Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay Sharma Etc on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02: SHAHDARA DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 485/2019
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and Others
FIR No. 90/2019
P.S. Shahdara
u/s 302/341/201/147/148/120-B/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Ajay Sharma
s/o Sukhpal Sharma
r/o 1/7225, Main Babarpur Road,
Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Chokhe Ram Dixit
s/o Tika Ram Dixit
r/o Village Andhop Thana Bahin
Tehsil Hatin District Palwal, Haryana.
3. Manish Sharma
s/o Talewar Sharma
r/o 1/9750, Gali no.18, West Gorakh
Park, Shahdara, Delhi.
4. Raj Kumar Maheshwari
s/o Giri Raj Maheshwari
r/o C-44, Main Road Kardam Farm
Jauharipur, Delhi.
5. Rohit Gogia
s/o Govind Ram Gogia
r/o 3A, Rishi Market, 60 Foota Road,
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
6. Raj Sharma
s/o Sukh Pal Sharma
r/o 1/9544, Pratap Pura, West Rohtash
Nagar, Delhi.
7. Giriraj Maheshwari
s/o late Ram Swaroop Maheshwari
r/o 1/7220, Shivaji Park, Shahdara,
Delhi.
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 1/69
CHARU Digitally signed by
AGGARW CHARU AGGARWAL
Date: 2026.01.31
AL 17:06:45 +05'30'
8. Neeraj Bhanot
s/o Mahender Pal
r/o House No. 1/10066,
Gali no.3H, West Gorakh Park,
Shahdara, Delhi.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquittal.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 04.10.2019
Date on which Judgment reserved : 27.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons (eight in number) have faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/147/148/120-B/341/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the allegations that on 21.04.2019 at approximately 10 p.m., they along with a Child in Conflict with Law (for short 'CCL') in connivance with each other committed murder of deceased Vijender Sharma by beating him with iron and wooden rods and on 24.04.2019 the latter succumbed to his injuries. 1.1. Deceased Vijender Sharma was the real brother of accused Ajay Sharma and Raj Sharma and cousin of accused Manish Sharma (being maternal aunt/mausi's son). Remaining accused persons are acquaintances of these three accused. There exists previous enmity between both the sides, that is, the deceased, his family members and the accused persons; both have lodged various police complaints, FIRs and civil cases against each other.
1.2. As per the chargesheet, the role attributed to accused Giri Raj Maheshwari is not that of a direct assailant, but that of a conspirator, in as much as it is alleged that on the date of the incident he was conducting "Recce" of the movements of the deceased Vijender Sharma and was continuously sharing such information with the other accused State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 2/69 CHARU Digitally by CHARU signed AGGARW AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 AL 17:07:22 +05'30' persons, who acting upon the information allegedly supplied by him, they reached the spot, namely Gali No. 1, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi, where they assaulted the deceased with iron rods and wooden sticks, causing multiple injuries and on 24.04.2019 the latter succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem report records as many as 44 injuries on the body of the deceased.
2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD No. 72A dated 21.04.2019 at 22.45 hours at police station Shahdara, regarding attack by someone from backside at Gali no.1, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi, IO/SI Gaurav Panwar along with Ct. Dinesh reached at the spot, where they were informed that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. On reaching the hospital both these police officials found Vijender Sharma hospitalized in injured condition. IO collected his MLC on which doctor declared him ' fit for statement', but due to pain he could not give his statement at that time. However, later on, in the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019, at about 1.25 A.M., IO/SI Gaurav Panwar again met the deceased who himself told, he is position to give statement accordingly, his statement was recorded by IO/SI Gaurav, in which he stated that he along with his family is residing at house no. 1/9805, Gali no.1, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi and running an electronic shop at Babarpur Road, Shahdara 1. On 21.04.2019 at about 10.00 p.m. he was on his way from his shop to his house when an unknown person sprayed something on his face causing irritation, and in the meantime, his (Vijender Sharma's) brother Ajay, along with his associates namely Chokhe Ram, Neeraj Bhanot and some other associates restrained him and attacked him with iron rods and wooden sticks owing to which he sustained injuries on his shoulders, hands and 1 His shop and house are situated in close proximity to each other.State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 3/69 Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31
17:07:51 +05'30'
legs. On the basis of this statement of Vijender Sharma, FIR in this case was registered under sections 323/341/34 of IPC and investigation was carried out.
2.2 On the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019, Vijender Sharma's condition started deteriorating due to which his son Rahul Sharma shifted him from GTB Hospital to Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad where during treatment he succumbed to his injuries on 24.04.2019, and therefore, section 304 of IPC was added in the FIR and later on, section 302 of IPC was added.
2.3 As per the prosecution case, at time of incident, deceased's son Rahul Sharma and his friend Karan Sharma, were standing in street outside the deceased's house at 1/9805, Gali no.1, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi, who, on hearing screams of ' bachao bachao' of Vijender Sharma, rushed to the spot which was 100 meters away from where they were standing. On reaching there, Rahul and Karan found that accused Ajay Sharma, Raj Sharma, Manish Sharma, Neeraj Bhanot, Rohit Gogia, Raj Kumar Maheshwari and Chokhe Ram were hitting Vijender Sharma with iron rods and sticks. Rahul and Karan chased the accused persons, but they could not be apprehended and succeeded in fleeing away from the spot on their respective motorcycles and scooty.
In the meantime, Vijender Sharma's employees namely Dinesh Gupta, Jatin Verma and Deepak Malhotra also reached at the spot. Karan made a call at 100 number. Vijender Sharma was shifted to GTB hospital in e- rikshaw by Rahul and Karan with the help of his above-named employees. Police reached at the hospital and recorded the above referred statement of Vijender Sharma.
2.4 Initially, investigation was carried out by IO/SI Gaurav who arrested the accused Ajay, Manish, Choke Ram Raj Maheshwari Rohit on 13.06.2019 and Rohit Gogia on 16.06.2019, all from Loni, State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 4/69 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:08:24 +05'30' Ghaziabad. On 17.06.2019, the investigation was transferred to the second Investigating Officer, Inspector Prahlad Singh, who subsequently arrested the remaining accused - Raj Sharma from Pari Chowk, Noida (U.P.), Giriraj Maheshwari from Delhi, and Neeraj Bhanot from Jaipur, Rajasthan, on different dates in August-2019.
2.5 At the instance of accused Raj Sharma two iron roads and one Scotty bearing no. DL6SAL-7305 were recovered; at the instance of accused Neeraj Bhanot, bottle of spray and two other iron roads were recovered from his shop situated at Delhi; and accused Rohit Gogia, Manish Sharma, Chokhe Ram, got recovered bikes bearing number DL- 13SW-2875, DL-5SAC-3555 and DL-13SK-6828 respectively.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, who after compliance of section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC'), committed the case to Sessions Court as the offence under section 302 IPC is Sessions triable.
4. After filing of main charge-sheet, four supplementary charge-
sheets dated 01.04.2020, 01.06.2022, 16.08.2022 and 29.05.2023 were also filed with respect to subsequent opinion on cause of death and x-ray of deceased; opinion on weapon of offence; Call Detail Reports and Location Chart, and FSL report (bio) respectively.
5. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED:
Upon committal, after hearing both the sides on the point of charge, vide order dated 21.09.2021, charge under sections 302/34 of IPC read with Sections 120-B IPC/147/148/341/34 IPC was framed against all accused, to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
6.1 PW1 is ASI Vikal Singh, who, on the day of incident was State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 5/69 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:13:06 +05'30' posted as duty officer at Police Station Shahdara. He stated that on the intervening night of 21-22.04.2019, he registered the FIR (Ex. PW1/A.) of this case on the basis of rukka (Ex.PW1/B) brought by Constable Dinesh, prepared by Sub-Inspector Gaurav. The certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act given by him is Ex. PW1/C. 6.2 PW2 Rahul Sharma is the son of the deceased, an eye witness, who has stated that on the date and time of incident, he, along with his friend Karan Sharma, were standing in a street outside his house i.e. 1/9805, Street No. 1, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi 32, when he heard his father's screams of ' bachao bachao' from the corner of the street, and hearing which, he along with his friend reached at the spot and saw that all the accused persons, except accused Giri Raj Maheshwari, along with one CCL were beating his father with iron rods and wooden sticks; at that time, accused Raj Sharma also threatened him saying that he had taught a lesson to his father and next is his turn;
thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot on their respective motorcycles and scooty; in the meantime, deceased's employees namely Deepak Malhotra, Dinesh Kr. Gupta and Jatin Verma also reached at the spot and all these persons present there shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in e-rikshaw; on the way to hospital, deceased told this PW that Raj Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Chokhey Ram, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Manish Sharma and other 2-3 associates had attacked upon him, which was also informed by the deceased to him at the GTB Hospital; Karan made 100 number call whereupon police reached and recorded the statement of deceased in his presence and concerned doctor of GTB Hospital on which deceased put his thumb impression since due to injuries on his hands he was unable to sign; the concerned doctor cut the wearing blood stained jeans of the deceased and handed it over to this PW which he handed over to IO Digitally later signed at Max by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:13:45 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 6/69 Hospital; he has further stated that he knew accused Rohit Gogia and CCL by name, but not by their faces as they both used to work with accused Ajay Sharma and Raj Sharma and he came to know of their names during the course of investigation; this PW along with his paternal uncle (tauji) Vinod Sharma identified the dead body of his father; on 13.06.2019, at his instance, accused Ajay Sharma, Manish Sharma, Chokhe Ram and Raj Kumar Maheshwari were arrested by IO from House no. 3A, Rishi Market, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP; on 13.08.2019, accused Raj Sharma was arrested from Pari Chowk, Noida, UP; accused Giri Raj Maheshwari was arrested from outside his house in the presence of this PW; on 14.08.2019, in his presence at the instance of accused Raj Sharma, two iron roads ISI Mark on which 'Shaktiman 500' was engraved were recovered from the junk ( kabad) lying on the roof of House No. 3A, Rishi Market, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP; he has deposed on the previous enmity of the accused persons with the deceased and the cases pending them, he correctly identified all the accused persons and weapon of offence in the court.
6.3 PW-3 is Dinesh Kumar Gupta, an employee of the deceased. He has deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e. 21.04.2019, at about 9:30-10:00 p.m., he along with deceased's other employee Deepak Malhotra, after closing the shutter of deceased's shop, were proceeding to hand over the shop keys to the deceased. When they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Gorakh Park, at the corner of Gali No. 1, Gorakh Park, Babarpur Road, Delhi, they heard the screams of "bachao- bachao" raised by the deceased. Upon hearing the screams, this PW turned towards the spot to help him and saw the deceased lying on the road, while all the accused persons, namely Ajay Sharma, Raj Sharma, Manish Sharma, Raju Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Chokhe Pandit, and two others, were beating him with iron rods. He further stated that two of Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:13:59 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 7/69 the assailants also attempted to attack him, due to which, out of fear, he ran into a gali, where he saw accused Giri Raj Maheshwari standing outside the house of a juice vendor. On seeing him, he got frightened and hid himself behind a car. After some time, he again saw that the accused persons were threatening Rahul Sharma, stating that they would kill him. Rahul Sharma and Karan Sharma then tried to chase the accused persons while shouting "pakdo-pakdo, mere papa ko maar diya". Seeing the entire situation, accused Giri Raj Maheshwari went inside the house of the juice vendor, and the remaining accused persons fled from the spot on their respective motorcycles and a scooty parked outside the said house. Thereafter, he reached the spot where Rahul Sharma, Karan Sharma, and Jatin were already present, and all of them shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in e-rikshaw. 6.4 PW-4 is Jatin Verma, employee of the deceased, who has stated that on 21.04.2019 at about 10 pm, he went to the house of Rahul's friend Karan at Rohtash Nagar, Delhi to give him Rs. 5000/- where, he was informed by Karan's mother that he had gone to Rahul's house. He states that on that day, his owner Vijender Kumar Sharma was attacked at the corner of a street near Hanuman Mandir, Babarpur Road, Delhi; when he reached at the spot, he found Vijender Sharma lying in injured condition; at that time, Rahul Sharma, Dinesh Gupta, Karan Malhotra were already present there; they all shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in e-rickshaw.
6.5 PW-5 is Sh. Vinod Sharma, a cousin of the deceased who has identified his dead body.
6.6 PW-6 is ACP Mahesh Kumar (retired) who was posted as draughtsman in Crime Branch on 13.08.2019; on that day on the request of IO, he reached at the spot and inspected the spot and prepared his rough notes and took measurements; on the basis of rough notes; he Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.01.31 17:14:06 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 8/69 prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-6/A. 6.7 PW7 is Arif, from whose shop accused allegedly purchased the iron roads. During investigation accused Ajay Sharma and Chokhe Ram were taken at his shop for their identification as the same persons who had purchased the roads from his shop at that time, he had identified one of the accused. But, in evidence he has not supported the prosecution and stated that 6-7 years ago, 2-3 police officials came to his shop situated on the main Loni Road, Ghaziabad and enquired from him whether the person brought by them (police officials) had purchased iron rod from his shop, but he could not identify those persons at that time; thereafter, the police official went to the welding shop run by one Rizwan.
He was cross-examined by learned Addl. PP but he denied all the questions put to him by learned Addl. PP.
