Delhi District Court
State vs Parvesh Rana on 4 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
Sessions case No. 1010/18
CNR No. DLSW01-019413-2018
FIR No. 668/16
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 307/201 IPC and 25 &27
Arms Act
Charges framed against accused 307/201 IPC and 27
person namely Parvesh Rana Arms Act
State Vs. Parvesh Rana
S/o Sh. Dilbagh Singh
R/o House No. 17A, Gali No.17,
Siddharth Enclave, Bhagwati Garden,
Uttam Garden, New Delhi.
Date of Institution of case 24.09.2018
Date of Arguments 04.08.2025
Judgment reserved on 04.08.2025
Judgment pronounced on 04.08.2025
Decision Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.08.2016, upon receiving Daily Diary entry No. 47A, Sub-Inspector Sita Ram, accompanied by Constable Lokender, proceeded to the location of the incident - Gali No. 17, Siddharth Enclave, SHIVALI BANSAL Bhagwati Garden. There, they met the complainant, Anup Kumar Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.08.04 16:56:29 +0530 SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 1 of 24 Singh, who handed them a written complaint along with an empty cartridge and a bullet lead. According to the complainant, on 29.08.2016 at around 12:30 p.m., construction work was underway at his residence located at House No. F-12-13, Gali No. 17, Siddharth Enclave, Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. On that day, the wooden supports ( balli-fatte) of the roof slab were being removed by labourers. To prevent injuries to passersby, the complainant temporarily obstructed the pathway with a wooden beam and assigned some individuals to ensure safety. At that time, the accused, Parvesh Rana, arrived and began shouting and abusing the complainant for blocking the lane. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant and his mother came outside. The accused caught the complainant by the collar, assaulted him with punches and kicks, and then returned to his SHIVALI house. He came back armed with a pistol and fired shots towards BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.08.04 complainant and his mother. In an attempt to protect themselves, 16:56:44 +0530 the complainant and his mother rushed back into their house. The accused fired three shots at them. The complainant handed over one empty cartridge and one bullet lead to the Investigating Officer. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused later disposed of the pistol in an attempt to destroy evidence related to the attempted murder. Additionally, he possessed and used the firearm without a valid licence. As a result, the present case was registered and an investigation was initiated.
2. Vide order dated 2 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 8 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused by the order of Ld. MM. Vide order dated 12.11.2018, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 2 of 24
3. Vide order dated 9.1.2019 the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 307/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
5. PW-1 is injured Anup Kumar Singh who deposed that on 29.8.2016 at about 12.30 p.m, he was at his home as construction work was in progress at his home. Balli-phattas were being opened on that day from 2nd floor of his home. In order to ensure SHIVALI BANSAL that no one may get any injury, he had placed a wooden balli in Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.08.04 the street outside his house. He also made two persons sit to take 16:56:51 +0530 care of passersby. Accused Parvesh Rana, who is a resident of same street, came there and threw away phatta balli from the street and started abusing. Accused also gave beatings to the complainant. Then accused went to his home and brought a pistol and fired towards PW1 but luckily he escaped. PW1 along with his mother immediately went into his house. PW1 gave one empty cartridge to the Police which was found in the street. PW1 deposed that accused had fired three shots upon him. As per PW1, his mother was also in the street. PW1 has proved his complaint to Police as Ex.PW1/A; and seizure memo of empty cartridge as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW1 was declared partly hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross- examination, PW1 admitted that on arrival in the street, accused hurled abuses in loud voice stating as to why ballies were kept on the way and on hearing such voice, his mother also came out in SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 3 of 24 the street. Then accused gave the complainant fists and leg blows and then he went away to his home from where he returned with a pistol. PW1 deposed that besides one empty cartridge case, he also handed over one front piece of bullet to police. PW1 admitted that police had prepared sketch of the empty cartridge case and the bullet as Ex.PW1/C.
7. During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 stated that when accused was hurling abuses in the street, at that time he and his mother were inside home. PW1 further stated that he wrote his complaint-Ex.PW1/A at Police Station at about 4 P.M. or 5 PM. When police had come to the spot immediately after the incident, he had handed over the Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL empty cartridge case and bullet piece to Police. PW1 stated that, BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:57:00 +0530 first of all, he had seen the empty cartridge case and bullet piece.
