hit accused Moinuddin with a danda on his head due to which he fell down on the ground and could not flee from the spot. PW6 also stated that after the incident deceased Salman had ran towards his house and informed his mother that accused Shahjad had caused bullet injuries to him.
27. It is relevant to note here that however, during his further examination-in- chief recorded on 24.09.2022, PW6 turned hostile in the court and while identifying the accused persons stated that they were not present at the spot at the time of incident. He also disputed his signatures on the site plan as well as the complainant Ex. PW1/A and the seizure memo of the exhibits lifted from the spot. PW6 also deposed that his signatures were taken by the police on blank papers.
28. It is further relevant to note here that during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW6 again did not support the case of the prosecution and denied all the suggestion of the Ld. State counsel regarding the commission of the offences by the accused persons. PW6 even deposed that the statement made by him during his examination-in-chief on 24.09.2022 was also made by him only at State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 14/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:14 +0530 the instance of IO. He also disputed that he was even present at the spot at the time of the incident.
29. Likewise, PW5 Sh. Mukim also turned hostile in the court during his cross- examination and denied witnessing the incident. PW5 deposed that at the time of incident there was dark and he did not know who had fired the gun shot. He also denied seeing anyone firing the gun shot at him. He also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that at the time of incident PW6, PW9 and PW11 were not present at the spot and that no quarrel whatsoever had taken place between him and any of the accused persons at any point of time. He also admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that none of the accused persons caused any injury to him at any point of time. Further, even during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW5 again failed to support the case of the prosecution and denied all the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel regarding the commission of the incident in question by the accused persons and their specific role and involvement behind the incident.
30. The same is also the position of the testimonies of PW9 Shahrukh, PW10 Imran (brother of the deceased), PW11 Ms. Nazma, PW13 Sh. Kutubuddin @ Kallu, PW14 Sh. Saeedur Rehman and PW25 Imran.
31. PW9 Sh. Shahrukh in his examination-in-chief dated 20.11.2023 has deposed that on the day of incident at about 10:30 pm when he alongwith his brother PW5 Mukim, deceased Salman and brother PW6 Nazim were standing outside their house, few boys came there and started firing on Nazim, Mukim and Salman. However, as per PW9 he could not see the face of the said boys who had State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 15/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:21 +0530 fired the gun shots.
32. Likewise, PW10 Sh. Imran in his examination-in-chief dated 29.11.2023 has also denied witnessing the incident stating that he had come outside his house only after hearing the loud voice of public and bursting of crackers and had just seen that his brother Salman (deceased) and PW5 Mukim had received gut shot injuries on them whereupon he took his brother to JPC hospital where he was declared brought dead.
33. Similarly, PW11 Ms. Nazma (mother of the injured/PW5), PW13 Sh. Kutubuddin, PW14 Sh. Saeedur Rehman and PW25 Imran (who had removed injured/PW5 to JPC hospital) have also turned completely hostile during their deposition in the court and simply deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Where PW11 stated she came to know about the incident only after hearing from somebody else, PW13 deposed that he has been wrongly involved by the police in the present case as a witness. PW14 also stated that on the day of incident he had also came out of his house only after hearing commotion and saw that public and police persons were present there and one of the police official took his mobile phone and made a call at 100 number. Similarly, PW25 also did not depose anything incriminating against any of the accused and while denying that he had witness the incident, simply deposed that he removed PW5 to JPC hospital after seeing him lying on his vehicle.
34. PW11, PW13, PW14 and PW25 have also similarly denied all the suggestion of the Ld. State counsel during their cross-examination that they had witness the incident in question and it was the accused persons who have fired at State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 16/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:27 +0530 the deceased Salman and PW5.
35. PW12 is Dr. Pankaj Malia who deposed regarding conducting the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Salman on 05.06.2018 at GTB hospital mortuary. The Postmortem report prepared by PW12 i.e. PM report No. 958/18 is Ex. PW12/A. As per the report, the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injuries to chest produced by projectile of firearm. Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
36. PW20 is Dr. Monika Chakravarty, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini, who deposed regarding analyzing the sealed exhibits relating to the blood sample and cloths of the deceased and the other injured of the incident, which were deposited in the FSL Rohini for expert opinion and assigned to her for biological examination and DNA profiling. The detailed report of PW20 relating to such examination is Ex. PW20/A. As per the report, the following observations were made with respect to the deposited exhibits:
"On the basis of biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 2a, 3, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 whereas, blood could not be detected on exhibits 2b and 4b.