6.8 PW8 is Rizwan who at the time of incident was working at a welding shop owned by one Javed situated in front of Salam Hotel, Shahdara, Saharanpur Road, Loni, Ghaziabad from where accused are alleged have wielded the roads- he also did not support the prosecution and stated that 6 years ago, three police officials along with one arrested person came to his shop and enquired whether he (this PW) had cut the iron rod, but this witness could not identify the person in custody. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP but he denied all the suggestions given to him.
6.9 PW9 is Shahnawaz Khan who was the driver of accused Ajay Sharma between 2013 to 2016. He stated that mobile number 7289967082 is in his name which accused Ajay Sharma was using. 6.10 PW-10 Shashank Tyagi, PW-11 Surender Kumar and PW- 35 Prakash Saxena are Nodal Officers, who brought to the witness box Customer Application Forms (CAFs), Call Detail Record (CDRs) and CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:16 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 9/69 Decoded Cell I.D. Chart of mobile numbers i.e. 783498706, 7289967082, 8929052688, 9811660085, 9319505002 and 9311287836, respectively, alleged to be used by the accused persons at the time of incident.
6.11 PW-12 is Sunder Pal who during the period of incident used to have an electrical shop adjacent to the shop of accused Neeraj Bhanot who was arrested from Jaipur, Rajasthan at the instance of this PW and in his presence spray bottle and two roads were also recovered from Neeraj Bhanot's shop in Delhi. However, in the witness box, he turned hostile. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP but he denied all the suggestions put to him.
6.12 PW13 is HC Vinit who had joined the investigation of this case on 24.04.2019 along with IO/SI Gaurav Panwar. He stated that IO obtained the death summary and other relevant papers of the deceased from Max Hospital; received dead body from Max Hospital and also deposited at Mortuary of GTB Hospital. 0n 25.04.2019, Rahul and his paternal Uncle Vinod identified the dead body; IO/SI Gaurav handed over the inquest papers to concerned doctor at GTB and after post- mortem, dead body was handed over to IO who later on handed over it to Rahul and abovenamed Vinod.
6.13 PW14 HC Arvind, PW20 HC Pradeep Kumar and PW21 ASI Parmod were the members of the raiding team constituted by IO SI Gaurav on 13.06.2019, to arrest the accused persons; they have deposed about the arrest of accused Ajay Sharma, Manish Sharma, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Chokhe Ram from H. No. 3A, Rishi Market, 60 Foota Road, Loni, Ghaziabad vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/E, Ex. PW2/H, Ex. PW2/G, Ex. PW2/F respectively; their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/A, Ex. PW14/E, Ex. PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C respectively; their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31
17:14:23 +0530
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 10/69
PW14/A, Ex. PW14/D, Ex. PW14/B Ex. PW14/C. They have stated that medical examination of all accused persons was conducted. 6.14 PW20 HC Pardeep and PW21 ASI Parmod have also deposed that they were the members of the raiding team, constituted by the IO/SI Gaurav to arrest accused Rohit Gogia on 16.06.2019, who was arrested at the instance of accused Ajay Sharma from front of H.No.D423, Indraprastha Colony, Jawli Road, Tila Mor,Loni, Ghaziabad, UP vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/E, his personal search memo is Ex. PW20/F; he also got recovered the bike bearing no. DL- 13SW-2875 vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/D stating it to be used by him in the incident. On the same day, accused Chokhe Ram, who at that time, was in PC also got recovered bike bearing no. DL-13SK-6828 from Kasba Chhatikara near Vrindawan Chowk, Mathura, UP. Accused Manish got recovered the bike no. DL-5SAC-3555 from Rathi Mill, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/C. 6.15 PW17 SI Rahul Sagar and PW20 HC Pradeep, have deposed that they were the members of raiding team constituted by IO/Inspector Prahlad, who apprehended accused Raj Sharma on 10.08.2019 from Pari Chowk, Noida, UP who got recovered a scooty bearing no. DL-6SAN-7305, thereafter IO arrested him at PS Shahdara vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/I, his personal search memo is Ex. PW17/B and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW17/A. 6.16 PW37 IO/Insp. Prahlad has stated during PC remand accused Raj Sharma, he disclosed regarding concealing of iron roads used in the incident at house no. 3A, Rishi Market, Loni, Ghaziabad; on 14.08.2019, a raiding team comprising of Ct. Pradeep, Rahul Sharma and SI Gaurav was constituted who at the instance of Raj Sharma recovered two iron roads from the above mentioned house belonging to accused Ajay Sharma vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/L. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:31 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 11/69 6.17 PW15 SI Kaushik Ghosh, PW-20 HC Pradeep Kumar and PW21 ASI Parmod were the members of the raiding team constituted by the second IO SI Prahlad Singh, on 13.08.2019 to arrest accused Neeraj Bhanot from Jaipur, Rajasthan, they have deposed that accused Neeraj was arrested by them on 19.08.2019 from Jaipur in the presence of one Sunder Pal who was friend of Neeraj Bhanot. On 21.08.2019, two iron roads and one pepper spray bottle was recovered at the instance of accused Neeraj Bhanot from his shop in the name of 'Neeraj Communication' Behl Gali no.4, West Gorakhpur, Pratatpura, Shahdara, which were later on seized by the IO Insp. Prahlad; they have stated that the shop was opened by Neeraj's friend Sunder Pal with the keys brought by him.
6.18 PW-37 IO/Inspector Parhlad has stated that on 13.08.2019, he along with Rahul Sharma and first IO/SI Gaurav, at the instance of accused Raj Sharma, reached at the house of accused Giri Raj Maheshwari situated at Shivaji Park, Gorakh Park, Shahdara from where he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/K. His personal search is Ex. PW34/C1.
6.19 PW16 is HC Raghib Ali Khan who stated that on 18.07.2022 on the instructions of Inspector Yuvraj Prasad he had deposited the parcels containing iron rods, one blood stained jeans with FSL, Rohini vide road certificate no. 83/21/22. 6.20 PW18 is Inspector Yuvraj Prasad who was posted as Inspector at PS Shahdara from 2019 to 2023. He has deposed that on the directions of the Court, he had got the subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence to the effect that the injury present on the deceased could be caused by recovered iron rod and whether the injury caused on deceased by recovered iron rod would result in death or otherwise, thus he moved an appropriate application before HOD Forensic Medicine GTB Hospital Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:40 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 12/69 raising the above query and sought subsequent opinion which was given by Dr. Rishi Kumar Solanki and received by him.
6.21 PW19 HC Ram Avatar who states that on the instructions of IO SI Gaurav Panwar, he had obtained the exhibits of this case from malkhana and deposited the same with Histopathology and Micro- Biology Department of GTB Hospital for opinion. 6.22 PW22 Inspector Ravi Prakash to whom investigation was marked for a brief period. He stated that he had received FSL result in respect of the case properties i.e. four iron rods, one jeans pant on the basis of which he prepared supplementary charge-sheet along with FSL result. On 28.05.2023 filed the supplementary charge-sheet. 6.23 PW23 is HC Pradeep Kumar who stated that on 21.04.2019, he was on duty at Channel no. 123; at about 22:46 hours, he had received call from a caller who informed that " Gali No. 1, Gorakh Park, Hanuman Mandir, Shahdara jhagda hua hain peeche se hamla kiya hain" ; this call was recorded and forwarded to Lava Operator; the verified PCR Form-1 is Ex. PW-23/A. 6.24 PW24 is HC Naresh who on 18.06.2019 was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team; on the instructions of Inspector Prahlad Singh, he visited the place of incident i.e. Gali No 1, H. No. 1/9792. West Gorakh Park, Shahdara and took 20 photographs of the spot with digital camera; the said photographs were copied in a CD which are Mark PW-24/P1 to Mark PW-24/P21.
6.25 PW25 is HC Dinesh Kumar who on 21.04.2019 had joined the investigation of this case along with IO/SI Gaurav Panwar and was present throughout with him on 21/22.04.2019. He has stated that on 21.04.2019 at about 10.45 pm, on receipt of DD No. 72 A, he along with SI Gaurav went at the spot where they came to know that injured had been taken to GTB hospital; at about 11.00 pm, they reached GTB Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:49 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 13/69 hospital and met the deceased where Rahul Sharma, PCR caller Karan and Jatin were also present; SI Gaurav obtained the permission of the concerned doctor for recording the deceased's statement when the doctor informed him that patient is not in a position to give statement; thereafter, he and SI Gaurav returned at the spot and at about 1.00 am, they again went to GTB hospital and at this time, with the permission of the concerned doctor, who declared the deceased to be 'fit for statement', deceased's statement (Ex. PW2/B) was recorded in the presence of Rahul Sharma, Karan Sharma and Jatin Verma; the deceased put his thumb impression on his statement; the statement was signed by SI Gaurav; at about 8.00 am, SI Gaurav handed over original statement of deceased and 'Rukka' to him on the basis of which he got registered the FIR; thereafter, he reached at the spot where SI Gaurav and caller Karan were already present; at the instance of Karan, rough sketch of the spot was prepared (Ex. PW25/B); they started searching the accused persons and e-rickshaw driver, who could not be found out; he along with IO/SI Gaurav reached at MAX hospital where they met Rahul who handed over one jeans pant of his father to IO which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and later on, sealed it with the seal of GC and deposited it in the malkhana.
6.26 PW26 is Dr. N. P. Singh, Director-Professor and Head Department of Microbiology, at UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi. He stated that on 13.06.2019 at about 3:30 pm, blood sample of Vijender Sharma was received in the department in bactec bottle. He prepared his report Ex. PW26/A. 6.27 PW27 Dr. Hemant Gupta has stated that at the relevant time, he was posted at Max Hospital, Vaishali. He was one of the doctors under whose treatement, deceased was admitted at MAX Hospital. He deposed that on the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019 at CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:58 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 14/69 about 2:10 am, deceased was got admitted in the said hospital. He deposed regarding deceased's condition at the time of admission and treatment given to him at the hospital at first instance. He has exhibited the death summary of the deceased prepared at Max Hospital, Vaishali as Ex. PW-27/A. 6.28 PW28 is Dr. Ankit Kumar, who had conducted post- mortem upon the dead body of the deceased. The said report is Ex. PW28/A. 6.29 PW29 is Dr. Naresh Kumar who at the relevant time was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Biology-cum-ex-officio Chemical Examiner), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He had biologically examined the blood samples on the jeans pant and four rusted iron rods. His report is Ex. PW29/A. 6.30 PW30 is Dr. Ankit Naval. He at the relevant time was posted at GTB Hospital and he had treated the deceased at the first instance in the said hospital and prepared his MLC Ex. PW30/A. He has also declared the deceased 'fit for statement'. 6.31 PW31 is Dr. N. K. Aggarwal who at the relevant time was Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS & GTB Hospital. He stated that on 31.08.2019 IO/Inspector Prahlad Singh had moved an application for subsequent opinion regarding cause of death of deceased Vijender Sharma; on 03.09.2019, after considering histopathological, microbiological report and post-mortem report, he had given subsequent opinion which is Ex. PW31/A. He further stated that on 28.11.2019 IO again moved an application for subsequent opinion/clarification which was given by him on 05.12.2019 vide opinion Ex. PW-31/B. 6.32 PW32 is Dr. Rishi Solanki who at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at UCMS & GTB Hospital. He had given subsequent opinion that injuries CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:16 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 15/69 of the deceased were sufficient to cause death with the weapon of offence which is Ex. PW32/A. 6.33 PW33 is Dr. Thakur Shivesh Vijeta who, at the relevant time, was posted at MAX Hospital, Vaishali in Critical Care Unit (CCU). He was a part of the team which was taking care of patient Vijender Sharma. He deposed that at the time when patient Vijender was shifted to MAX hospital, he was on ventilator support and high vasopressor support; he was in severe shock, required multiple vesopressor support at very high level and multiple blood transfusions. On 22.04.2019, patient had cardiac arrest for which he underwent CPR and got revived but finally on 24.04.2019, during treatment, he again had cardiac arrest and expired. The intimation of his death was given vide Death Intimation Form Ex. PW33/A. He has issued deceased's death certificate Ex. PW33/B. 6.34 PW34 SI Gaurav Panwar and PW37 Inspector Prahlad are the first IO and second IO respectively. They have deposed regarding all aspects of investigation from recording statement of deceased/ witnesses/ arrest of accused persons, recovery of weapons and other case properties, obtaining of medical opinion, collection of MLCs, post mortem report etc. 6.35 PW36 is Dr. Sankalp Sharma. He at the relevant time was posted as Senior Resident at Department of Surgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi, on emergency duty. He stated that on 21.04.2019 patient Vijender Sharma was referred from Emergency Department to Surgery Emergency Department. His advice of Chest X-ray and X-Ray requisition slip is Ex. PW-36/A. 6.36 PW39 is Dr. Priya Goel who at the relevant time was posted as Senior Resident (Radiologist) in GTB Hospital. She has deposed that on 21.04.2019, X-Ray films of one patient Vijender Sharma were Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:25 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 16/69 referred to her for reporting, which was examined by her vide report Ex. PW-38/A. All the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the Ld. counsels of all accused persons.
7. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
7.1 After completion of prosecution evidence, statements under section 313 Cr.PC of all accused persons were recorded regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them; they maintained their innocence and claimed their false implication due to previous enmity between the parties; they stated that the present FIR has been falsely registered against them by SI Gaurav in connivance with deceased's son Rahul; they pleaded that neither Rahul Sharma nor any public witnesses cited by the prosecution, were present at the spot; they have also disputed their own presence at the spot and also stated that the statement of the deceased (Ex. PW2/B) has been engineered by Rahul Sharma in connivance with SI Gaurav, who at the relevant time was present in South Delhi area and the public witnesses were under the domination of Rahul Sharma, being his employees, therefore, they have deposed against them.
7.2 Additionally, accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari and Giri Raj Maheshwari, both son and father respectively, in their respective statements have stated that on 14.05.2019 at 10.00 pm, they both were called by SI Manish in P.S. Shahdara where they were mercilessly beaten by him and their signatures were obtained on blank papers; on the next day, wife and daughter (Priya Maheshwari) of Giri Raj Maheshwari, who are mother and sister of Raj Maheshwari, were called in the P.S. by SI Manish where he forcibly got written by Priya Maheshwari that they were taken Giri Raj Maheshwari back from P.S.;
at that time, SI Manish ensured that he would also release Raj CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:33 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 17/69 Maheshwari on next day but he was illegally detained by him; on 08.06.2019 Giri Raj Maheshwari filed a police complaint in DCP office regarding illegal detention of Raj Kumar Maheshwari on which no action was taken, therefore, Giri Raj Maheshwari filed an application on 11.06.2019 before concerned MM complaining about illegal detention of Raj Maheshwari; thereafter on 13.06.2019 he was shown arrested in this case.
8. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
All accused persons have commonly examined following defence witnesses:-
8.1 DW1 Sh. Praveen Sharma deposed that he was friend and business partner of deceased; on 21.04.2019 Rahul Sharma was in South Delhi in some function when he telephonically informed him about quarrel of his father Vijender Sharma with someone and regarding his shifting to the hospital, thereupon, he (DW1) reached at GTB Hospital where Vijender Sharma was found admitted in emergency ward and came to know that he was shifted there by one Jatin and one Sikh; this DW spoke to Vijender Sharma with respect to the quarrel and the injuries sustained by him who informed that some unknown persons had beaten him; after 45 minutes some police officials reached at hospital and they did some paper work in his presence and took left thumb impression of the deceased; this witness was shown deceased's statement Ex. PW2/B and on seeing the same, he submitted that Vijender Sharma had put his left thumb impression, but this document bears his right thumb impression and at that time latter's right hand was badly injured; Vijender Sharma has informed him that some unknown person has sprayed on his eyes and thereafter beaten him; after hours, Rahul Sharma reached at the hospital but police was not present there at that time. He also stated that when he reached at hospital, Karan Sharma Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:41 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 18/69 was also present there but Dinesh Gupta and Deepak Malhotra were not there. He has stated that at about 1-1:30 am, deceased was shifted from GTB Hospital to Max Hospital, Vaishali in ambulance by Rahul Sharma. 8.2 DW2 Abid is property dealer, who stated that on the date and time of incident, accused Ajay Sharma was present with him in relation of some meeting regarding property dealing; the said meeting continued till 11.30 pm to 11.45 pm and thereafter due to paucity of time, it was re-scheduled for the next day i.e. 22.04.2019 at 12.00 noon;
on 22.04.2019, accused Ajay Sharma did not reach for the meeting, therefore, DW2 telephonically contacted him who informed him that some issue has arisen in his family in which he had been named, thereafter, this DW had no conversation with accused Ajay Sharma. 8.3 DW3 SI Puran Singh and DW4 SI Ashok Kumar, have stated that all complaints which were registered during the period January 2017 to December 2022 had been weeded out and were handed over to Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi for recycling. DW3 has filed written reply Ex. DW-3/A in this regard.
8.4 DW5 is accused Giri Raj Maheshwari who has stated that in year 2019, he was residing at 1/6934, Gali No. 4, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and in the year 2011, he left the house bearing no. 1/7220, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi 110032 (from where he was arrested); he got his daughter married on 28.04.2018 from 1/6934, Gali No. 4, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, regarding which he has placed on record invitation Card Mark G on record.
It was stated by him that on 14.05.2019, he was called at PS Shahdara by SI Manish where his son Raj Kumar Maheshwari was already present; SI Manish mercilessly beat this accused/DW and his son (accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari) and his mobile was also snatched; on CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:49 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 19/69 15.05.2019 at about 4 am, SI Manish forcibly took signature of this accused on blank papers and on his resistance, SI Manish threatened to falsely implicate him in this case; on that day, he was made to sit in the Police Station for the whole day; at about 4:30-5.00 pm, SI Manish returned his phone to this accused/DW and asked him to make phone call to his family members who may give his surety and get him released from the PS; accordingly, his wife and daughter reached at PS, where SI Manish forcibly got written from his daughter that " hum inko sahi salamat chhod rahe hain aur meri wife mujhe thane se sahi salamat le ja rahi hain" and on this paper signature of his wife was taken, thereafter, he was released from PS and SI Manish assured that his son would also be released after 3-4 days; thereafter, this accused visited the PS for several times to enquire about his son who sometimes used to be present in the PS and sometimes not; thereafter, this accused/DW sent a written complaint Ex. DW-5/A dated 08.06.2019, to the concerned DCP Shahdara regarding illegal detention of his son through speed posts (Mark GM-1); despite this complaint, his son was not released; thereafter, he moved an application (Mark GM-2) before concerned Ld. MM, on 11.06.2019; the said application was adjourned for 13.06.2019 when no one appeared from PS Shahdara; finally on 14.06.2019, police officials of PS Shahdara produced his son in the court showing his arrest in this case; thereafter, this accused/DW on several occasions visited jail to meet his son; once one police official namely Sheeshpal from the office of DCP Shahdara visited his house in his absence, where his wife was present, to enquire about this accused/DW and about complaint dated 08.06.2019; his wife asked the said police official to give her in writing the details where he had to reach and on her request, Sheeshpal gave a piece of paper in his own handwriting to her mentioning that he has to reach at office on 28.06.2019 till 5 PM; the said Digitally paper is Mark signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:58 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 20/69 GM-3; accordingly, this accused/DW reached at DCP office and his statement was recorded which was signed by him; on 13.04.2019, he left for Hyderabad for his daughter's house and returned on 19.04.2019. He has placed on record train tickets Mark GM-4 (colly). 8.5 DW-6 is Ahlmad of the court of concerned Ld. MM where accused Giri Raj Maheshwari had filed complaint dated 11.06.2019 regarding illegal detention of his son. This PW has brought the record of said complaint ( EX- DW1/6).
DW1, DW2 and DW5 were cross-examined by Ld. Additional P.P. assisted by Rahul, son of the deceased and his counsel.
9. ARGUMENTS:
I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP assisted by Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for the family of the deceased and Ld. Counsels for all accused persons and also perused the written submissions filed by them.
9.1 Ld. Addl. PP has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused persons from the testimony of PW2 Rahul Sharma & PW3 Dinesh Gupta, both eye witnesses, and also from the statement/dying declaration (Ex. PW2/B) of deceased recorded by IO. He argued that in the dying declaration, deceased Vijender Sharma narrated the entire incident and also named three accused persons namely Ajay Sharma, Neeraj Bhanot and Chokhe Ram along with their 2-3 associates as having attacked upon him. And this is argued to be supported by PW2 Rahul Sharma and PW3 Dinesh Kumar Gupta, both eye witnesses of the incident, who categorically deposed that they had witnessed the accused persons beating Vijender Sharma with iron rods and wooden sticks at the time of incident and on seeing PW2 Rahul (son of deceased), accused persons fled away from the spot. It is also argued that medical evidence on record also Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:11 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 21/69 corroborates the case of prosecution that deceased had expired due to multiple injuries caused to him in the incident. 9.2 Per contra, all the Ld. Defence Counsels have pointed out innumerable contradictions in the depositions of the eye witnesses i.e. PW2 Rahul Sharma and PW4 Jatin Verma and also emphasized on the faulty investigation carried out by both IOs namely SI Gaurav Pawar and Inspector Prahlad.
10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides and perused the written submissions filed and the case laws cited by either side as well as material.
11. DECISION AND ANALYSIS:
11.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2019 at about 10:00 p.m., the deceased, Vijender Sharma, while returning to his house from shop, both situated in close proximity, was allegedly attacked by the accused persons with iron rods and wooden sticks, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries. He later succumbed to those injuries on 24.04.2019.
11.2 The prosecution case hinges primarily on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, namely Rahul Sharma (PW-2), son of the deceased, and Dinesh Kumar Gupta (PW-3), an employee of the deceased, as well as on the alleged statement of the deceased (Ex. PW-2/B), sought to be relied upon as his dying declaration, which was recorded by the first Investigating Officer, SI Gaurav Panwar in the presence of deceased's son Rahul Sharma. The depositions of the eye-witnesses are in consonance with the said statement of the deceased (Ex. PW-2/B) insofar as the involvement of accused Ajay Sharma, Neeraj Bhanot, and Chokhe Ram is concerned. The names of the remaining accused persons surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses. As already noted, there was previous Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:21 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 22/69 enmity between the deceased and the accused persons, and several litigations were/are pending between the parties against each other.
12. The broad considerations arising for determination in the present case are as follows:
a) To ascertain commission of offence;
b) The statement of the deceased sought to be relied upon as his dying declaration;
c) The effect of prior enmity between both sides, deceased and accused;
d) The testimonies of the two eye-witnesses, one being the son of the deceased and the other an employee of the deceased;
e) The delay in lodging the FIR;
f) The recovery of the alleged weapons of offence and
g) The arrest of the accused persons.
13. COMMISSION OF OFFENCE:
13.1 The medical evidence, particularly the subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death (Ex. PW31/A and Ex. PW31/B), opines that all the injuries (44 in total) on the body of the deceased, were ante-
mortem in nature and, taken collectively, were sufficient to cause death. Hence, it is proved that death of late Vijender Sharma was homicidal. However, the moot question is, whether the accused persons facing trial are the actual assailants who attacked the deceased on the fateful day?
14. STATEMENT OF DECEASED/DYING DECLRATION :
14.1 The prosecution has placed reliance upon the deceased's statement (Ex. PW-2/B), stated to have been recorded by the First IO SI Gaurav Panwar in the presence of PW-2 Rahul Sharma, containing names of three assailants and circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death. This is alleged to be the last statement of the deceased before his death, therefore, prosecution sought it to be relied as his dying declaration, but the said statement would be covered within Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:11 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 23/69 the realm of dying declaration, only if, the prosecution would succeed in proving it to be actually given by the deceased and, if it is so proved, thereafter it is to be determined whether it is free from reasonable doubts and infirmities and can be safely acted upon.
14.2 The law is well settled that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied upon, provided it is proved to be voluntary, truthful but not result of either tutoring or prompting and the victim was in a fit state of mind and also that it is just not enough for the Court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant. 14.3 In Thurukanni Pompaiah & Anr. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 939, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"A dying declaration is relevant and material evidence in the prosecution of the assailants and a truthful and reliable dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction, even though it is not corroborated. But the Court must be satisfied that the declaration is truthful. The reliability of a dying declaration should be subjected to a close scrutiny, considering that it was made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross- examination. If the Court finds that the declaration is not wholly reliable and a material and integral portion of the deceased's version of the entire occurrence is untrue, the Court may, in all the circumstances of the case consider it unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the declaration alone without further corroboration."
In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"The situation in which a man is on death bed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross- examination, the court insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however has to always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. TheDigitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:21 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 24/69 court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a magistrate is absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise."
14.4 The law on point can be summarized as follows:-
a) Declarant must be in fit state of mind while giving the declaration and doctor's certification is not mandatory for this. It suffices even if eye-witnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration.
b) Dying declaration can be oral, in writing, words or gestures.
c) No specific format/ form to record it. CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:29 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 25/69 d) It can be recorded by the doctor, Magistrate or police officer. e) It should be free from every suspicion. f) It should not be the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination but voluntary. 14.5 Now, on the basis of the above settled principles of law, it
is to be examined whether, in the present case, the statement of deceased (sought to be relied as dying declaration) and the testimonies of the eye-
witnesses are free from any blemish and whether they prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt so as to warrant conviction of the accused persons. This is a case involving previous enmity between the parties; therefore, greater care and caution is required while analysing the material on record, to rule out the possibility of false implication of the accused by the victim side on one hand and to examine the motive of the accused to commit the alleged offence on the other.
14.6 As per the prosecution case, the statement (Ex. PW-2/B) of the deceased was recorded by the first IO, SI Gaurav Panwar, in the presence of PW-2 Rahul Sharma and the concerned doctor. PW-2 Rahul Sharma has also deposed that the said statement was recorded in his presence and in the presence of the attending doctor. However, the material available on record raises serious doubts, in that whether it was actually made by the deceased, and if so, whether was he in fit state of mind while giving it?