In the call made to PCR, he had given information regarding firing and quarrel being taken place. PW1 stated that he had never met accused before the date of incident nor he was knowing him. He also did not know the name of accused or name of his father before the date of incident. As per PW1, he had seen the bullet being fired thrice and, thereafter, he had gone inside his home. Bullets did not hit anything and had dropped on the ground in front of his house. Accused had fired bullets from outside his house. PW1 and his mother were standing outside his home when bullets were fired. PW1 admitted his father was PSO and at the time of incident was on duty. His father was employed in military and he retired as Subedar. His father had a licenced gun. PW1 denied the suggestion that at the time of incident there was movement of people in the street and the phatta ballies placed in front of his house had not restricted movement of SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 4 of 24 people altogether in the street. PW1 denied the suggestion that no bullets were fired by accused though there had been altercation because of phatta balli in the street. PW1 further denied the suggestion that due to altercation, he got registered false case against the accused. PW1 further denied the suggestion that bullets were fired from the arm kept in his home; they were picked up and handed over to Police and accused was falsely implicated. PW1 admitted that till three bullets were fired, he and his mother were in the street and had only moved back a bit after firing of second bullet. Three bullets were fired immediately and there was no time gap in between them. He denied the suggestion Digitally signed by that he has deposed falsely.
SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL
8. PW2 Smt. Nirmal Devi is the mother of PW1 Anup Singh BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:57:11 +0530 who has corroborated the testimony of PW1. She deposed that on 29.8.2016 at about 12.30 noon, accused came in his car and started abusing the labourer and then, she along with his on Anup came outside from their home. Accused thrashed his son Anup. Thereafter, accused went to his house and came out with a pistol and fired on them thrice. Due to fear they went into their house. Anup called at 100 number. From the spot, Anup had handed over bullet fired at the spot.
9. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW2 deposed that empty cartridges were lying at a distance of about 5-6 feet from each other. Neither she nor her son knew the name of accused prior to the incident. The bullet did not hit any object/wall. The bullet fell about 5-6 feet before her. Accused fired from their left hand side when they were standing outside their gate facing the opposite side. When the firing took place, there were about 10-12 labourers working on SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 5 of 24 the spot. No statement of any labourer was recorded as they fled away from the spot. PW2 denied the suggestion that as some scuffle and altercation had taken place between her son and the accused, they have got registered the FIR on concocted story in order to teach him a lesson. She denied the suggestion that no empty cartridge was collected outside their house rather Anup procured the same from inside the house and handed over the same to the Police. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely in order to teach the accused a lesson.
10. PW3 Smt. Shakti Sharma has deposed that she cannot identify the accused. After hearing some noise, she came out of SHIVALI BANSAL her house and saw that some ladies were quarreling. PW-3 was Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.08.04 declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for 16:57:19 +0530 State. However, despite her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, nothing incriminating came out against the accused. PW3 denied having made statement Mark PW3/A to the Police. She denied the suggestion that she has been won over by accused or that accused had fired upon Anup and his mother with intention to kill them. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. PW4 SI Surjeet Singh has proved endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW4/A; FIR as Ex.PW4/B and certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/C.
12. PW5 Avinash Srivastava, Sr. Scientific Officer, Ballastic, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that 7.65 mm cartridge case found corresponding to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge and stated that both are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. He has proved his Ballastics Examination Report as Ex.PW5/A. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 6 of 24
13. PW6 HC Lokender Singh joined the investigation with the IO in the present case. He has proved the site plan as Ex.PW6/A; arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C respectively; his disclosure statement as Ex.PW6/D and MLC of accused as Ex.PW6/E.
14. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 stated that alleged place of incident was residential locality having high density population. As per PW6, IO did not verify the place of bullets from any independent witness in his presence. In his presence, complainant did not disclose his position vis a vis position of bullets. PW6 denied the suggestion that no SHIVALI proceeding had taken place in his presence. He further denied the BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or Date: 2025.08.04 16:57:27 +0530 that his signatures were obtained on blank papers which later on converted into disclosure statement of accused.
15. PW7 Smt. Kanchan Singh deposed that on the day of incident she heard noise of bullet firing and she rushed outside her home. She saw that accused fired bullet on Anup Singh. PW7 correctly identified the accused present in the court on the day of her deposition. Then, mother of accused came and she took him with her.
16. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 deposed that she did not give any description of the pistol to the police. She admitted that she knew the name of accused prior to incident as accused is her neighbour. PW7 admitted that she picked the bullet from the spot and handed it over to Anup. As per PW7, when accused fired bullet, Anup was standing with his mother. Bullet did not hit any person or any object. PW7 denied the suggestion that no such incident happened or she has deposed SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 7 of 24 falsely.
