Delhi District Court
State vs Shekhar @ Kuliya And Anr on 15 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-002058-2019
State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc.
FIR No. : 29/2013
Police Station : Kalyan Puri
Under Sections : 307/326/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
(a) Serial number of the case : 904/2019
(b) Name of the complainant : Ajay S/o Late Sh. Rakesh
(c) Name of the accused : (1) Shekhar @ Kuliya
person (s) S/o Sh. Palvi Swami
R/o 16/362, Kalyan Puri, Delhi
(2) Mariappan @ Ajit
S/o Sh. Durwasan
R/o 16/245, Kalyan Puri, Delhi
(3) T. Dhanshekharan
S/o Sh. M. Tangairaj
R/o 16/283, Kalyan Puri, Delhi
(4) K. Thangavel
S/o Sh. P. Kandaswamy
R/o 16/244, Kalyan Puri, Delhi
(d) Offences complained of : 307/326/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
(e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(f) Date of institution of case : 05.03.2019
(g) Date of final arguments : 12.01.2026
(h) Date of Judgment : 15.01.2026
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.01.15
17:42:14 +0530
FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 1 of 20
(i) Final Judgment : All accused persons are
acquitted for offences under
Section 307/34 IPC and accused
no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya is
acquitted of offence under
Section 25/27 of Arms Act,
however, he is convicted for
offence under Section 174-A
IPC.
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld.
Addl. PP.
For accused persons : Mr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj,
Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused persons Shekhar @ Kuliya, Mariappan @ Ajit, T. Dhanshekharan and K. Thangavel were sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') with allegations that on 13.01.2013 at about 10:30 PM in front of H. No. 20/113, Kalyan Puri, Delhi all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous injuries to complainant Ajay with a knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that attack caused his death, they would have been guilty of committing murder.
Factual Matrix
2. As per the charge-sheet, the present case FIR was got registered on 14.01.2013 on the statement of complainant Ajay AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:20 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 2 of 20 who alleged that on 13.01.2013 at about 10:30 PM, when he was present near his house, few boys were quarrelling amongst themselves in front of his house. When he tried to intervene and advised them not to fight, one of the accused suddenly took out a knife and attacked upon the complainant, causing stab injury on his left thigh. Complainant alleged that he consequently raised alarm and all the accused persons fled from the spot. Thereafter, complainant was taken to LBS hospital by the police where he received medical treatment.
3. The investigation of the case was handed over to SI Sumit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'IO'). During investigation, IO collected MLC of complainant, recorded statements of complainant and other witnesses. IO thereafter, arrested all the accused persons and also recorded their disclosure statements. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed against accused persons Shekhar @ Kuliya, Mariappan @ Ajit, T. Dhanshekharan and K. Thangavel for offences under Sections 307/326/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. After statutory compliance, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned to this Court by the order of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
4. All the accused persons were formally charged for commission of offences under Sections 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to note that accused no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya stopped appearing before Court AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:25 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 3 of 20 during proceedings of the case, a such, was declared proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.02.2019. He was later on arrested in Kalandara under Section 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. DD No. 88A dated 05.07.2022. Thereafter, he was additionally charged for offences under Section 25/27 Arms Act and Section 174-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter consequently, proceeded for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses.
Public Witnesses
6. PW-1 complainant, PW-3 Rubi and PW-4 Atul are the star witnesses of prosecution and their testimonies would be discussed in detail at later stage.
Police Witnesses
7. PW-2 is ASI Yatvir Singh, who deposed that on 13.01.2013 he was posted as Duty officer and at about 10:36 PM, he received information of stabbing of a boy of 15 years age at 20/114, Kalyan Puri. He recorded the information vide DD No. 49-A and proved the same vide Ex. PW 2/A. He deposed that said DD was assigned to PSI Rahul Rathore.