14.7 The prosecution narrative is that IO/SI Gaurav Panwar along with HC Dinesh after receipt of DD No.72A regarding assault, reached at the spot where they were informed that deceased has been shifted to GTB Hospital; they reached at GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of the Vijender Sharma (deceased) on which doctor declared him 'fit for statement'' but when IO/SI Gaurav went to record his statement, Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:36 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 26/69 he was informed by Vijender Sharma that he is in pain, therefore, cannot give the statement. Thereafter, at 1.25 subha, IO/SI Gaurav again met Vijender Sharma when he himself told that he is in position to give statement accordingly his statement (EX-PW2/B) was recorded. 14.8. In the present case, timing of recording of alleged statement of the deceased is very crucial since the ' Tehrir/Rukka''( Ex. PW 25/A/) on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PW1/A) was registered, contains material alteration/interpolation on the timings of recording of the said statement as earlier the timing of recording the said statement was 7.25 subha , which is the time when, as per the medical evidence on record, the deceased was admitted at Max Hospital, Vaishali and was in a comatose, unconscious, and unresponsive condition, but the said timing, later on, was interpolated to 1.25 subha. (portion A to A1 of EX-PW2/B) 14.9 At the outset, the evidence of PW-27 Dr. Hemant Gupta and PW-33 Dr. Thakur Shivesh Vijeta, who were the first treating doctors of the deceased at Max Hospital, Vaishali, U.P. is relevant to be noted. As per the death summary (Ex- PW27/A), the deceased reached Max Hospital, Vaishali, on the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019 at about 2:10 a.m. and succumbed to his injuries on 24.04.2019 at 5:51 p.m. Both the above-mentioned doctors, in their respective testimonies, have specifically stated and it is also reflected in Ex. PW27/A that at the time of admission, the deceased had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of E1V1M1. He was intubated, his blood pressure was not recordable, though his pulse and SpO₂ were normal; he was on ventilator support and had been started on high-dose inotropic support. PW-27 Dr. Hemant Gupta specifically stated that he never had any occasion to talk to the deceased due to his medical condition. Both the doctors, in their cross- examination, stated categorically that from the time deceased was admitted to Max Hospital on 22.04.219 at 2.10 A.M. till his death on Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:14:46 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 27/69 24.04.2019, he remained unconscious and unresponsive. Thus, as per medical evidence on record, the deceased was unconscious, in state of coma, at the time of his admission in Max Hospital at 2.10 AM on 22.04.2019 till his death on 24.04.2019,he remained unconscious and unresponsive.
14.10 Reverting to the 'Rukka/Tehrir'(EX PW25/A) containing interpolations, its image is as under: -
14.11 From the above, it is evident that there is overwriting on the time (portion A to A1) when IO/SI Gaurav allegedly met and recorded the alleged statement of the deceased. Initially, the time mentioned was 7:25 subah, which was subsequently altered to 1:25 subah. At this State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 28/69 CHARU Digitally by CHARU signed AGGARW AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 AL 17:15:28 +05'30' juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the FIR (Ex. PW1/A), the time at which the IO went to record the statement of the deceased is mentioned as 7:25 subah. Surprisingly, the second IO, Inspector Prahlad Singh, who filed the chargesheet, completely ignored the contents of the FIR (Ex.
PW1/A) and, without offering any clarification regarding the overwriting on the 'Tehrir/Rukka'', (Ex. PW25/A) mentioned the time 1:25 subah in the chargesheet. Evidently, after registration of the FIR containing the time 7:25 subah, or at some subsequent stage, either of the IOs, for reasons best known to them, altered the timing from 7:25 subah to 1:25 subah on the Tehrir/Rukka. This alteration is material in nature, particularly because at 7:25 A.M., the deceased had already been admitted to Max Hospital in a comatose state. Throughout the entire investigation and the pendency of the trial for nearly six years, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by either of the IOs or by the prosecution regarding this significant interpolation of time. For the first time, SI Gaurav, in his chief examination, attempted to explain the discrepancy by stating that the incorrect timing mentioned in the FIR was due to a typographical error. However, this explanation is contradicted by the testimony of the Duty Officer (PW-1), who registered the FIR, and who categorically stated in his cross-examination that the IO never informed him about any typographical error and that the FIR was typed strictly as per the contents of the ' Tehrir/Rukka''(EX PW25/A) .
14.12 Even, use of the term "subah" with the timings 1:25/7:25 in the Tehrir/Rukka also assumes significance, as it appears inconsistent with common parlance. Generally, for timings falling in the intervening night, particularly between midnight and early morning hours, the term "raat " (night)is used. Even PW-2 Rahul Sharma, son of the deceased, during his cross-examination at several places, referred to the time as State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 29/69 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:19:49 +05'30' night (raat ) when he shifted his father from GTB Hospital to Max Hospital in the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019 (deceased had reached Max hospital at 2.10 am meaning thereby Rahul is referring to the timing prior to it, which as per Mark DX3, a document of GTB hospital pertaining to deceased mentioning the time as 1.30 am when he left the hospital).
14.13 There is a glaring contradiction between the Tehrir/Rukka (Ex. PW25/A) and the FIR (Ex. PW1/A), both of which are vital documents that set the criminal law into motion. This contradiction casts a serious doubt regarding the time at which the alleged statement of the deceased was recorded, which is a critical aspect in the present case. If the statement was recorded at 7:25 A.M., then, as per the medical record, the deceased was in an unconscious and unresponsive state at that time, rendering it impossible for any statement to have been recorded. On the other hand, if the timing of 1:25 A.M. is to be accepted, there is no explanation on record from the prosecution as to how, why, and when this timing came to be incorporated in the record. 14.14 The interpolation in the timing of the 'Tehrir/Rukka'(Ex. PW25/A) constitutes the most damaging and fatal infirmity in the entire prosecution case, striking at the very root of the authenticity of the investigation. As per the original record, the time mentioned for recording the statement of the deceased was 7:25 subah, which subsequently stood altered and overwritten as 1:25 subah. This alteration is not minor or clerical in nature but is a material interpolation going to the heart of the prosecution case, particularly because the time of recording of the alleged dying declaration is a foundational fact on which the registration of the FIR and the entire chain of investigation is premised. What aggravates the gravity of this interpolation is that no explanation whatsoever has been offered by either of the Investigating Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.01.31 17:19:38 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 30/69 Officers as to how, why, and at whose instance this alteration was made. Even more significantly, while the 'Tehrir/Rukka' was altered to reflect 1:25 subah , the FIR continued to retain the original timing of 7:25 subah , thereby creating a glaring and irreconcilable contradiction between the two most vital documents that set the criminal law into motion. This internal inconsistency is not only unexplained but also unexplainable, and it completely destroys the credibility of the alleged recording of the deceased's statement and this also throw light on belatedly registration of the FIR at 9:30 A.M. on 22.04.2019, instead of within a short span after the alleged recording of the statement at 1:25 subah .
14.15 Such a conscious and unexplained alteration of an official document, which forms the very basis of the criminal prosecution, cannot be brushed aside as a mere typographical or procedural lapse. On the contrary, it amounts to prima facie falsification of official record, deliberately designed to suit the prosecution story and to overcome the medical evidence which made it impossible for the deceased to have given any statement at the originally recorded time and for this accused deserve benefit of doubt.
15. The discussion in the preceding paragraphs is, by itself, sufficient to discard the statement (Ex. PW-2/B) alleged to be of the deceased. However, the testimonies of PW-2 Rahul Sharma, son of the deceased, and the IO, also assume significance, as both have deposed that the statement of the deceased was recorded by SI Gaurav in the presence of Rahul Sharma. Notably, neither of them could withstand cross-examination on the crucial aspect of the timing of recording of the said statement. Rahul Sharma expressed complete ignorance not only with respect to the time at which his father's statement was allegedly recorded, but also regarding almost all other time-related aspects, such CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.01.31 17:20:04 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 31/69 as when he reached the hospital, when he first met the IO, how long the police remained in the hospital, how many times he met SI Gaurav, and the duration of the statement-recording process. During his cross-
examination dated 02.12.2023, he was specifically asked when he had last met IO/SI Gaurav at GTB Hospital before proceeding to Max Hospital whether it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes or 45 minutes prior to leaving for Max Hospital. His repeated response was that he did not remember, attributing this to being occupied with his father's treatment. While it is understandable that a son may be distressed upon seeing his father in such an injured condition, it is equally disturbing that the same son could nonetheless find the presence of mind to make a video of his severely injured and bleeding father in the hospital2. Had the statement of his father actually been recorded at '1:25 A.M.'', merely five minutes or so prior to leaving GTB Hospital at 1:30 A.M., Rahul Sharma would, in all probability, have been able to specifically answer this question, as no prudent person is expected to forget such a vital moment when the police were recording the statement of his seriously injured family member while he was simultaneously in the final process of shifting him to another hospital due to his deteriorating condition. The relevant portion of Rahul's testimony is reproduced as under:-
"....On the date of incident for the first time the police met me in the GTB hospital but I do not remember the time. I do not remember the time as to how long the police remained in the hospital. The name of police officials are SI Gaurav Panwar and others names I do not remember. I do not remember as to how many times I met with SI Gaurav in the GTB Hospital. I do not remember the time till I remained in the hospital however, it was night. I do not remember the duration of my stay in the hospital.
I do not remember the sequence as to whether the
CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:15
+0530
2
In cross-examination dated 05.09.2023 he admitted making the video of his father in hospital.State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 32/69
jeans was handed first in the hospital or my father's statement was recorded first. I do not remember as to who from my family had come in the hospital during my stay there. During the treatment of my father on the intervening night of 21-22/4/2019, I stayed with my father and had taken my father from GTB Hospital to MAX Hospital. The statement of my father was recorded in GTB Hospital by the IO. I do not remember as to how much time was taken by the IO in recording the statement of my father. I do not remember the time when I got my father shifted from GTB to Max Hospital. I do not remember as to whether doctors had referred my father or I had taken my father from GTB Hospital to Max Hospital for the reason that the condition of my father was serious. I do not remember the time when we reached the Max hospital, however, it was night time. I remained in the Max Hospital during the whole day. I do not remember whether I left from the Max Hospital during my stay there. I do not remember the time when the police met me in the Max Hospital.
Cross examination of PW2 Rahul Sharma dated 02.12.2023:
Ques: When you lastly met SI Gaurav Pawar in GTB hospital before proceeding to MAX hospital i.e. 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes or 45 minutes prior to leaving for MAX hospital from GTB hospital?
Ans: I do not remember the exact time as to when I had lastly met with SI Gaurav Pawar in GTB hospital since I was busy in the treatment of my father."
15.1 Evidently, Rahul conspicuously elected to preserve a calculated and deliberate silence, thereby underscoring the selective and self-serving nature in answering the relevant questions put to him by the defense. The record further demonstrates that Rahul Sharma remained exceedingly active throughout the investigation and the trial, repeatedly approaching various authorities, lodging complaints against police officials, alleging threats against the accused and their family members, and filing successive applications before the Court either for further Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:25 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 33/69 investigation in respect of jean of his father or for permission to place additional documents on record etc. Despite such persistent engagement, he never raised any objection or grievance concerning the conspicuous overwriting in the Tehrir/Rukka' or its endorsement by the Investigating Officers without any explanation more particularly when this alteration was in his knowledge. During his cross-examination dated 08.12.2023, he was specifically put a question relating to interpolation of timings in Rukka/Tehrir, which he normally answered 'it is wrong' but he did not show lack of his knowledge on this . Rahul's conduct clearly indicates his excessive enthusiasm during the investigative and judicial process was driven by personal interests rather than a fair and balanced pursuit of justice; His pronounced zeal throughout the investigative and judicial process was motivated not by an impartial commitment to justice, but by personal advantage.
15.2 Coming to the deposition of IO/SI Gaurav, I shall first deal with his own alleged medical condition cited by him during his oral evidence. On the very first day of commencement of his oral evidence, i.e., on 01.11.2025, he informed the Court that due to a brain tumor suffered by him 4-5 years ago, he occasionally fails to recollect complete facts. However, no medical record in support of this claim was produced by him, and upon an overall assessment of his testimony, this Court is not prima facie satisfied that he suffers from any memory impairment attributable to the said medical condition. I say so because even after long gap of 6 years, in his evidence he could correctly identify all the eight accused, some by name and some by faces; he could correctly depose on the facts related to collection of MLC of deceased, shifting him from one Hospital to another, names of almost all the concerned individuals, be it Karan or Rahul, seizure of case property, arrest of accused persons and the name of PW-7 Arif as well from whose Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:34 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 34/69 shop accused had allegedly purchased the iron rods; he also admitted all the leading questions put to him by Ld. Additional PP, except a leading question relating to timings of recording of statement of deceased for which, he introduced an entirely new version that it was recorded during his first visit to GTB Hospital, which as per evidence on record was between 11-11.30 p.m., contrary to the prosecution case since as per the chargesheet, IO had recorded the deceased's statement at '1.25 a.m'. on his second visit to GTB Hospital. Thus, contradictory versions of the prosecution exist on this crucial aspect as to when the said statement of the deceased was recorded and also creates serious doubt that it was actually his last statement before his death. This entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.
16. Even if, the prosecution case is taken as correct and it is assumed that deceased's statement was recorded at 1:25 subah, it still suffers from serious infirmitietes.
16.1 The first and foremost essential requirement before recording dying declaration is that a person who is recoding it, must be satisfied that the deceased was in 'fit state of mind' while giving the said statement for which doctor's certification is not mandatory but where the eye witness state that the deceased was in fit and conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion would not prevail but at the same time, it is equally settled that the Court must independently satisfy itself about the mental fitness and reliability of the declarant before acting upon such statement.