17. PW8 is Smt. Savita Rani who deposed that on 29.8.2016 accused Parvesh came on his motorcycle and abused Anup on the issue of work of construction going on of his house. Then, altercation took place between Anup and accused. Thereafter, accused went into his house and from the temple, he fired bullet towards Anup and his mother. PW8 further deposed that she immediately asked Anup and his mother to go inside their house.
18. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW8 deposed that she does not know where the bullet hit at last because bullet was fired from far distance. PW8 deposed that she did not see where the bullet landed but it did not come towards Anup and his mother. PW8 denied the suggestion that as she is Digitally signed by close friend of mother of Anup, she has deposed in their favour SHIVALI and against the accused. She further denied the suggestion that SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:57:34 +0530 accused Parvesh did not fire any bullet or no such incident had taken place.
19. PW9 Smt. Kavita has corroborated the testimony of PW8. PW9 has deposed that she saw accused Parvesh firing bullet towards Anup and his mother. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW9 stated that the bullet was picked by Police from the spot i.e in front of temple. PW9 denied the suggestion that as she is close friend of mother of Anup, she has deposed in their favour and against the accused. She further denied the suggestion that accused Parvesh did not fire any bullet or no such incident had taken place.
20. PW-10 Smt. Rekha deposed that on the day of incident she was inside her house and heard sound like bursting of cracker. PW-10 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 8 of 24 Addl. PP for State. However, despite her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, nothing incriminating came out against the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
21. PW11 Sh. Hanuman Nath deposed that on 29.8.2016 at about 12/12.30 noon, he was about to sleep but in the meantime, he heard commotion and then a bullet being fired. PW11 deposed that he saw two bullets being fired by accused Parvesh towards Anup. After firing bullets, accused Anup escaped from the spot.
22. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW11 stated that he saw accused firing bullet on Anup from a distance of about 300 feet from Anup and his mother. Anup and his mother were standing together when bullets were Digitally fired by accused. PW11 admitted that neither Anup nor his signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:57:42 mother got hurt by the bullet. PW11 denied the suggestion that +0530 no such incident took place or he is deposing falsely at the instance of the complainant with whom he had come to the court on the day of his evidence.
23. PW12 is SI Sitaram who reached the spot on receipt of DD No.47A where complainant gave him written complaint- Ex.PW1/A as well as an empty cartridge and a lead. PW12 prepared the sketch of empty cartridge and lead-Ex.PW1/C and also prepared its seizure memo-Ex.PW1/B. PW12 identified the said empty cartridge and lead in the open court as Ex.P12/A & Ex.P12/B respectively. PW12 proved various documents executed during investigation and already exhibited vis. FIR, site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement of accused. As per PW12, he again recorded disclosure statement of accused regarding his pistol and he had led Police to Kakrola SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 9 of 24 drain but pistol was not found. The same was proved as Ex.PW12/A.
24. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 deposed that complainant wrote the complaint in his presence at the spot. Complainant also handed over the fired bullets to him. PW12 admitted that no public person was joined in the investigation at the time of seizure of fired bullets. As per PW12, he recorded the statements of neighbours of the complainant vis Kanchan Singh, Nirmala, Shakti Devi and Savita. The incident took place due to the quarrel which took place on the issue of construction raised by the complainant. PW12 clearly pointed the place in the site plan-Ex.PW6/A from where accused fired bullets towards complainant. As per PW12, the weapon of offence could not be found as accused disclosed that he had thrown the weapon in Kakrola nala. PW12 admitted that he did not take services of any person to search the drain for Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL weapon of offence. PW12 denied the suggestion that accused did BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:57:49 +0530 not fire any bullet or he was having no weapon of offence.
25. PW13 is SI Anup Rana who filed charge-sheet in the present case. In his cross-examination PW13 admitted that he had not investigated the matter.
26. PW14 is Dr. Rajesh Kohli who deposed that on 29.8.2016, patient Anup Kumar Singh was brought to DDU Hospital with alleged history of physical assault and was examined by Dr. Ajeet Kumar vide MLC No.8784-Ex.PW6/E. In his cross-examination, PW14 denied that the injuries sustained by injured were self inflicted injuries.
27. PW-15 HC Raj Kumar deposed that he deposited the sealed pulanda in FSL and has proved RC No.129/21/16 in this SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 10 of 24 respect as Ex.PW15/A. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW15 denied the suggestion that he tampered with the exhibit when the same was in his custody.