Exhibits, 1a (shirt of deceased Salman), 2a (shirt of injured Mukim), 3 (shirt of injured/accused Moinuddin), 4a (Jeans pants of deceased Salman), 5 (blood on gauze of deceased Salman), 6 (blood sample of injured Mukim), 7 (blood sample of injured/accused Moinuddin), 9 (blood in gauze from the place of occurrence) and 10 (cemented concrete pieces were subjected to DNA examination).
AmpFl STR, Identifiler plus PCR amplification kit was used for the amplification of DNA. The data was analysed using Gene mapper IDx software.
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 17/33
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:07:34
+0530
On the basis of DNA profiling it was concluded that :
1- The DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.5 (blood on gauze of deceased Salman) was found to be matching with the DNA profiles generated from the source of Ex. la (shirt of deceased Salman), 4a (jeans pants of deceased Salman) and 9 (blood on gauze on from the place of occurrence).
2. DNA profile generated from the source of Ex (blood of sample of injured/accused Moinuddin) was found to matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.3 (shirt of injured Moinuddin).
3. The DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 6 (blood sample of injured Mukim) was found to be matching with the DNA profile, generated from the source of Ex.2a (shirt of injured Mukim).
37. PW21 is Dr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistic FSL Rohini who deposed that on 09.07.2018 a sealed parcel with the seal of NS pertaining to the present case FIR through HC Sanjiv and on 18.01.2022 one sealed parcel of case FIR No. 171/18, PS Seelampur sealed with the seal of PP FSL Delhi was received in the FSL through Ct. Anuj. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal provided with FSL form. The first parcel was containing two 7.65 mm cartridges marked as Ex. EC-1 and EC-2 (i.e. the empty cartridges allegedly recovered from the spot in question) and the second parcel was containing one improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber, one 7.65 mm cartridge case and one 7.65 mm cartridge marked Ex. F-1, A-1 and A-2 (i.e. the alleged pistol and cartridges recovered from the possession of accused Shahjad in case FIR No. 171/18). PW21 deposed that after examination he found that Ex. EC-1 and EC-2 were fired empty cartridges and that the same were fired through the improvise pistol 7.65 mm State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 18/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:42 +0530 caliber at mark Ex. F-1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks, breech face marks and chamber marks present on Ex. EC-1 and EC-2 and on test fired cartridges cases marked TC-1 and TC-2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope model leica DMC. The cartridge cases marked EC-1 and EC-2 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act.
38. PW7 ASI Mahavir is the photographer, who accompanied the crime team during the inspection of the scene of crime and deposed regarding the conduct of crime spot inspection by SI Manish Kumar in-charge crime team and ASI Raj Kumar, finger print expert. PW7 also deposed that during the inspection, two empty cartridge and one pair of blue colour sleepers were found at the spot. He also deposed that he had also taken the photographs of the spot from all the different angles with his official digital camera which are already Ex. PW7/A. His certificate u/s 65 IEA is Ex. PW7/B.
39. PW8 HC Kailash Chander, PW15 HC Bansi Dhar, PW16 HC Neeraj, PW19 SI Krishna Pal Singh, PW23 SI Naveen are the police officials who have simply deposed regarding the proceedings conducted by SI Krishna Pal Singh and thereafter by the IO Inspector Nafe Singh during the course of the investigation post the receipt of information regarding the occurrence of the incident vide DD No. 24A and registration of the case FIR.
40. PW17 SI Shahid Ali, PW18 ASI Amit Kumar, PW32 HC Anil Kumar and PW33 HC Chandra Prakash are the police witnesses relating to the proceedings pertaining to arrest of accused Shahjad in case FIR No. 171/2018. These witnesses have deposed regarding the factum of arrest of accused Shahjad on 25.06.2018 at State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 19/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:07:54 +0530 about 05:30 pm on the basis of a secret information from the area of Pushta and recovery of one countrymade pistol and two live cartridges from his possession. PW32 has also deposed regarding the efforts made by the IO of the present case to arrest the other co-accused at the instance of accused Shahjad during his police custody though, they remained untraceable.
