Delhi District Court
State vs Kasim @Fahim Khan on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
(MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD)
SC No. : 583/2019
State Vs. : Kashim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. : 1221/2018
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 307/506/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act
CNR No. : DLSW01-009305-2019
1. Date of commission of offence : 30.12.2018
2. Date of institution of the case : 03.07.2019
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 05.08.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Mohd. Salman
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : (1) Kasim @ Fahim Khan
S/o Sh. Chhote Khan
R/o H. No. B-252, Gali No.5,
J. J. Colony, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(2) Pankaj @ Pillura @ Bua
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o H. No. B-309,
J. J. Colony, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(3) Karan @ Pandat
S/o Sh. Chander Prakash
R/o H. No. B-479,
J. J. Colony, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
SC No. 583/2019
State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 1 of 10
(4) Kale Khan @ Amjad
Siddiqui
S/o Sh. Dilshad Ahmad
R/o H. No. C-238-239,
J. J. Colony, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(5) Hashim @ Jaffar @ Pittal
S/o Sh. Khalil Ahmad
R/o H. No. B-286,
DDA Flat, J. J. Colony,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Date on which order was reserved : 11.12.2025
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 12.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The investigation was set into motion on receiving GD No. 157A on 31.12.2018 PS Uttam Nagar wherein it has been recorded that "Caller ke pair me goli legi hai... goli chala ke bhag gye hai" . The said DD marked to SI Sumit, who along with Const. Aman went to the spot but nobody was found there. On enquiry, he came to know that injured had been shifted to DDU Hospital by PCR van. SI Sumit went to the hospital, by leaving Const. Aman at the spot, and found complainant Mohd. Salman admitted vide MLC No. 12787/18. SI Sumit recorded the statement of complainant.
SC No. 583/2019State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 2 of 102. In his statement, complainant Mohd. Salman stated that he lived on rent along with his friend Mohd Shamsul Haq and set up a fruit cart at Uttam Nagar Terminal, Red Light. On 30.12.2018, at around 10:30 PM, when he was locking his cart after parking it near his house, he saw that a person, one Jaffar, resident of his own colony, was standing outside the house of Samundar Singh and Mahipal and waving a pistol and threatening them by saying that he would kill them. Complainant then tried to make Jaffar understand but he pointed out the pistol at him (complainant) with the intention of killing him and said that he would teach him (complainant) a lesson first and then fired a shot with the intention of killing him. The shot hit his leg. After that Jaffar ran away from the spot. Someone called at 100 number. He was shifted to DDU Hospital.
3. On his statement, FIR was registered for the offences under Section 307 IPC. Investigation was carried out. The statement of Samunder Singh and Mahipal were also recorded wherein they alleged that accused Karan @ Pandat, Pankaj @ Pillura @ Bua, Kasim @ Fahim Khan, Amzad Ali and Nonu (not arrested) were also involved in the incident. Site-plan was prepared. All the accused persons were arrested. Remaining investigation was carried out.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.PC, the file was committed to Sessions Courts.
5. Charge for the offence under Section 307/506/34 IPC against SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 3 of 10accused Kasim @ Fahim Khan, Pankaj @ Pillura, Hashim @ Jafar @ Pittal, Kale Khan @ Amjad Siddiqui and Karan @ Pandat and separate charge for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act against Hashim @ Jaffar were framed on 22.11.2023 to which all accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The prosecution cited 17 witnesses out of which three witnesses have been examined. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 11.12.2025.
7. Statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.09.2023 and 10.01.2025 wherein he admitted some documents i.e. FIR No. 1221/18, Certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act, GD No. 157A dated 30.12.2018, MLC No. 12787 of Complainant Salman of DDU Hospital, X ray requisition form of injured Salman, Scene of crime report No. 1477/18 dated 30.12.2018, Kalandra under section 41.1(b) Cr.PC dated 05.02.2019, TIP proceedings of accused Pankaj dated 08.02.2019 and TIP proceedings of accused Karan @ Pandat dated 08.02.2019 as Ex.A1 to Ex.A-9. The witnesses pertaining to these documents i.e. witnesses mentioned at Serial No. 4 to 9 and 11 i.e. Dr. Sachin Patel, Dr. Amit Kumar Sharma, ASI Balwant Singh, HC Suresh, ASI Satender Kumar, Const. Parveen Kumar and ASI Surjeet Singh respectively in the list of prosecution witnesses, were dropped.
8. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence against them were put to them but accused persons denied all the allegations SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 4 of 10levelled against them and also submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They did not led any defence evidence. DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
10. PW-1 Mohd. Salman is the complainant/injured. He deposed that :
"In the year 2019, I along with Babloo were residing at B-1, Uttam Nagar, Shani Bazaar, New Delhi on rented accommodation. Babloo was resident of Barielly, UP.
I do not remember the date of incident. I was working as a fruit vendor and was plying a fruit cart (raidi). The incident took place at night time. On that night, when I was coming to my room after selling the fruits, I felt that someone had hit me with a stone on my right leg. I got unconscious. It was dark at that time. Police reached the spot and shifted to DDU Hospital. My statement was not recorded by the police. I had not seen the person who hit me with a stone. I got discharged from the hospital on the same night. Police did not met me after that."
11. Since PW-1 Mohd. Salman did not disclose the facts truly, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During his cross examination, he identified his signature on his statement Ex.PW1/A and stated that when police reached hospital, his signatures were taken but stated that he has not given such statement to the police. He denied all the suggestions given to him. He also failed to identify the accused persons.
12. PW-2 SI Naresh Kumar : He deposed that :
"On 04.04.2019, I was posted as SI at PS Mohan Garden. The SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 5 of 10
investigation of the present case was marked to me by SHO. I formally arrested accused Hashim @ Jafar @ Pittal S/o Khalil Ahmed vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. Pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused, same is Ex.PW2/B bearing my signature at point A. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Accused was then produced before concerned court and was sent to JC.
On 14.04.2019, accused Kale Khan @ Amjad Siddiqui was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point B. Personal search of accused was carried out vide memo Ex.PW2/C bearing my signature at point A. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Accused was then produced before concerned court and was sent to JC. I prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the concerned court.
Accused Hashim @ Jafar @ Pittal and Kale Khan @ Amjad Siddiqui are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
13. PW-3 SI Sumit : He deposed that :
"On 31.12.2018, I was posted as SI at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, I received a PCR call vide DD No. 157A with regard to a gunshot at the spot. Thereafter, I along with Const. Aman reached the spot i.e. near Metro Restaurant, J. J. Colony, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where we came to know that injured had already been shifted to DDU Hospital. I left to the hospital by leaving Const. Aman at the spot. I found out that the injured Salman was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 12787/18. The patient was fit for statement. His statement was recorded by me, same is already Ex. PW1/A. I prepared a rukka Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I came back to the spot. The rukka was handed over to Const. Aman and he went to the PS for registration of FIR. After some time, Const. Aman again came back to the spot and handed over to me original rukka and copy of FIR. Site-plan of the spot was prepared by me, same is Ex.PW3/B bearing my signature at point A. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was inspected by the crime team. Eye-witnesses Samundar and Mahipal came to the spot and I recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC. Accused persons were searched but they were not traceable.
I wrongly mentioned the father's name of accused Hashim @ Jaffar @ Pittal as Jamil instead of Khalil Ahmed in the statement of complainant Mohd. Salman.