28. PW16 ASI Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 29.8.2016 ASI Sita Ram deposited two sealed parcels in the Malkhana and, accordingly, he made entry in register No.19. PW16 has proved the said entry as Ex.PW16/A. On 27.9.2016, he handed over the aforestated pulandas to Ct. Rajkumar to deposit the same in FSL, Rohini and proved acknowledgment of FSL in this regard as Ex.PW16/B. During his cross-examination, PW16 denied the suggestion that he tampered with the case property during it remained in his possession.
29. In his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC, accused made statement to the effect that he does not dispute the genuineness of DD No.47A-Ex.PX1 but simultaneously stated that he does not admit the allegations, if any contained in the said document.
30. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 submissions, he stated that PW1 has completely supported the 16:57:56 +0530 prosecution story. He argues that PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW11 are independent eye witnesses who had seen the occurrence and have deposed before this court. He further argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused should be convicted under Section 307/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
31. Ld. counsel for accused argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. To SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 11 of 24 substantiate his point, he stated that there are inherent contradictions in the testimonies of the witness. He stated that the empty cartridge and bullet were planted by the complainant and his mother as they are in possession of a licensed gun, which belong to the father of the complainant. He submits that the investigation in the case does not disclose true facts and hence accused deserves an acquittal.
32. In the present case, charges under Sec. 307/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
"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 may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
"Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender:
Digitally signed by Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:58:03 of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening +0530 the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
If a capital offence -- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If punishable with imprisonment for life -- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 12 of 24 fine;
If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment -- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
"27. Punishment for using arms, etc.―(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life Digitally signed by and shall also be liable to fine.
SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited 2025.08.04 16:58:27 ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and +0530 such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death."
33. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused person.
34. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is imperative to discuss the law with respect to Section 307 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 2678" has held as under:
"In the aforesaid factual scenario it has to be seen whether Section 307 has application. Section 307 IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 13 of 24 extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or Digitally signed by knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an 2025.08.04 16:58:35 +0530 intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28) and in Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 1997 decided on 4.2.2004, and in Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 1997 decided on 11.2.2004. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 843) it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307.
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 14 of 24 rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.
In the case at hand the accused fired gun from a very close range of about 6-8 feet aiming at the victim when he was sleeping. The bullet broke into pieces and three such pieces struck the accused. Both intention and knowledge in terms of Section 307 can be attributed to the accused. Therefore, the High Court was justified in recording conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC."
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in "Surendra Bisoi v. State 1964 Supreme (Ori) 74" it was held as under:
"7. The next question is as to what is the offence committed by the accused. The accused was charged under Sec 307 I.P.C. To make out a case under Section 307, it is necessary to establish that it was the accused who did the act and the act was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would have been guilty of murder. The intention of the accused has to be gathered from his act and the surrounding circumstances. When the accused Digitally signed by fired the gun shot from a case range which nil the chest of the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
injured (PW4) the only reasonable inference in the 2025.08.04 16:58:44 +0530 circumstances that can be drawn is that he either had the intention to kill PW4 or had the knowledge of the fact that such act of his would ordinarily result in the death of the injured. In other words, if Narayan would have died as a result of gun shot injury, the accused would have been guilty of murder...."
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in "State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bali Ram (2012) Supreme (HP) 299" has held as under:
"25. The prosecution has failed to prove that the gun Ex. P-6 and used cartridges were used by the accused. The prosecution has also failed to establish that accused Bali Ram used his gun for firing at PW-1, Babu Ram. Thus, the accused Bali ram could not be held liable for using license unlawfully under section 27 of the Arms Act.
38. Consequently, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. "
37. The story of the prosecution is that the complainant/injured SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 15 of 24 was attacked by accused with a pistol. The accused had fired three bullet shots towards him but the bullets missed him. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1, mother of complainant as PW2 and independent witnesses as PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW11 to prove its case. In the instant case, the testimonies of all the abovesaid witness assumes importance. From the testimony of witnesses following facts emerges:
1. PW1 Anup Kumar Singh Three bullets were fired by the accused from near his house. The house of accused is 15 houses away.
PW1 gave empty cartridge case to the police and one front piece of the bullet.
Empty cartridge and bullet piece were picked up from the Digitally signed by street nearby his home and were at a distance of 2ft. from SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:58:56 +0530 each other.
Bullets did not hit anything and had dropped to the ground.
The face of the witness was towards the side from which side the bullets were fired. Wall of witness home was on my right side. If the witness come out from his home, then the home of accused is situated on his right side.