41. PW27 HC Ravi Kumar, PW28 HC Jaivir, PW29 Inspector Prem Pal, PW30 ASI Bijender and PW34 Retd. SI Jaiveer are the witnesses relating to the arrest proceedings of accused Akil in case FIR no. 289/19, PS Bhajanpura on the basis of secret information from the area of Yamuna Vihar, near Noor-e-illahi petrol pump, Delhi and his subsequent arrest in the present case FIR on 14.06.2019 by PW29 Inspector Prem Pal Singh. They have also deposed regarding the proceedings relating to arrest of accused Danish in case FIR No. 207/2019, PS Seelampur on 27.05.2019 and his subsequent arrest by Inspector Nafe Singh in the present case on 28.05.2019.
42. PW22 HC Mani Ram is another police witness who has simply depsoed that on 04.06.2018 he was working as CPCR operator and a call regarding firing of incident was received on 100 number from one caller Vishal Bhatia, Mobile No. 9963405110. The certified copy of CPCR form is Ex. PW22/A.
43. PW24 is Retd. ASI Bharat Bhushan, the special messenger who simply deposed regarding the delivery of copy of FIR to the area magistrate and DCP concerned.
44. PW26 is Sh. Ravi Kumar, JJA/Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Anmol Nohria, State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 20/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:08:03 +0530 who simply produced the trial court record pertaining to case FIR No. 171/18. The copy of case FIR No. 171/18 is Ex. PW26/A (OSR). Copy of Rukka is Ex. PW17/C (OSR), copy of site plan Ex. PW17/D. Copy of seizure memo is Ex. PW17/B. Copy of sketch is Ex. PW17/A, copy of arrest memo of accused Shahjad @ Nanhey is Ex. PW18/A. The disclosure statement is Ex. PW18/B.
45. PW35 is Inspector Nafe Singh, the IO of the case. During his testimony PW35 has also simply deposed about the proceedings conducted during the course fo the investigation and the same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.PC
46. On the completion of prosecution evidence, an examination of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC was also conducted on 17.09.2015 and 18.09.2025 respectively. During their examination, the accused persons denied all the allegations leveled against them and claimed their innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence was, however, led by any accused except Shahjad @ Chota Nanha, in his defence.
Defence Evidence
47. During defence evidence, accused Shahjad has examined Sh. Chintu, JJA/Assisant Ahlmad in the court of Ld. JMFC Sh. Anmol Noharia, Room No. 17, KKD, Courts as DW-1 who simply produced the record pertaining to judicial file of Case FIR No. 171/2018, PS Seelampur, titled as State Vs. Moin @ Shahdjad @ Nanha in order to prove that vide judgment dated 17.11.2025 passed in the said State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 21/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:08:15 +0530 case whereby the accused Shahjad was acquitted for the commission of offence u/s 25 Arms Act on the conclusion of trial. The copy of the order and judgment dated 17.11.2025 are Ex. DW-1/A (colly).
FINAL ARGUMENTS/ SUBMISSIONS
48. I have already heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defense counsel during the course of final arguments at length and have also duly gone through the entire case file and material available on record.
49. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that in view of the testimony of PW5 and PW6 recorded during their examination-in-chief dated 24.09.2022 wherein both the witnesses have categorically deposed regarding the occurrence of the incident in question as well as the role and involvement of all the accused persons behind the commission of the incident which led to death of deceased Salman and causing of grievous injuries to PW5 due to firing of gun shot, the commission of offence u/s 302/307/149 IPC by all the accused and of the commission of offence u/s 27 Arms Act by accused Shahjad stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
50. It is also argued that the mere fact that during their cross-examination PW5 and PW6 turned hostile and retracted from their previous version, the same also does not per-se wipe out their entire testimony recorded during the examination-in- chief. It is also submitted that since no plausible explanation has been given by PW5 and PW6 for retracting from their previous version during their cross- examination by the state, it cannot be assume that the facts deposed by them during State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 22/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:08:26 +0530 their examination-in-chief were incorrect.
51. It is argued that similarly, the mere fact that other material prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the same is also not fatal for the case of the prosecution and reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW5 and PW6 recorded during their examination-in-chief which sufficiently proves the commission of offences by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
52. It is argued that likewise the commission of offence u/s 174A IPC by the accused Danish, Akil and Chammo also stands sufficiently proved beyond all reasonable doubt in view of the categorical, unimpeachable and completely consistent & reliable testimony of PW35 relating to the due execution of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and the complete failure of the accused persons to prove their innocence and any justified reason for remaining absent from the court.