16.2 In the present case, prosecution is relying on both, the doctor's certification of deceased's 'fit state of mind' and also on the testimony of alleged eye witness Rahul who has stated that statement of his father was recorded in his presence by the IO Gaurav Panwar and while giving the statement he was conscious, speaking and was correctly CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:41 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 35/69 answering everything asked by the IO.
16.3 First, it is necessary to examine the medical foundation of the prosecution case relating to the deceased having been declared "fit for statement". As per the MLC of the deceased (Ex. PW-30/A), Vijender Sharma was admitted in GTB Hospital on 21.04.2019 at about 10:30 p.m. and was declared "fit for statement" by PW-30 Dr. Ankit Naval. However, in his cross-examination, PW-30 admitted that he had treated the deceased only for about 30-45 minutes and thereafter had no further involvement in his medical care. This clearly establishes that the deceased remained under the care of PW-30 only till about 11:15-11:30 p.m. 16.4 The alleged statement of the deceased is claimed to have been recorded much later, at about 1:25 a.m., that is nearly two hours after he was last medically assessed and declared fit by PW-30. The subsequent medical record paints a completely different picture. The death summary from Max Hospital, Vaishali (Ex. PW-27/A), shows that the deceased was admitted there at about 2:10 a.m. in a deeply unconscious and ventilated state. Both PW-27 Dr. Hemant Gupta and PW-33 Dr. Thakur Shivesh Vijeta have categorically stated in their cross-examinations that from the time of admission at Max Hospital till his death, the deceased remained unconscious and unresponsive. 16.5 Significantly, even PW-2 Rahul Sharma has consistently stated that he shifted his father from GTB Hospital to Max Hospital in the intervening night of 21/22.04.2019 precisely because his condition had deteriorated. This sequence of events unmistakably demonstrates that the medical condition of the deceased worsened after 11:30 p.m., that is, after he was declared "fit for statement" by PW-30. In these circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful, if not altogether improbable, that the deceased was in a fit mental and physical state to make any Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:50 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 36/69 voluntary, coherent and reliable statement at about 1:25 a.m., as alleged by the prosecution.
16.6. Although the IO and PW-2 have claimed that the statement of the deceased was recorded in the presence of a doctor, no such doctor has either been identified or examined during the trial, nor the statement bears signature of any doctor. PW-30 Dr. Ankit Naval, who had declared the deceased 'fit for statement', has categorically ruled out his presence at the time when the alleged statement was recorded. 16.7 Coming to deposition of PW-2 Rahul who in his oral evidence stated that while the IO was allegedly recording his father's statement at 1.25 am, he was conscious and was correctly answering everything asked by the IO. Undoubtedly, a person can be conscious and able to speak in critical condition. As per section 32 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, a statement made by a person under the expectation of death is admissible. The use of term 'under the expectation of death' itself reflects that a statement of a critical person who conscious and is able to speak is very much admissible. However, admissibility does not dispense with the requirement of judicial scrutiny regarding the mental fitness, coherence and reliability of the declarant. 16.8 In the present case, a serious inconsistency emerges when the contents of the alleged dying declaration (Ex. PW-2/B) are compared with the version attributed by PW-2 to his father. In the alleged dying declaration, the deceased named only three accused persons, namely Ajay Sharma, Neeraj Bhanot and Chokhe Ram, along with "2-3 associates". In stark contrast, PW-2 Rahul Sharma, in his examination- in-chief, claimed that while being shifted in e-rickshaw to GTB Hospital and again at hospital, his father told him that accused Raj Sharma along with Ajay Sharma, Chokhe Ram, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Manish Sharma and their 2-3 associates had assaulted him. He CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:20:57 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 37/69 also stated that the deceased was badly injured and complaining of giddiness during the transit. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as under :-
"When we were heading towards GTB Hospital, my deceased father told me that jo Raj Sharma kafi samay se dhamkiya de raha tha, today he (Raj Sharma) along with Ajay Sharma, Chokhey Ram, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Manish Sharma and other 2-3 associates had attacked upon me. Due to the beatings given by the above mentioned accused persons, my father was badly injured and was complaining of giddiness (chakkar aana). Even in the hospital, my father again told me that jo Raj Sharma kafi samay se dhamkiya de raha tha, today he (Raj Sharma) alongwith Ajay Sharma, Chokhey Ram, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Manish Sharma and 2-3 associates had attacked upon me."
16.9 PW-2 Rahul Sharma, has stated that while shifting his father to GTB Hospital, in the e-rickshaw, he was badly injured and complaining of giddiness. If that was the condition of the deceased at that time, it becomes doubtful as to how he could coherently and accurately named almost all the accused persons. More importantly, when he was under medical treatment at GTB Hospital and was allegedly 'fit for statement' he named only three accused persons in the said statement. This inconsistency raises a serious doubt about the mental fitness and cognitive clarity of the deceased at the relevant time. This, coupled with the assertion of PW-2 that his father was correctly answering everything asked by the IO, makes the matter even more doubtful. If the deceased was indeed conscious and correctly answering all the questions put to him by the IO, there is no plausible or logical explanation as to why he did not name all the accused persons in his formal statement and restricted it only to three names with vague reference to "2-3 associates" This internal inconsistency strikes at the very credibility of the alleged dying declaration and makes it unsafe to be relied upon as a truthful and reliable account of the occurrence.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31
17:21:06 +0530
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 38/69
16.10 Another serious doubt arises from the limited five-minute
window between the alleged recording time of 1:25 a.m. and the deceased leaving GTB Hospital at 1:30 a.m. PW-25 HC Dinesh, who was accompanying IO/SI Gaurav at GTB Hospital, while the alleged statement was recorded, during his deposition on 14.10.2025, has stated that the recording of the statement took 20-25 minutes and concluded at 2:00 a.m., which contradicts the medical record and location of the deceased.
16.11 Further suspicion arises from the deposition of HC Dinesh, who was admittedly present throughout with the IO/SI Gaurav at GTB Hospital. During his deposition, apart from stating his own presence at the time of recording of deceased's statement, he also introduced the presence of Karan Sharma and Jatin Verma, claiming that they were present when the IO/SI Gaurav was recording statement of the deceased. But, since the very inception, it was never the prosecution case that these persons, namely, HC Dinesh, Karan Sharma and Jatin Verma, were present at that time. This material improvement creates serious doubt as to who all were actually present when the alleged statement of the deceased was recorded.
16.12 Further doubt arises from the fact that statement (Ex. PW- 2/B) of the deceased bears his right thumb impression; standard practice is to obtain the left thumb impression in cases of males; Rahul has stated that his father was unable to sign due to injuries on his hands, therefore, he put thumb impression on the statement. As per the medical evidence on record, deceased had several injuries on his right hand and palm as mentioned in the medical documents i.e. post-mortem report (Ex. PW28/A) and the annexed figurative diagram, reflecting injury nos. 14 3 CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:21:16 +0530 3 Injury no. 14 - Superficial lacerated wound of size 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous deep present obliquely over the anterior aspect of right hand, 4.5 cm below wrist joint. Margins of the found are irregular reddish brown abraded and contused.
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 39/69and 164. Given this, it is highly doubtful that when the deceased had injuries in his right hand and palm especially near the right thumb, due to which he was unable to sign, as to why, his thumb impression of the same hand (injured hand)was taken on his statement and why, as a routine practice, his left-hand thumb impression of an uninjured hand was not obtained like on his MLC. IO SI Gaurav has attempted to explain this saying he took deceased's right thumb impression on the request of the deceased; however, this is nowhere stated by him either in the 'Rukka' or in the chargesheet; not even Rahul, who claims that his father's statement was recorded in his presence has deposed that his father requested the IO to take his right thumb impression.
17. Going further, statement Ex. PW-2/B of late Vijender Sharma, which is sought to be relied upon as a dying declaration, is stated to have been recorded by the IO, SI Gaurav Panwar. At this stage, the settled principles governing dying declarations recorded by an Investigating Officer also become relevant. It is well settled that a dying declaration cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and not by a Magistrate. However, it is equally settled that the practice of the IO himself recording the dying declaration should be avoided, particularly in cases where sufficient time was available to call a Magistrate for recording the same. 17.1 In this regard, I may gainfully refer to observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments :
In Munnu Raja v. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104 it has been observed :-
"The investigating officer who recorded the dying declaration had undoubtedly taken the precaution of keeping a doctor present and it appears that some of the friends and relations of the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:21:27 +0530 4 Injury no.16 - Multiple reddish brown scabbed abrasions ranging in size from 2.5 cm x 2.0 cm to 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm, 3 in number, over an area of size 7.0 cm x 2.5 cm on the posterior aspect of right hand present 6.0 cm below wrist joint touching base of second, third and fourth finger.State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 40/69
deceased were also present at the time when the statement was recorded. But, if the investigating officer thought that Bahadur Singh was in a precarious condition he ought to have requisitioned the services of a Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. Investigating Officers are naturally interested in the success of the investigation and the practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged. We have therefore excluded from our consideration the dying declaration, Ext. P. 2, recorded in the hospital."
In Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173 it has been observed : -
"Although a dying declaration recorded by a police officer during the course of investigation is admissible under S. 32 of the evidence Act in view of the exception provided in sub section (2) S. 162, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by Magistrate or by a Doctor. The practice of the Investigating Officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation Court not to be encouraged. This is not to suggest that such dying declaration are always untrustworthy, but, what was to be emphasized is that better and more reliable methods of recording a dying declaration of an injured person should be taken recourse to and the one recorded by the Police Officer may be relied upon if there was not time or facility available to the prosecution for adopting any better method."
In Jagdish Lal Malhotra v. State, 25 (1984) DLT 405, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"We may point that on consideration of the citations we firmly believe that there can be precedent on law but there can be no precedent on facts. Each case as such to be considered in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances and in the light of the requirement of law. It would thus appear that the settled law regarding dying declaration is that such declarations must be approached with caution and before such statement is accepted it must be thoroughly examined in all details. There is no rule or law excluding the use of dying declaration without corroboration. It is the duty of the prosecution to law the whole statement before the court in the manner in which it was made, without tempering with its terms or its tenor.Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31
17:21:35 +0530
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 41/69
The courts are also required to keep in view that the Investigating Officers, who are interested in the success of the investigations, should not be encouraged to record such dying declarations themselves and if it appears to the court that the investigating officer had plenty of time and facility to procure the services of a Magistrate for recording a dying declaration then in that case the dying declaration recorded by the investigating officer should be excluded from consideration. Whether the investigating officer had sufficient time or facility to fetch a Magistrate is a question of fact and should be determined in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. If the broad statement of facts made in the dying declaration is at variance with the other evidence of the prosecution in respect of such matters and if what the prosecution has proved by other evidence controverts the facts mentioned in the dying declaration it will render the dying declaration as untrustworthy and suspicious."
17.2 The incident in question had occurred at 10 p.m. Deceased had reached GTB Hospital at 10:30 pm. As per the testimony of PW 25 HC Dinesh, the Police had also reached at the hospital at about 11.00/11.30 p.m. As per prosecution case, deceased's statement (Ex. PW-2/B) was recorded at 1:25 am meaning thereby, IO had sufficient time from 11.00/11.30 pm to 1:25 am to call a Magistrate for recording the statement of deceased, however, no reason has been put forth by the IO as to why he made no efforts to call the Magistrate for recording his statement.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not satisfied as to the authenticity of the alleged statement (Ex. PW2/B) attributed to the deceased, either made by him or faithfully recorded. Even assuming, arguendo, that such a statement was made, it is vitiated by fundamental infirmities, particularly with respect to the deceased's mental fitness at the relevant time, coupled with other surrounding suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the said statement is rendered wholly unreliable and cannot be acted upon to record the conviction of the accused persons. CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:21:44 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 42/69
19. EYE WITNESSEES OF THE INCIDENT 19.1 As per chargesheet, Rahul Sharma and Karan Sharma were the eye-witnesses of the prosecution, but Karan could not be examined as he had expired. During evidence in the Court, apart from Rahul Sharma, PW-4 Dinesh Gupta has also deposed as one of the eye witnesses of the incident. The eye witnesses to the incident are, PW-2 Rahul, son of the deceased and the other is PW-4 Dinesh Gupta, their employee. It is important to note that parties has/had inimical relationship with each other; several civil and criminal cases, particularly involving valuable immovable properties in crores, are pending between them. Hence, before proceeding further, it is necessary to discuss the settled law regarding the reliability of related/interested witnesses. 19.2 It is well-settled law that a related witness cannot be termed an "interested" witness merely by virtue of being related to the victim. Hon'ble Apex Court has, in a catena of judgments, elucidated the distinction between a "related" witness and an "interested" witness, holding that a witness can be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the outcome of the litigation. In the context of a criminal case, this would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished, owing to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused. The testimony of a related witness, therefore, cannot be treated as inherently tainted. However, the court must ensure that such evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent, and consistent. The settled position is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:21:52 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 43/69 19.3 In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested"."
In Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry), (Crl. Appeal No. 1246/2002), [(2010) 1 SCC 199] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim."