2. PW 2 Nirmala Devi - Mother of Complainant Accused fired three times with a pistol.
From the spot PW1 handed over the bullet fired at the spot. Accused had fired from a distance of about 6-7 houses. The empty cartridge were lying at a distance of 5-6 foot from each other.
I and my son picked the empty cartridge before arrival of the police.
SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 16 of 24 The said bullet did not hit any object/wall etc. The bullet fell about 5-6 feet before her and herself at her gate.The width of the gali is around 15 feet.
The accused fired from our left hand side when we were standing outside our gate facing the opposite site. The house of the accused is situated on our right hand when we came out of the house.
I picked and saw the empty cartridge.
3. PW7 Smt. Kanchan Singh I picked the bullet from the spot and handed over the same to Anup.
Bullet did not hit any person or any object and fell on the road.
Bullet was fired by Parvesh from the distance of 25 mts.
Digitally SHIVALI signed by SHIVALI BANSAL
4. PW8 Smt. Savita Rani BANSAL Date:
Parvesh fired bullet from the temple towards Anup 2025.08.04 16:59:04 +0530 and his mother.
I do not know where the bullet hit at last because bullet was fired from far distance.
I did not see where the bullet landed but it did not come towards Anup and his mother.
5. PW9 Smt. Kavita The bullet was picked by police from the spot i.e., in front of the temple. There is a difference between house of Anup and temple is about 250 yards and both are in opposite directions.
6. PW11 Sh. Hanuman Nath I saw accused firing bullet on Anup from a SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 17 of 24 distance of about 300 feet from Anup and his mother.
38. In this case the aforesaid witnesses have corroborated the fact that accused had fired towards complainant and his mother, but what remains uncorroborated is the place of firing, the distance from which the firing took place, the aim of accused and reliability of these witnesses in the overall facts and circumstances. The witnesses i.e, PW1, PW2, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW11 have not remained consistent on the place from where the accused had fired towards the PW1 and PW2. PW1 had deposed that the accused fired from his house which is 15-16 houses away, PW2 deposed that he fire from 5-6 houses away whereas, PW7 states that the accused fired from a distance of 25 feet, PW8 and PW9 stated that the accused had fired from the temple and the temple 250 yards away from the complainant Digitally signed by house, PW11 stated that the accused fired from a distance of 300 SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:59:11 feet. So, the place from where accused fired remains disputed but +0530 what emerges is that accused fired from a distance. These facts are relevant for the purpose of Section 307. It is a settled proposition of law that the intention of the person has to be inferred from his conduct and surrounding circumstances. Even if the version of eye witnesses is to be believed that the accused had fired towards PW1 and PW2, then the distance from which he fired becomes relevant. If the accused had the intention to cause death of PW1 and PW2, he would have fired from close range to PW1 and PW2 and shot them point blank or at least aimed towards them. No such fact has come on record that the accused had aimed towards PW1 and PW2. In what direction the accused had fired and with what intention he fired remains SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 18 of 24 doubtful, considering that the testimonies of the witnesses are varied. Reliance is placed upon Surendera Bisoi (Supra). It has come in the deposition of the PW1 and PW2 that the accused was not known to them prior to the incident and as such there was no previous enmity between them which can lead this court to infer that the accused had motive/intention to kill PW1 and PW2.
39. Also, there are few surprising elements in the present case which casts a doubt upon the story of prosecution. Firstly, if three bullets were fired, why all the bullets/shells were not recovered by the police officials. Where did the bullets and there empty cartridge vanished? This is a question that pops in the head of this court but remains unanswered. PW12 in his testimony has stated that complainant had handed over empty cartridge and a lead to PW12. He has also deposed that he did not measure the Digitally exact distance from measuring tape to measure the distance from signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:59:18 +0530 the place from where bullet was fired and where the complainant was standing. In fact, PW12 did not take the assistance of any person to search the drain for weapon of offence. Thus, the investigation carried out by the concerned IO is improper.