53. Hence, it is prayed that all the accused persons may be convicted for all the alleged offences.
54. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the accused persons and praying for their acquittal, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that all the allegations leveled against the accused persons are false and fabricated. It is argued that all the material prosecution witnesses including the complainant/PW6 and one of the alleged injured of the incident (PW5) have already turned hostile in the court. It is stated that similarly the other alleged eye-witnesses of the incident namely PW9, PW10, PW11, PW14 and PW25 have also failed to support the case of the prosecution. Further PW13 Sh. Kuttubuddin @ Kallu has also denied any State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 23/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:08:34 +0530 knowledge regarding the incident in question and has also denied that he had ever met with PW6 at any point of time few days prior to the incident in question or that he was having any enmity or ill-will with the accused Shahjad or any of his other family members.
55. It is also argued that similarly, there are also other material inconsistence in the testimony of PW5 and PW6 as where PW5 during his examination-in-chief dated 24.09.2022 deposed that at the time of incident both accused Shahjad and Moinuddin were carrying pistol in their hands and also fired gun shots in the air, no such fact was deposed by PW6 and as per PW6 only Shahjad @ Nanha was having a pistol with him.
56. It is argued that likewise where PW5 deposed that accused Shahjad firstly fired towards the head of his brother/PW6 but the bullet did not hit him and only when PW5 tried to intervene in the quarrel, he was fired upon by accused Shahjad and the bullet him bellow his ribs in the abdomen, on the contrary as per PW6 accused Shahjad had fired only one gun shot which was aimed towards him, however, since he ducked, the same bullet hit PW5 in his abdomen. It is stated that as such both PW5 and PW6 have given a completely contrary and inconsistent version regarding firing of bullets by accused Shahjad. It is stated that moreover, no recovery of any weapon of offence has been made at the instance of accused Moinuddin and the same also clearly reveals that the entire case of the prosecution based upon false and fabricated facts.
57. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that likewise the investigation conducted by the IO of the case is also not fair and transparent. It is stated that State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 24/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:08:42 +0530 admittedly accused Moinuddin was also one of the injured of the incident, however, no efforts were immediately made to contact him and to listen his side of story. Further, the fact that accused Moinuddin has been shown to be arrested from an area which was closed to his residential address, the same also reveals that the arrest proceedings relating to his arrest are also completely false and bogus and he was arrested just after being lifted from his house.
58. It is also argued that likewise the failure of the police team to immediately record the statement of any of the family members of the victims and other injured of the incident despite the fact that the police had arrived at the spot after the receipt of the DD No. 24A and that surprisingly they also could not find any eye- witness of the incident or any of the family members of the deceased/injured in the hospital, though, as per their MLCs, the injured/deceased were got admitted in the hospital by their own family members, also highlights the inefficiency and biased attitude of the police towards the accused persons.
59. It is argued that similarly, no independent public eye-witness relating to the incident in question was joined by the IO during the course of investigation though, the incident in question allegedly took place in a public street and near a mosque. It is also stated that all the public prosecution witnesses in the present case are also the real family members of the deceased and injured/PW5. It is submitted that moreover, they have also not supported the case of the prosecution.
60. The Ld. Defence counsel further submits that similarly, there is no other direct, circumstantial or forensic evidence available in the present case to link any of the accused with the commission of the alleged offences.
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 25/33
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:08:50
+0530
61. It is argued that the FSL report relating to biological examination and DNA profiling of the sealed exhibits submitted with FSL Rohini also does not prove anything against any of the accused. Further, since accused Shahjad has already been acquitted for the possession of the alleged recovered pistol in case FIR No. 171/18, PS Seelampur, it is argued that the positive ballistic report also does not prove anything against the accused.
62. Hence, it is argued that since the case of prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and deficiencies, there exist a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and therefore, all the accused persons may be acquitted for all the alleged offences.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
63. In the present case all the accused persons are being tried for the commission of offences u/s 302/307/149 IPC. Further accused Shahjad is also being additionally tried for the commission of offence u/s 27 Arms Act and accused Danish, Akil and Chammo are also being additionally tried for the commission of offence u/s 174A IPC. Thus, in order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the commission of the abovesaid offences by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
64. Now the court shall proceed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in order to find out whether the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts or not?
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 26/33
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:09:06
+0530
65. However, as already noted above in the proceeding paras of this judgment, it is clearly seen that all the eye-witnesses of the incident namely PW6, PW9. PW10 PW11, PW14, PW15 and including one of the injured/victim PW5 Mukim have completely failed to support the case of the prosecution.