In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, without any generalization, that a related witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person as an accused--each case has to be considered on its own facts. 19.4 The sum and substance are that the evidence of a related or interested witness must be examined with great care and caution. In cases where such a witness may have prior enmity with the assailant, the standard of scrutiny is required to be higher, and the evidence must be tested through a lens of careful and discerning evaluation. However, this is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. Once the Court, upon such careful scrutiny, is satisfied that the testimony of the interested witness Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:22:00 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 44/69 bears a ring of truth, such evidence can be relied upon even in the absence of corroboration. It is also settled law that accused can be convicted on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished gains the confidence of the court. As per section 134 Evidence Act no particular number is required to prove the case. It is quality but not the quantity which is to be seen.
19.5 In the present case, PW-2 Rahul Sharma (son of the deceased) and PW-3 Dinesh Gupta are projected as eyewitnesses by the prosecution, both of whom have stated that on the day of the incident, they saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased Vijender Sharma. 19.6 PW-2 Rahul Sharma has deposed that at about 10:00 p.m. on the date of the incident, he and his friend Karan Sharma (since deceased) were standing in a street outside his house when they heard the screams of his father emanating from the corner of the gali. According to him, both rushed towards the spot and allegedly saw the accused persons Raj Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Manish Sharma (his uncles/chachas), Chokhe Ram Dixit, Neeraj Bhanot, Rohit Gogia, Raj Kumar Maheshwari and VS (CCL) assaulting his father with iron rods and wooden sticks. The PCR call informing the incident was made by Karan Sharma. As per prosecution's own version, Karan Sharma was an eye-witness to the incident This improbability assumes greater significance in light of Rahul Sharma's admission in his cross- examination dated 02.09.2023 that he and Karan Sharma had been close family friends since 2014 and that Karan was already well acquainted with all his uncles (chachas), namely Ajay Sharma, Raj Sharma and Manish Sharma, (three out of eight accused) much prior to the incident. This relationship is further reflected in the PCR form (Ex. PW-23/A), wherein Karan Sharma has referred to the deceased as his "Tau". Thus, as per the prosecution's own case, the names and identities of the alleged Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.01.31 17:22:08 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 45/69 assailants were well within the knowledge of Karan Sharma at the time he made the 100 number call at about 10:45 p.m. 19.7 Despite such alleged knowledge and despite being projected as an eye-witness, the version given by Karan Sharma to the police at the very first opportunity tells an entirely different story. DD Entry No. 72A dated 21.04.2019, recorded at 22:45:11 hours on the basis of the 100-number call made by him from the hospital, records the information in vague terms as: "KISI NE PICHE SE HAMLA KAR DIYA". Further, the PCR call was closed vide PCR form (Ex. PW-23/A) at 00:15:40 hours on 22.04.2019, wherein it is specifically recorded that the caller stated that his "Tau" was attacked by "7/8 Unknown ladke". The DD entry records the description:-
".......KISI NE PICHE SE HAMLA KAR DIYA......."
The PCR call was closed vide PCR form (Ex. PW23/A) dated 22.04.2019 at 00:15:40 (12.15 a.m.) The contents of the said PCR form are reproduced as under:-
"CALLER KARAN SHARMA NE BATAYA KI HAMARE TAU (UNCLE) S/O SUKH SHARMA AGE 60 YRS JO M/CY PAR THE 7/8 U/K LADKO NE SPRAY KIYA HAI OR MARPEET KI HAI JISE INJ HO GYE THE JISE CALLER NE GTB HOSP ME ADMIT KRA DIYA". SI GAURAV 22.04.2019,00:15:16_ CHHINA KUCHH NAHI HAI.
Challan Close Time: 22 Apr. 2019 0:15:40 19.8 This expression "U/K" unmistakably denotes "Unknown".
The PCR form thus clearly demonstrates that till 12:15 a.m. on 22.04.2019, the identity of the assailants was not known to Karan Sharma, therefore, no names were disclosed by him at the first available opportunity. This omission is fatal. When Karan Sharma admittedly knew the accused persons by name and face, was allegedly an eye- witness to the incident, had cordial relations with deceased and his family, there was no reason for him to withhold the names of the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:22:16 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 46/69 accused persons as assailants at the first instance, especially when he was providing the other information with respect to the hospital where the deceased was admitted and nothing has been snatched in the incident, which by that time was not of much relevance since the Call/DD was already been assigned to IO/SI Gaurav from PS Shahdara, for further action. Why he would have concealed such vital information relating to assailants is what creates a reluctance in the mind of the Court to accept accused-persons as assailants.
This unexplained and material contradiction strikes at the root of the prosecution story and casts a serious and irreconcilable doubt on the version of PW-2 Rahul Sharma regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the incident.
19.9 Ld. Addl. PP while relying upon ' Nizamuddin and others vs. State of Delhi 2011 CS (DEL) CL 324' argued that non mentioning of names of accused persons in DD and MLC is not fatal to the case of prosecution. I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by Ld. Addl. PP, however, it is distinguishable on the facts since the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the said case, were under a situation wherein the information of the incident was provided by an unknown person who may not be aware of the details of the incident. But, in the case at hand, Karan is alleged an eye witness of the incident and also had cordial family relations with the deceased and Rahul, well aware of the identity of the accused persons, there is no plausible explanation as to why he would inform the police that the assault had been committed by unknown persons and concealed the names of the assailants.
19.10 The testimony of PW-2 Rahul Sharma is rendered doubtful for yet another significant reason. According to him, he along with Dinesh Gupta (PW-3), Jatin Verma (PW-4), Deepak Malhotra ( he was CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.01.31 17:22:25 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 47/69 cited as witness but not examined as his presence could be secured) and Karan Sharma (since deceased) shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in an e-rickshaw, and during this transit his father allegedly disclosed to him that accused Raj Sharma along with Ajay, Manish, Chokhe Ram, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot and 2-3 other associates had attacked him. He further claimed that the deceased repeated the same version at GTB Hospital. However, except for PW-2, none of the other persons who were allegedly present in the same e-rickshaw, namely PW- 3 Dinesh Gupta and PW-4 Jatin Verma, have supported this version or stated that the deceased disclosed the identity of the assailants during the transit. It is highly improbable, bordering on the implausible, that seven persons, including the injured and the driver, were seated in close physical proximity in an e-rickshaw, yet the alleged utterances of the deceased were heard exclusively by Rahul Sharma alone and by no one else. This improbability is further strengthened by the admission of PW- 4 Jatin Verma in his cross-examination dated 07.04.2025 that he was not aware of the names of any of the assailants till 22.04.2019. Even PW-3 Dinesh Gupta, projected as an eye-witness, has not stated in his chief- examination that Vijender Sharma disclosed anything about the identity of the assailants while being taken to the hospital. This renders the testimony of PW-2 highly suspicious, especially when read in conjunction with the DD entry and PCR form (Ex. PW23/A), wherein the names of the assailants were not mentioned at all, despite the fact that accused Ajay, Raj and Manish were well known to Karan Sharma and it was Karan Sharma who made the PCR call and at whose instance the said call was also closed.
19.11 As per PW-2 Rahul Sharma, upon hearing his father's screams he rushed to the spot with Karan Sharma and allegedly saw the accused beating his father with iron rods and wooden sticks. He further Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:22:33 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 48/69 stated that he chased the accused and that they fled from the spot. On his own showing, therefore, he could have witnessed the incident only for a few fleeting moments. Yet, in his examination-in-chief, he gave a detailed account of the roles of each accused, specifying who was holding iron rods and who was carrying wooden sticks, and even claimed knowledge of supplementary charge-sheet with X-ray filed by the IO. He also professed to remember verbatim what his father allegedly told him in the e-rickshaw four years earlier. In stark contrast, during cross-examination he repeatedly professed ignorance on material aspects, responding with "I do not remember", "I do not know", and "I was busy in the treatment of my father".
19.12 It is of considerable significance that a witness who, in his examination-in-chief, projected an image of precision and careful recollection, offering a detailed and apparently well-prepared account of the incident, displayed a marked reluctance during cross-examination to answer material questions with clarity and candour. The consistency and precision evident in his examination-in-chief stood in sharp contrast to his subsequent evasiveness, wherein he repeatedly avoided giving direct responses to questions central to this case. This abrupt and unexplained shift in his manner of testimony raises serious doubts regarding reliability of his version. Such conduct not only casts a shadow on the credibility of the witness but also substantially diminishes the probative and evidentiary value of his testimony as a whole. 19.13 Serious doubt also arises regarding the very presence of PW-2 Rahul Sharma at the spot. He neither made a call to the police on 100 number nor is his name reflected in the MLC of the deceased in the column relating to the person who brought the injured to the hospital. When confronted with this during cross-examination, he stated that he was busy with the treatment of his father. This explanation is CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:22:40 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 49/69 contradicted by his own admission in cross-examination dated 04.01.2024 that immediately after the incident he telephoned Anil Sharma, brother of accused Manish Sharma, to complain about Manish's involvement. It is difficult to accept that a son would refrain from calling emergency services in such a grave situation but would instead contact a relative of the accused. His plea of being preoccupied with treatment is further belied by the fact that he recorded a video of his injured father in the hospital, as admitted in his cross-examination dated 05.09.2023 (the video, at best, may show his presence in hospital but not at the spot) . At one place he projects himself as too distressed and busy to remember or act, and at another he is actively making calls and recording videos. This inconsistent and unnatural conduct seriously dents his credibility.
20. The unreliability of prosecution witnesses is further exposed by the manner in which new facts and additional names were introduced during oral testimony, deviating materially from earlier statements.
This is particularly evident in the testimony of PW-3 Dinesh Gupta, employee of Rahul, who was never projected as an eye- witness during investigation but suddenly assumed that role in Court. He not only named all accused as assailants but also introduced a role for accused Giriraj Maheshwari. Such material improvements and embellishments strike at the root of his credibility. Court is conscious that minor discrepancies are common and don't necessarily weaken the prosecution's case. However, material contradictions, especially introducing new version in entirety, that too by interested witnesses undermines witnesses' credibility.
20.1 The veracity of PW-3 Dinesh Gupta can be gauged from his contradictory stands regarding his employment. During his cross- examination dated 20.08.2024, he stated that he had left Rahul's service CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.01.31 17:22:48 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 50/69 within a few days of the incident. However, in his complaint dated 19.07.2024 alleging threats, pursuant to which an FIR No. 203/2025 P.S. Shahdara was registered, he mentioned that he had left Rahul's job about 1.5 years earlier. This contradiction indicates that he continued to remain in Rahul's service for a considerable period even after the incident. When confronted with this discrepancy by the defence, he merely replied that he "cannot comment". The tendency of prosecution witnesses to give selective and evasive answers to questions put by the defence is not uncommon in the present case. Significantly, PW-4 Jatin, in his cross- examination dated 13.12.2024, admitted that Dinesh Gupta is still working with Rahul, whereas Dinesh Gupta, in his own cross- examination dated 28.03.2025, stated that he has not been working anywhere since August 2024. The court is conscious that discrepancies relating to the employment of witnesses may not, by themselves, be directly relevant to the core issue. However, in the facts of the present case, they assume importance for assessing the credibility of the witnesses, particularly since the victim's family is/was the employer of these witnesses and may be in a position to exert influence over them. 20.2 As per the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW3 Dinesh, while he along with another deceased's other employee namely Deepak Malhotra (prosecution could not produce him during trial), w as going towards the house of deceased to hand over shop keys, he heard the screams of deceased. Upon hearing the same, he moved towards the spot, where he saw two persons holding wooden sticks and iron rods approaching them. Out of fear, both, he and Deepak Malhotra, ran into different streets. After some time, when they returned to the spot, they found deceased in an injured condition and due to nervousness, he could not see the faces of the assailants. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:22:55 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 51/69 20.3 Contrary to this statement, in the witness box he named all the accused persons as assailants whom he saw assaulting the deceased; specified their individual roles, and even introduced the role of accused Giri Raj Maheshwari giving detailed account of his presence near the spot and also of one juice vendor, whose names do not find any mention in the entire chargesheet. He has deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e. 21.04.2019, at about 9:30-10:00 p.m., he along with deceased's other employee Deepak Malhotra, after closing the shutter of deceased's shop, were proceeding to hand over the shop keys to the deceased. When they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Gorakh Park, at the corner of Gali No. 1, Gorakh Park, Babarpur Road, Delhi, they heard the screams of "bachao-bachao" raised by the deceased. Upon hearing the screams, he turned towards the spot to help him and saw the deceased lying on the road, while all the accused persons, namely Ajay Sharma, Raj Sharma, Manish Sharma, Raju Maheshwari, Neeraj Bhanot, Chokhe Pandit, and two others, were beating him with sariyas. He further stated that two of the assailants also attempted to attack him, due to which, out of fear, he ran into a gali, where he saw accused Giri Raj Maheshwari standing outside the house of a juice vendor. On seeing him, he got frightened and hid himself behind a car. After some time, he again saw that the accused persons were threatening Rahul Sharma, stating that they would kill him. Rahul Sharma and Karan Sharma then tried to chase the accused persons while shouting "pakdo-pakdo, mere papa ko maar diya". Seeing the entire situation, accused Giri Raj Maheshwari went inside the house of the juice vendor, and the remaining accused persons fled from the spot on their respective motorcycles and a scooty parked outside the said house. Thereafter, he reached the spot where Rahul Sharma, Karan Sharma, and Jatin were already present, and all of them shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in e-rikshaw.
CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:03
+0530
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 52/69
20.4 He was contradicted with his previous statement to police
which was read over to him in Court and admitted by him. He claimed in his evidence that his complete statement was not recorded by the IO. Notably, PW-3 never alleged that the IO had wrongly recorded his statement containing 'he could not identify the assailants, '; he merely stated that the complete facts were not recorded. Therefore, his deposition before the court, wherein he named all the accused persons specifying their detailed roles, appears to be a clear improvement and introduction of a new version, which does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The Court also cannot overlook the conduct of PW-3 Dinesh Gupta, who during trial got two FIRs registered alleging threats against the accused persons and their families and also filed a separate complaint under Section 195A Cr.P.C., besides seeking witness protection. This demonstrates that he was well-versed with legal remedies and procedures, yet he never raised any grievance before any authority regarding alleged improper recording of his statement by the IO, further diminishing the credibility of his testimony. The testimony of PW3 Dinesh Gupta is found to be nothing more than an afterthought, tutored and material improvement in the case of the prosecution and cannot be acted upon to record guilt of accused persons.
20.5 PW-3, for the very first time, gave a detailed account of role of accused Giriraj Maheshwari in the incident, therefore, his role as per chargesheet and the material collected during investigation connecting with the offence is relevant. Pertinently, the name of accused Giri Raj Maheshwari was for the first time revealed by the accused Ajay Sharma, Manish Sharma, Raj Kumar Maheshwari and Chokhe Ram in their undated disclosure statements (they were arrested on 13.06.2019) that he was providing them the information of deceased's movements, on the basis of which they reached at spot;, his CDR was collected as per Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.01.31 17:23:09 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 53/69 which his phone was switched off on the date and time of the incident . Effectively, accused Giri Raj Maheshwari was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of other accused persons and his CDR as per which his phone was switched off on the date and time of the incident . The court is unable to persuade itself as to how Giriraj Maheshwari could have shared such information when, as per his CDR on record, his mobile phone, was switched off at the relevant date and time of the incident. On this crucial aspect, there is neither any cogent evidence on record nor was the prosecution able to offer any satisfactory explanation.
21. Coming to PW-4 Jatin Verma, an erstwhile employee of Rahul, he has categorically stated that he did not witness the incident and reached the spot only thereafter. According to his deposition, on the day of the incident he had gone to Karan's house to hand over a sum of Rs.5,000/- and, while returning, noticed the deceased lying in an injured condition. He claimed that at that time Rahul Sharma, Dinesh Gupta, and Karan were present at the spot, and that all of them together shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital in an e-rickshaw.
21.1 It is noteworthy that in the MLC (Ex. PW-30/A), the name of PW-4 Jatin Verma is recorded in the column "patient brought by friend/relative", clearly indicating that he was certainly the person who shifted the deceased to GTB Hospital. However, he has simultaneously deposed regarding the presence of Rahul, Karan, Dinesh, and Deepak at the spot and has sought to attribute the act of shifting the deceased to all of them collectively.
21.2 At the outset, the presence of Rahul (PW-2) and Dinesh (PW-3) at the spot itself appears highly doubtful, in the light of their own respective testimonies and certain admissions of PW-4 Jatin Verma during his cross-examination further made their presence doubtful at the spot. In his cross-examination dated 13.12.2024, he admitted that he CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: +0530 2026.01.31 17:23:17 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 54/69 had travelled to Karan's house on a scooty and had also reached the spot on the same scooty and had left the scooty at the spot while shifting the deceased to GTB Hospital in e-rikshaw.
21.3 According to the prosecution version, the e-rickshaw in which the deceased was taken to GTB Hospital was occupied by as many as seven persons, namely Rahul Sharma, Karan Sharma, Deepak Malhotra, PW-3 Dinesh Gupta, PW-4 Jatin Verma, the e-rickshaw driver, and the grievously injured victim himself. As per the post- mortem report (Ex. PW-28/A), the deceased weighed approximately 90 kilograms and had a height of about 173 cm. This version is, on the face of it, highly improbable and defies ordinary human conduct and practical possibility. It is difficult to accept that five able-bodied namely Rahul, Karan, PW-4 Jatin, Deepak Malhotra, and Dinesh Gupta, apart from driver, would choose to crowd into a single e-rickshaw along with a critically injured person in such a condition, particularly when it is admitted on record that a scooty was available at the spot and could easily have been used by one or two of them. Moreover, when PW-4 Jatin was specifically questioned in his cross-examination as to why he left his scooty at the spot, he could not assign any reason and said " I cannot tell any reason as to why I left the scooty" Such conduct appears wholly unnatural and inconsistent with the instinctive response of persons dealing with a medical emergency.
21.4 This unexplained and inherently improbable version creates serious doubt regarding the actual presence of all these persons at the spot. The surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that the deceased was most likely taken to GTB Hospital either by PW-4 Jatin Verma alone leaving his scooty at the spot, or at best by Karan Sharma, who admittedly made the PCR call. The prosecution version that all the alleged witnesses simultaneously accompanied the deceased in the same Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:24 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 55/69 e-rickshaw appears to be a constructed narrative, not supported by logic, probability or natural human behaviour.
22. At this stage, reference to defence evidence is also relevant which as per the trite law given same weightage as of the prosecution evidence. Reliance can be placed upon Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation about the appreciation of the evidence of defence witnesses:-
"...we wish to clarify that the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence."
22.1 The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at part with that of the prosecution - a lapse on the part of the defence witness cannot be differentiated and be treated differently than that of the prosecutors' witnesses.
22.2 The Supreme Court further opined in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of UP (1981) 2 SCC 816 that the Court should avoid the error of attributing motives to defence witnesses "merely because they were examined by the defence. Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses". 22.3 In the present case, the accused have jointly led defence evidence by examining DW1 Praveen Sharma, who was earlier a close friend of the deceased Vijender Sharma as well as of accused Ajay Sharma and Raj Sharma, all three being brothers. DW1 has stated that after the demise of Vijender Sharma, misunderstandings arose between him and PW-2 Rahul Sharma, which eventually resulted in registration Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:31 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 56/69 of FIRs against each other. However, as per his own testimony, he continues to maintain cordial relations with accused Ajay Sharma and Raj Sharma.
22.4 DW1 deposed that on 21.04.2019 at about 10:00-10:15 p.m., Rahul Sharma, who was then in South Delhi, telephonically informed him about the attack on Vijender Sharma and requested him to reach GTB Hospital. Acting on this call, DW1 immediately reached GTB Hospital, where he met PW-4 Jatin and other relatives of the deceased. He went to the Emergency Ward and met Vijender Sharma, who informed him that some unknown persons had attacked him. He further stated that police officials arrived at the hospital in his presence, carried out certain paperwork and obtained the left thumb impression of the deceased. After some time, Rahul Sharma also reached the hospital. DW1 was shown the alleged statement of the deceased (Ex. PW-2/B), but he categorically denied that the same had been made by Vijender Sharma.
22.5 It was contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that DW1 is an interested witness, inimical towards Rahul Sharma and therefore biased in favour of the accused. This submission, however, cannot be accepted in the absence of substantive material to discredit his testimony. It is well settled that evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of enmity; rather, it must be tested on its intrinsic worth, consistency and corroboration. Enmity, by itself, is a factor for caution, not for outright rejection. 22.6 Significantly, the testimony of DW1 has remained unrebutted on material aspects during his cross-examination by the prosecution assisted by the counsel for Rahul Sharma. Not a single question was put to him disputing the fact that Rahul Sharma had called him on the night of the incident or that he had reached GTB Hospital Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:37 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 57/69 pursuant thereto. His presence at the hospital stands corroborated by the admission of PW-4 Jatin in his cross-examination that DW1 was indeed present there. In contrast, PW-2 Rahul Sharma, when questioned about DW1's presence, as usual gave evasive answers. Further, DW1's assertion that the deceased informed him that unknown persons had attacked him finds corroboration from the PCR form (Ex. PW-23/A), which records that Karan Sharma had informed the police that the assailants were unknown. Thus, the version of DW1 not only remains unshaken in cross-examination but also finds support from independent material on record. On a cumulative evaluation, the testimony of DW1 appears reliable and lends considerable support to the defence case, rendering the presence of PW-2 Rahul Sharma at the spot doubtful and making the prosecution version regarding the involvement of the accused persons highly suspect.
23. The prosecution endeavored to construct its case upon two ostensible pillars - an alleged eyewitness account and the dying declaration of the deceased. Although, upon judicial scrutiny, both these pillars have collapsed into dust. With their disintegration, the entire prosecutorial narrative stands irreparably dismantled, reduced to a hollow shell, devoid of substance, and incapable of bearing the weight of a conviction, I will examine other aspects also which raises serious doubts even on investigation part of the case.
24. DELAY IN LODGING FIR:
24.1 It is well settled that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case, provided such delay is satisfactorily and convincingly explained. However, where the delay remains unexplained or is accompanied by suspicious circumstances, it assumes critical significance and casts a serious shadow on the veracity of the prosecution story. CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:45 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 58/69 24.2 In the present case, even as per the prosecution's own version, the alleged statement of the deceased was recorded at 1:25 a.m., yet Ct. Dinesh left GTB Hospital for the police station only at about 8:30 a.m., and the FIR ultimately came to be registered at 9:30 a.m. on 22.04.2019. This results in an unexplained delay of nearly seven hours in setting the criminal law into motion. What makes this delay particularly damaging is the complete absence of any explanation from the prosecution for such inordinate and unnatural procrastination. No reason has been offered as to why the Rukka was not dispatched immediately after the alleged recording of the statement, especially when the police machinery was already present at the hospital. This unexplained silence, when read in conjunction with the material interpolation in the Rukka timing discussed earlier, strongly suggests that the alleged statement of the deceased was not recorded at 1:25 a.m. as claimed, but was in fact tailored later at about 7:25 a.m., after which the Rukka was prepared, dispatched at 8:30 a.m., and the FIR was finally registered at 9:30 a.m. Such a sequence not only undermines the spontaneity and authenticity of the FIR but also reinforces the inference that the foundational documents of the prosecution case were manipulated to suit a subsequently constructed narrative.
25. ARREST OF ACCUSED PERSONS & RECOVERIES FROM THEM:
As per the case of the prosecution the eight accused were arrested on different dates mentioned herein below: -
Sl. No. Name of Date of Arrest Place of arrest Recovery of accused weapons/case property
1. Ajay Sharma 13.06.2019 House No. 3A, Nil Loni, Rishi Market, 60 futa road, Loni Ghaziabad, UP.Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
+0530
2026.01.31 17:23:51
State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 59/69
2. Chokhe Ram -do -do- Bike bearing no.
Dixit DL-13SK-6828
3. Raj Kumar -do- -do-
Maheshwari
4. Manish Sharma -do- -do- Bike bearing no.
DL-5SAC-3555
5. Rohit Gogia 16.06.2019 Jabli Road, Bike bearing no.
Indraprastha DL-13SW-2875.
Colony, in front of
House No. D-423,
UP.
6. Giri Raj 13.08.2019 P.S. Shahdara Nil
Maheshwari
7. Raj Sharma 10.08.2019 P.S. Shahdara 2 sarias from
House No. 3A,
Loni, Rishi
Market, 60 futa
road, Loni
Ghaziabad, UP.
AND Scooty
bearing no. DL-
6SAL-7305.
8. Neeraj Bhanot 19.08.2019 Near Aggarwal 1 spray bottle and
Farm, Mansarovar, 2 sarias from his
Jaipur, Rajasthan. shop at Delhi.
25.1 As per prosecution case, accused Ajay Sharma, Manish Sharma,
Raj Kumar Maheshwari and Chokhe Ram Dixit were arrested on 13.06.2019 from House No. 3A, Rishi Market, 60 Foota Road, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P., on receipt of secret information by a raiding team constituted to arrest the accused persons. Apart from IO/SI Gaurav, other members of the team were HC Arvind (PW14), HC Pradeep (PW20), ASI Parmod (PW21) and Rahul Sharma (PW2).
It is alleged that House No. 3A was in the joint ownership of accused Ajay Sharma and Rohit Gogia @ Dinesh Garg, and that after the incident, the abovenamed four accused persons had concealed themselves there. However, this is disputed by the accused persons that the said house belongs to Ajay Sharma. Nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate the ownership of the said house and as to how these accused persons were Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
+0530 2026.01.31 17:24:05 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 60/69 occupying the said premises at the time of their arrest. PW20 and PW21, members of the raiding team have admitted that at the time of arrest, family members of the accused were not present at the arrest spot, even at PS, however, it has remained unexplained how, the arrest memos bear the signatures of their family members.
25.2 In regard to the arrest of accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari, his father (accused Giri Raj Maheshwari) has given oral evidence in defence. As already mentioned, the defence evidence is to be appreciated on the same parameters as prosecution evidence.