40. As per the testimony of the witnesses, the bullets neither hit any object/wall nor any person. Thus, the direction from which firing took place is also unclear. The above circumstances leave a doubt if at all bullets were fired. The bullet and empty cartridge were picked up from the spot by PW1, though even this fact is disputed as PW1 said he picked up, PW2 said she picked up and handed over to PW1, PW7 said she picked up but the fact remains the same was not picked up by police from the crime spot and the same was handed over to police by PW1, which means the police officials never had the opportunity to properly SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 19 of 24 inspect the crime spot as the crime spot was already tampered with. It is relevant to mention that even after the alleged gunshot, the crime scene was not inspected by the expert or forensic team so as to obtain the traces of gunpowder residue from the crime scene. Further, the IO had not produced the report regarding the bullet and the probable weapon used for commission of offence and the tentative range of the bullet and weapon. It is further noticed that the PWs had not mentioned that the complainant i.e. PW1 or his mother i.e. PW2 had reached the place of accused after gunshot, therefore it is impossible to conclude that how the empty cartridge reached near PW1 and PW2 because as per the version of PWs the gunshot was allegedly fired from far distance, Digitally signed by so this fact remains unclear how the empty shell reached the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:59:24 house of PW1 and PW2. It has come in the testimony of PW1 +0530 and PW2 that the father of PW1 and husband of PW2 has a licenced gun. It is a known fact that the possessor of licensed gun will also possess live cartridge, thus there is a possibility that PW 1 and PW2 have themselves planted empty cartridge and the bullet. There is no evidence on record to show that the bullet and empty cartridge was fired from the alleged pistol which the accused possess. The connecting link between the bullet, empty cartridge and the weapon is missing. The police officials have neither recovered the alleged weapon of offence nor have they inspected the licence gun possessed by the father of PW1. The investigation remains faulty and incomplete on these aspects.
Reliance is place upon State of Himachal Pradesh (Supra) wherein it was held that the prosecution is required to prove the accused's use of the weapon and establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 20 of 24
41. Just because the prosecution has examined 5 independent witnesses, it will not prove the case of the prosecution as these 5 independent witnesses suffers from material contradictions. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states that the number of witnesses are immaterial. In fact in criminal jurisprudence, conviction can be held on the testimony of one witness, if the witness is of sterling quality. The prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence in this court to justify conviction of the accused person.
42. The MLC i.e, Ex PW6/E proved by Dr. Rajesh Kohli PW14 does not help the case of the prosecution as the MLC opines that the PW1 sustained abrasions over the nose root and Digitally signed by SHIVALI both sides of it and bruises over forehead. In fact the event was SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:59:31 +0530 described as "physical assault" by PW1 as opposed to "attempt to murder". Thus, possibility of false implication of accused person in the present case cannot be ruled out.
43. There are serious doubts on story of prosecution, to justify conviction of the accused person u/s 307 and consequently u/s 201 IPC. The police officials have not recovered the alleged weapon. During course of arguments prosecution has stated that as per the report of Ballistic FSL (Ex. PW5/A) the bullet and empty cartridge recovered was fired from an arm and thus the accused must be convicted u/s 27 Arms Act. It is not out of place to mention that the recovered bullet and empty cartridge may belong to an arm but whether that arm was in possession of accused or not, remains a mystery. This court has already discussed that the connecting link between the bullet and empty cartridge to the weapon of offence is missing and under criminal law, in order to secure a conviction prosecution has to prove its SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 21 of 24 case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution is unable to discharge its burden.
44. It is established principle of law that if two views are pos- sible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
45. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reason- able doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appel- lants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
46. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
Digitally "The golden thread which runs through the web of administra- signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL tion of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which 16:59:38 +0530 is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of jus- tice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evi- dence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
47. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 3206 has held as follows:
"Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 22 of 24 accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicating or punishing an accused does not arise......"
48. In the present case, due to the contradictions and inconsis- tencies in the testimonies of so called eye witnesses PW2, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW11 casts serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the ac- cused.
49. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the con- sidered opinion that the testimony of PW-1 Complainant Anup Kumar Singh is not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same is not corroborated by other material evidence. In fact dur- ing his examination in chief he turned hostile and thereafter, upon cross examination by Ld. Additional PP he came back on track but pleaded that due to lapse of time he forgot detailed facts. PW3 and PW10 have also turned hostile and did not support the Digitally signed by case of the prosecution.
SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.08.04 16:59:45 +0530
50. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act against accused Parvesh Rana beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Parvesh Rana is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 307/201 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
52. Bail bonds of the accused except bail bonds filed under section 437A Cr.PC stands cancelled. His sureties stands discharged. Case property, if any, be released to the rightful owners.
SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 23 of 24
53. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedSHIVALI by SHIVALI BANSAL Announced in the open BANSAL Date: 2025.08.04 16:59:55 +0530 Court on 04.08.2025.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) ASJ-02/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI (SA) SC No.1010/18 State vs. Parvesh Rana Page No. 24 of 24