The clothes of injured were seized by me at the hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C bearing my signature at point A. One bullet led was handed over to me by the concerned doctor which SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 6 of 10
was seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D bearing my signature at point A. Accused Kasim @ Fahim Khan was arrested at PS Uttam Nagar in some other FIR. In the said case, he disclosed his involvement in the present case. He was formally arrested by me at the PS vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/E bearing my signature at point A. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Thereafter, I received information from IGIS/ Crime Branch that accused Pankaj @ Pillura and accused Karan @ Pandat were arrested vide DD No. 6 already Ex.A-7 (colly). Both the accused persons were formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G respectively bearing my signatures at point A on each. Personal search of both accused persons were carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/H and and Ex.PW3/I respectively bearing my signatures at point A on each. TIP of all three accused persons were got conducted.
Thereafter, I got transferred and the investigation of the present case was marked to SI Naresh.
Accused Kasim @ Fahim Khan, Pankaj @ Pillura and accused Karan @ Pandat are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Arguments addressed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
14. Sh. Vijender Singh Kharb, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW-2 and PW-3 have duly proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, accused Kasim @ Fahim Khan, Pankaj @ Pillura, Hashim @ Jafar @ Pittal, Kale Khan @ Amjad Siddiqui and Karan @ Pandat be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/506/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
Arguments addressed by Ld. Defence counsel
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that there is nothing incriminating which has come on record in order to connect the accused persons with the crime. Therefore, all the accused persons be acquitted in the present case.
SC No. 583/2019State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 7 of 1016. I have heard the arguments and have perused the case file properly.
17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465 .
18. The prosecution has cited three witnesses i.e. complainant Salman, Mahipal and Samunder Singh, who could prove the factual matrix of the case. PW-1 is the complainant, who deposed that someone had hit him with stone on his right leg but he had not seen that person. He failed to identify accused persons. He was extensively cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and despite showing accused persons to him, he failed to identify all the accused persons in the court during evidence.
19. The other witness i.e. Samunder Singh was indisposed and could not make it to the court. He was found to be mentally unfit to depose before this court. In these circumstances, witness Samunder Singh was dropped. Third witness Mahipal expired during trial before his testimony could be recorded.
20. It is the settled law that testimony of hostile witnesses is not to be discarded as a whole. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 8 of 10Manoj Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Crl.A. No.677/2010 decided on 24.11.2010 , has held in para 27 of the judgment as under:
"27. This is no more res-integra that if a prosecution witness turns hostile then his testimony is not to be treated as effaced or washed for altogether. The Apex Court has held in a number of cases that it can be accepted to the extent the testimony of the hostile witnesses is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence. Reliance for this proposition can be placed on Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389: 1976 SCC (Cri) 7: AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233:1976 SCC (Cri) 566:
AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30: 1980 SCC (Cri) 59: AIR 1979 SC 1848; Khujji v. State of M.P, (1991) 3 SCC 627: 1991 SCC (Cri) 916: AIR 1991 SC 1853."
21. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it can be seen that the incriminating part in the testimony of a hostile witness and the deposition which is worth credence can always be relied upon but to the utter dismay, complainant/PW-1 has not supported the prosecution version and has failed to identify accused persons in the Court and therefore, no part of the testimony of PW-1 can be relied upon and has to be discarded as a whole.
22. The other witnesses examined by prosecution are police witnesses, who deposed regarding the arrest of accused persons. They did not have personal knowledge of the case.
23. In the background of discussion made above, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against all the accused persons.
Conclusion
24. Hence, accused Kasim @ Fahim Khan, Pankaj @ Pillura, Kale Khan @ Amjad Siddiqui and Karan @ Pandat stand acquitted of the SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 9 of 10charges framed against them under Section 307/506/34 IPC and accused Hashim @ Jaffar @ Pittal stands acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 307/506/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act, in present FIR No. 1221/2018 PS Uttam Nagar.
Digitally signedVANDANA by VANDANA JAIN Announced in open court JAIN Date: 2025.12.13 12.12.2025 14:49:23 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi Note: This judgment contains ten (10) pages and having my signature on each page.
Digitally signed VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.13 14:49:29 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi SC No. 583/2019 State Vs. Kasim @ Fahim Khan & Ors. FIR No. 1221/2018, PS Uttam Nagar Page 10 of 10