66. Though, the perusal of the examination-in-chief of PW5 and PW6 reveals that during their initial examination they had supported the case of the prosecution and deposed regarding the commission of the incident in question as well as the specific role played by each of the accused and that how the incident actually started, however, during their cross-examination, both the witnesses retracted from their previous version and denied the role and involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the incident in question.
67. Where PW6 turned hostile even during his further examination in chief conducted on 24.09.2022 and stated that the accused persons were not present at the spot and he also disputed his signature on the site plan and complaint Ex. PW1/A, at the same time, PW5 also changed his version during his cross examination by the Ld. Defense counsel and deposed that at the time of incident there was dark and he did not know who had fired the gun shot. PW5 also denied seeing anyone firing the gun shot at him and also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defense counsel that no quarrel had taken place between him and the accused persons and no injury was caused to him by the accused persons, to be correct.
68. It is seen that even during their cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, both PW5 and PW6 again failed to support the case of the prosecution State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 27/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:09:13 +0530 and denied all the suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding the commission of the offences by the accused persons and the specific and active role played by each of them.
69. Further, as rightly highlighted by the Ld. Defence counsel, both PW5 and PW6 have also certain material contradictory statement with respect to firing of gun shot by the accused persons. Admittedly, PW6 is silent with respect of possession of any fire arm by the accused Moinuddin as well as firing of gun shot in the air by both accused shahzad and Moinuddin. Further, they have also deposed contrary fact as to whether two separate gun shots were fired by accused shahzad or single gun shot was fired which missed PW6 and accidentally hit PW5. Likewise, no material has also been placed on record by the prosecution to appreciate as to why both PW5 and PW6 retracted from their earlier version and to reach to the finding that it was only at the instance or under the pressure of accused persons. It is relevant to note here that PW6 in fact had attended the court on the day of his examination dated 24.09.2022 after his production from the JC as he was also facing trial a murder case in FIR no.237/19 which was registered at the instance of present accused persons.
70. The material contradiction and inconsistencies in both the statement of the PW5 and PW6 recorded during their examination in chief and cross examination, as such seriously dents the case of the prosecution and also renders both the witnesses completely unreliable.
71. Likewise, the other material witnesses of the incident i.e. PW9 Shahrukh, PW10 Imran (real brother of deceased Salman), PW11 Ms. Nazma (mother of State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 28/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:09:21 +0530 PW5) as well as the other public witnesses namely PW13 Kutubdin @ Kallu, PW14 Saeedur Rehman and PW25 Imran have also turned completely hostile in the court and did not depose anything incriminating against the accused.
72. PW10, who is the real brother of deceased Salman, has also denied witnessing the incident in question and except deposing that after hearing the loud voice of public and bursting of crackers he had come out of his house and after seeing his brother Salman and PW5 receiving gunshot injuries, took his injured brother to JPC Hospital where he was declared as brought dead, nothing incriminating was deposed by PW10 against any of the accused persons.
73. The same is the position of PW14 from whose mobile phone a call at 100 number was made to the Police regarding the occurrence of the incident and the said witness also denied witnessing the incident and stated that one of the police officials had taken his mobile phone and had made a call at 100 number.
74. PW11 Ms. Nazma mother of injured Mukeem also did not depose anything incriminating against any of the accused persons despite receiving of a gunshot injury by her son/PW5.
75. As far as, the remaining police witnesses are concerned, they are also not eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Further, as far as their testimony qua the proceedings conducted by such witnesses during the course of investigation relating to seizure of exhibits from the spot in question, preparation of site plan, arrest of the accused persons etc., are concerned, the same also do not help the prosecution to prove the commission of offence in question by the accused persons, State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 29/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:09:30 +0530 especially, offence u/s 302/307/149 IPC.
76. Likewise, the testimonies of PW3 Dr. Kunal Kishore who medically examined the deceased Salmanand PW5, PW12 Dr. Pankaj Maliea, who prepared the postmortem report of deceased, PW20 Dr. Monika Chakravarti, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini and PW21 Punit Puri, Asst. Director, Ballistics, FSL Rohini, who prepared the forensic reports relating to the biological examination, DNA profiling and Ballistics examination of the seized exhibits submitted with the said experts, also does not per-se prove the role and involvement of any of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences.