25.3 Accused Giri Raj Maheshwari has stated in his evidence that his son was illegally detained at P.S. Shahdara since 14.05.2019. He deposed that he was continuously visiting the police station requesting the release of his son and finally, on 08.06.2019, he filed a police complaint before the concerned DCP (Ex. DW5/A), on which no effective action was taken. Consequently, he filed an application (Ex. DW6/A) before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.06.2019, complaining about the illegal detention of his son/accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari. The said application was adjourned for 13.06.2019; however, on that date, none appeared on behalf of police officials of P.S. Shahdara. On the next date, i.e. 14.06.2019, his son Raj Kumar Maheshwari was produced as having been arrested in the present case. 25.4 DW6, Ahlmad of the court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate brought the record of the said application Ex. DW6/A along with the police reply dated 10.07.2019 filed by Inspector Prahlad Singh Meena. On perusal of the reply dated 10.07.2019 filed by the second IO, it is evident that Inspector Prahlad Singh has nowhere disputed the allegation regarding detention of accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari since 14.05.2019. It is further noteworthy that in the said reply, Inspector Prahlad Singh stated that accused Giri Raj Maheshwari and Raj Kumar Maheshwari were involved in the present case and were called through notices under section 160 Cr.P.C.; however, no CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:13 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 61/69 such notice was placed on record either before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate or before this Court. This egregious conduct of the police officials is further reflected from the fact that on 13.06.2019, when the application was listed before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, no police official appeared before the Courts. In these circumstances, this Court finds substance in the defence version vis-à-vis the suspicious circumstances surrounding arrest of accused Raj Kumar Maheshwari. 25.5 Accused Rohit Gogia @ Dinesh Garg was arrested on 16.06.2019 from outside House No. D-423, Jabli Road, Indraprastha Colony, U.P., allegedly at the instance of accused Ajay Sharma during police custody remand. The accused has denied any connection with this house; even in his arrest memo (Ex. PW20/E), his address of Jalandhar, Punjab is mentioned. The prosecution has failed to place any material on record to show how accused Rohit was linked with this premises. In the absence of such evidence, the Court is unable to understand how accused Ajay Sharma, while himself in police custody, could have precise knowledge that Rohit Gogia would be found outside a house which admittedly did not belong to him. As regards TIP, accused Rohit refused to participate on the apprehension that Rahul Sharma might have already seen him at the police station. In any event, TIP is only a step in investigation and not substantive evidence and once the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, refusal to participate in TIP loses all significance.
25.6 With respect to the arrest of accused Raj Sharma, PW37 Inspector Prahlad Singh has stated that on 10.08.2019 he received secret information about Raj Sharma's whereabouts, obtained his CDRs, and allegedly found him in constant contact with one Jitender of Mansarovar Park, Delhi. A raiding team was then constituted to arrest Raj Sharma from Pari Chowk, Noida.
Jitender allegedly called Raj Sharma to that place, where he arrived on a scooty. However, neither the CDRs of Raj Sharma nor of Jitender have been Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:22 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 62/69 placed on record. The CDR of one Sachin Singh has been produced to suggest that the mobile number belonged to Raj Sharma, but Sachin Singh has not been examined. Thus, the entire story of tracing Raj Sharma through CDRs remains unproved.
25.7 During police custody remand of accused Raj Sharma, on 14.08.2019, he allegedly got recovered two iron roads from House No. 3A alleged to be owned by accused Ajay Sharma. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in the cross-examination, PW-21 SI Parmod has admitted that at the time of arrest of accused Ajay Sharma and others on 13.06.2019 effected from House No. 3A entire house was searched, yet no weapon of offence was recovered. The Court finds it difficult to fathom as to how, after a gap of almost two months from the arrest of accused Ajay Sharma and others, accused Raj Sharma could recover the alleged iron roads from the very same house. This is not possible. Either first search was false or recovery was planted in the second search. Both situations indicate manufactured evidence. As per IO/Inspector Parlhad, Ct Pardeep (PW 20-) was also one of the members of the raiding team who recovered the iron road from Raj Sharma but neither Ct. Pardeep has deposed so in his evidence nor the seizure memo bears signatures of Ct. Pardeep but bears the signatures of only IO/SI Gaurav and Rahul Sharma apart from IO/Inspector Parlhad. This creates serious doubt on the recovery of weapons from accused Raj Sharma.
25.8 Accused Neeraj Bhanot was arrested from Jaipur on 19.08.2019, by a raiding team constituted by the second IO, Inspector Prahlad Singh, consisting of SI Kaushik Ghosh (PW-15), HC Pradeep (PW-20) and ASI Pramod (PW-21). In their cross-examination, the members of the raiding team admitted that they had gone to Jaipur in a private vehicle and could not produce any toll receipts to substantiate their version regarding the arrest of accused Neeraj Bhanot from Jaipur. It is further surprising that the Arrest Memo bears the signatures of accused Neeraj Bhanot's wife, despite the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:31 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 63/69 prosecution not claiming that she was present or called at the time of his arrest. As per prosecution, on 21.08.2019, in the presence of witness Sunder Pal, he got recovered one pepper spray bottle and two iron roads from his shop at Delhi in the name and style of 'Neeraj Communication. PW12 Sunder Pal has turned hostile in court. Otherwise also, it is relevant to mention that in the recovery memo (Ex. PW21/I) Sunder Pal is not witness and prosecution also could not produce the spray bottle allegedly recovered from his shop. Surprisingly, the said bottle, allegedly recovered from Neeraj's shop, was not even sent to FSL. This creates doubt on his arrest from Jaipur and recovery of iron rods at his instance.
26. Significantly, the MLCs of none of the accused persons are on record either at the time of arrest or during police custody remand. Although police witnesses repeatedly asserted that medical examinations were conducted, no documentary proof of the same has been produced, in complete violation of mandatory procedural safeguards. It is also pertinent to note that none of the disclosure statements mention the dates of their recording.
27. Three motorcycles and one scooty were allegedly recovered as vehicles used in the crime. However, the prosecution has failed to establish ownership or possession of these vehicles by any of the accused and no linkage has been proved between the vehicles and the alleged involvement of accused in the incident.
28. PW-7 Arif and PW-8 Rizwan were cited as witnesses from whose shops the accused allegedly purchased and welded iron rods. As per prosecution, during police remand of accused Ajay and Chokhe Ram, they were taken to the shops situated at Loni, Ghaziabad of these PWs, who identified one of the accused who purchased the iron roads from his shop, thereafter, got welded. During examination-in-chief both these witnesses, turned hostile and did not identify either of the accused. Even if, the prosecution case is taken as it is, that the two accused were takenDigitally to the shop of signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:39 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 64/69 these PWs, yet it is highly doubtful whether the accused were actually taken to their shops since except IO/SI Gaurav, none of the police witnesses who were part of investigation have deposed that they along with accused and IO, had gone to the shop of these two witnesses. As per charge-sheet, IO SI Gaurav along with PW21 HC Parmod, Ct.Vivek and Ct. Parveen, had gone on 15.06.2019 to the shops of these two witnesses. Prosecution has not examined Ct. Vivek being witness on the same facts as PW21; Ct. Parveen has not been cited as a witness. Importantly, PW21 HC Pramod in his cross-examination dated 27.09.2025 has categorically denied joining investigation on 15.06.2019 when these two accused persons were allegedly taken to the shop of PW7 and PW8. Hence, how is it possible two accused in custody were taken outside the police station that too outside the jurisdiction the Delhi jurisdiction, solely by the IO/SI Gaurav, without any supporting police presence or documentation, appears highly implausible
29. It is also of critical significance that almost the entire investigation was conducted outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Out of eight accused, seven were arrested from outside Delhi six from Loni, U.P., and one from Jaipur. Recoveries were also made from U.P. and Rajasthan. Yet, there is not a single document to show that either of the IOs obtained prior permission or informed superior officers, made DD entries, or coordinated with local police authorities. No records of arrival and departure, vehicle details, or purpose of visits are available. Even the claim that local police at Jaipur were informed is unsupported by any written record. At one place, PW17 SI Kaushik Ghosh has stated that for the arrest of accused Neeraj, they had informed the local police station Shiprapath, Jaipur but no such information in writing or any DD entry pertaining to this, has been brought on record. Apparently, the IOs have conducted the investigation in a heinous offence like the present one, sans compliance of procedural requirements of arrest, recovery and other investigation that too outside Delhi. The investigation, therefore, CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:46 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 65/69 stands vitiated by gross procedural violations, rendering arrests, recoveries and custodial actions legally unsafe and deeply suspect. 29.1 It was argued by Ld. Additional PP that discrepancies in the investigation, at best, may amount to faulty investigation and cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. I agree with this argument of the prosecution, but faulty investigation coupled with doubtful oral testimonies and extremely suspicious so called statement of deceassed significantly weaken the prosecution case, leading to accused receiving benefit of doubt.
30. CALL DETAIL RECORD In order to establish the presence of the accused persons at the spot, the prosecution heavily relied upon the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the accused persons. It is settled law that conviction cannot be recorded merely on the basis of CDRs, as it is only supportive and corroborative evidence, and not substantive evidence. Moreover, in the present case, most of the accused persons were residing in the same vicinity where the incident had occurred, and therefore, their presence in the area by itself does not conclusively establish their involvement in the crime.
31. ABSCONDING It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that after the incident the accused had absconded indicates their involvement in the case. Although, no material is on record to show that accused persons were absconding, even if, it was so, it is settled law that absconding is natural conduct for the person against whom FIR has been registred and this itself do not establish the guilt.
32. MOTIVE/PREVIOUS ENIMITY:
32.1 It was vehemently contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused persons bore longstanding enmity towards the deceased and his family and that such prior hostility furnished a strong motive for the commission of the alleged offence. While the existence of motive may, in an appropriate case, lend support to the prosecution version, it is equally CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:24:55 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 66/69 well settled that motive is a double-edged weapon. The very circumstance which may supply a reason for the crime may also provide a fertile ground for false implication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruli Ram v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691, and Kunwar Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) 12 SCC 434, has cautioned that motive, by itself, cannot take the place of proof and cannot compensate for deficiencies in substantive evidence. Where the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the accused through reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence, motive alone cannot sustain a conviction. 32.2 In the present case, it is an admitted position that both the victim side and the accused side are closely related and well acquainted with each other, and that multiple civil and criminal litigations, particularly involving valuable immovable properties, have been pending between them for a considerable period. Such deep-seated and ongoing disputes undeniably create a background of animosity, but this animosity cuts both ways. While it may suggest a possible motive for the accused, it equally and more strongly furnishes a plausible motive for false implication, especially in a case where the prosecution has failed to prove its version beyond reasonable doubt either through trustworthy eyewitness testimony or through a reliable and unimpeachable alleged statement of deceased. In these circumstances, prior enmity cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance; rather, it reinforces the need for greater judicial caution and makes the possibility of false implication not merely speculative but reasonably probable.
33. CONCLUSION:
In the light of the aforesaid discussion and upon a holistic evaluation of the entire material on record, the Court is of the considered view that the occurrence of the incident resulting in the homicidal death of Vijender Sharma stands duly established from the medical evidence. There is no serious dispute that the deceased died an unnatural and violent death, and the prosecution has successfully proved that the offence of murder was in fact CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:25:02 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 67/69 committed. However, the crucial and determinative question is not whether a murder has occurred, but whether the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the present accused persons were the perpetrators of the said crime. On this central issue, the prosecution evidence is found to be wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. The testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses suffer from material contradictions, improvements and improbabilities; the alleged statement of deceased is deeply suspicious and unsupported by medical and procedural safeguards; and the investigation is riddled with serious illegalities, interpolations and manipulations. Taken cumulatively, these infirmities strike at the very root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to return a finding of guilt against the accused. In such circumstances, where the evidence does not inspire confidence and fails to cross the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the only legally permissible course is to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
34. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that where, on the basis of the evidence adduced, two views are reasonably possible, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence.
The view which is favourable to the accused must necessarily be adopted. This principle is not merely a rule of prudence but a fundamental safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
35. Accordingly, while the Court records a clear finding that the deceased was a victim of a homicidal assault, it is not possible to hold, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the present accused persons are responsible for the commission of the said offence. The prosecution has thus failed to bridge the vital gap between the crime and the accused. In such circumstances, the only legally permissible course is to extend the benefit of Digitally signed by doubt to the accused. CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31 17:25:09 +0530 State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 68/69
36. At the same time, the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in the present case raises grave concerns. The material interpolations in official records, unexplained illegal detention, doubtful recoveries, fabricated arrest memos, and large-scale violation of statutory procedure cannot be ignored or treated lightly. These are not mere lapses or errors of judgment, but prima facie disclose a pattern of serious misconduct and abuse of authority by the investigating officials. Such conduct has the potential not only to derail a criminal trial but also to defeat the administration of justice itself. The Court, therefore, considers it appropriate that the competent authorities examine the role of the Investigating Officers and take such action as may be warranted in accordance with law.
37. DECISION:-
Consequently, all the accused, namely Ajay Sharma, Chokhe Ram Dixit, Manish Sharma, Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Rohit Gogia, Raj Sharma, Giriraj Maheshwari and Neeraj Bhanot, are acquitted of the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC read with sections 120-B IPC/147/148/341/34 IPC. The accused are directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS), each in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to remain in force for a period of six months, in accordance with law.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action as per law.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.31
17:25:26 +0530
Announced in the open (Charu Aggarwal)
Court on 31.01.2026. Additional Sessions Judge-02/E-COURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
Annexure:
In terms of "Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat, Crl. Appeal No. 2973/2023" passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the tabulated charts are annexed herewith.State Vs. Ajay Sharma and others. FIR No. 90/2019 P.S. Shahdara Page No. 69/69