77. Admittedly, in the report prepared by PW20 pertaining to the biological examination and DNA profiling nothing incriminating has come on record against accused Moinuddin as though the blood of the deceased Salman, injured Mukeem and accused Moinuddin was detected on the seized exhibits, however, the same pertains to their own clothes. Likewise, on DNA profiling also the blood of accused Moinuddin was found to be matching with only the DNA profile generated from his own shirt.
78. Similarly, in view of the acquittal of accused Shahjad in case FIR No. 171/2018, PS Seelampur, vide judgment dated 17.11.2025 passed by the court of Sh. Anmol Noheria, Ld. JMFC, Room No. 17, KKD Courts, the possitive ballistics report regarding the seized exhibits i.e. the alleged recovered pistol F-1 (case property of case FIR No. 171/2018, PS Seelampur) and its matching with two empty cartridges Ex. EC-1 and Ex. EC-2 (case property of the present case), also renders the said ballistics report completely useless for the prosecution so as to State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 30/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:09:39 +0530 prove that the empty cartridges found at the spot were actually fired by accused Shahjad with the help of the alleged recovered pistol. Except the ballistics report confirming the seized exhibits to be fire arms, there is no material available on record to prove that it was actually used by the accused Shahjad.
79. Hence, in view of the abovesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of offences u/s 302/307/149 IPC by the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Further since, accused Shahjad has already been acquitted for the alleged recovery of the improvised pistol (countrymade katta) in case FIR No. 171/2018 PS Seelampur and there is no material available on record to link him with the two empty cartridges allegedly found at the spot and fired during the commission of the offences in question, the commission of offence u/s 27 of Arms Act by accused Shahjad also remains completely not proved.
80. However, as far as the commission of offence u/s 174-A IPC by accused Danish, Akil and Chhammo is concerned, IO PW35 who executed process u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Danish, Akil and Chhammo has duly deposed during his examination in the court that on 18.08.2018, he had moved an application Ex. PW35/H to initiate process u/s 82 Cr.PC against the accused persons which was allowed by the court of Ld. MM Ms. Aditi Garg vide its order Ex. PW35/H-1 and that, thereafter, he duly executed the proceedings against all the accused and after recording of his statement regarding the due execution of the process, the accused Danish, Akil and Chhammo were also declared as proclaimed offender by the court vide its order dated 18.10.2018 Ex. PW35/J. The statement of IO/PW35 regarding due execution of the process recorded before the Ld. Magistrate is already Ex.
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 31/33
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:09:48
+0530
PW35/1. Thus, the factum of due execution of the process u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Danish, Akil and Smt. Chhammo and their being declared as Proclaimed Offender stands completely proved.
81. However, the accused Danish, Akil and Smt. Chhammo have not been able to lead any evidence to prove that either they were not properly served with the said process or that they were prevented by any other circumstance beyond their control to attend the court and therefore, the declaration made by the court declaring them as 'proclaimed offender' was unjustified and wrong in law. Neither any suggestion to that effect was given to PW35 during the course of his cross examination nor any other defense evidence was led by the accused persons to prove their innocence. Except stating that the proceedings initiated against them were incorrect, no material was placed on record by the accused persons to substantiate their plea or to prove their innocence for the commission of offence u/s 174-A IPC.
82. Hence, as far as the commission of the offence u/s 174-A IPC by accused Danish, Akil and Smt. Chhammo is concerned, the court is of the considered view that the commission of the same by the accused persons stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
83. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons and finding, all the accused persons Shahjad @ Chhota Nanha, Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha, Danish, Akil and Smt. Chammo are hereby acquitted for the commission of offences u/s 302/307/149 IPC. Further, accused Shahjad also stands acquitted for the commission of offence u/s State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 32/33 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.02 17:09:55 +0530 27 of Arms Act. However, accused Danish, Akil and Smt. Chammo are hereby convicted for the commission of offence u/s 174-A IPC.
84. Copy of this judgment be given to both the sides free of cost.
85. The matter on the point of quantum of sentence qua convict Danish, Akil and Smt. Chammo shall be heard separately.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by
on 02.12.2025
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:10:25 +0530
(BALWINDER SINGH)
ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD
Courts/Delhi/02.12.2025
It is certified that this Judgment contains 33 pages and each page has been signed by undersigned.
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.02
17:10:32
+0530
(BALWINDER SINGH)
ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD
Courts/Delhi/02.12.2025
State Vs. Moinuddin @ Bada Nanha & Ors. FIR No. 141/2018 Page No. 33/33