8. PW-5 is SI Suresh Chand who deposed that on 15.04.2014 he joined the investigation with IO/ SI Sumit and reached at 16/283, Kalyan Puri, Delhi where accused T. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:29 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 4 of 20 Dhanshekharan @ Ganesh met them. IO interrogated said accused and formally arrested him and thereafter released him on bail as he showed his anticipatory bail order. PW-5 proved arrest memo of accused T. Dhanshekharan @ Ganesh as Ex. PW 5/A. Thereafter, they reached at House No. 16/244, Kalyan Puri, Delhi where accused K. Thangvel was found, who was also interrogated by the IO and formally arrested and released on bail as he also showed his anticipatory bail order. PW-5 proved arrest memo of accused K. Thangvel as Ex. PW 5/B. On 28.04.2014, PW-5 again joined the investigation in this case with SI Sumit and reached at House No. 16/245, Kalyan Puri where they met with accused Mariyappan @ Ajit, interrogated him and formally arrested him. Accused was later on released on bail when he too showed his anticipatory bail order. PW-5 proved arrest memo of aforesaid accused as Ex. PW 5/C. PW-5 further correctly identified all the accused persons before the Court.
9. PW-6 is ASI Sunder Pal who deposed that on 17.01.2013 he joined the investigation along with SI Rahul and on that day, when they were roaming in the area of Kalyan Puri in search of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya, secret informer informed SI Rahul that accused was present at Kalyan Puri Bus Terminal. Thereafter, he along with SI Rahul and secret informer reached there and at the instance of secret informer, accused Shekhar @ Kuliya was apprehended, who disclosed that he committed the offence and concealed the knife after removing the blood stains from it. Thereafter, he was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW 6/A. Personal search of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya was also conducted vide Ex. PW 6/B. PW-6 deposed that they thereafter, Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date:
+0530 2026.01.15 17:42:33 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 5 of 20 went to the house of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya at 16/362, Kalyan Puri, where he got recovered one dagger/ knife from one sack of flour which was kept in the kitchen at ground floor of his house. Thereafter, IO prepared the sketch of said dagger/ knife measuring length of 32 cm, length of handle/ hatha 12 cm and length of fal 20 cm, width of fal 3.5 cm and PW-6 proved the same vide Ex.
PW 6/C. He further deposed that the hattha/ handle of dagger was black and the fal was made of steel like metal and the handle / hathha was wrapped with transparent tape and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/D. He further deposed that SI Rahul also prepared pullanda with white colour cloth and sealed the same with the seal of 'RK' and thereafter IO handed over the seal to him.
10. PW-6 deposed that disclosure statement of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya was recorded vide memo Ex. PW 6/E. Thereafter, he along with IO and accused Shekhar @ Kuliya returned to Police Station and IO deposited the case property in malkhana and accused was taken to LBS hospital, where he was medically examined and thereafter he was produced before the concerned Court. PW-6 correctly identified knife/ dagger as Ex. P1 and accused Shekhar @ Kuliya in the Court.
11. PW-7 is HC Lalit who deposed that on 05.04.2018 he received process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Shekhar @ Kuliya and executed the same. He deposed that during execution of said process he met with one lady Sharda who informed him that accused Shekhar @ Kuliya was not residing at the given premises. He recorded the statement of said Sharda vide AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:38 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 6 of 20 Ex. PW 7/A. He proved the process as Ex. PW 7/B and his detailed report as Ex. PW 7/C.
12. PW-8 is SI Rahul Rathore who deposed that on 13.01.2013 at about 10:30 PM, he received a DD No. 49A regarding a quarrel. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sunder Pal reached at Block No. 19-20, Kalyan Puri, Delhi and came to know that injured had already been taken to LBS hospital by PCR van. He along with Ct. Sunder Pal reached at LBS hospital where they found injured under treatment. PW-8 collected his MLC, made inquiries from injured and recorded his statement vide Ex. PW 1/A. PW-8 deposed that doctor handed over one pullanda containing clothes of injured in sealed condition with sample seal and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 8/A, prepared the rukka vide Ex. PW 8/B and handed over the same to Ct. Sunder for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, Ct. Sunder Pal came at LBS hospital, handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka for further investigation. Thereafter, they searched the accused persons but they could not be found.
13. PW-8 deposed that during investigation, they reached at the house of injured Ajay where his brother Atul and sister Nanhi met and their statements were recorded. He prepared site plan at the instance of Atul vide Ex. PW 8/C and after returning to Police Station, seized pullanda was deposited in malkhana. On the next day, they again tried to search for accused persons but in vain. PW-8 thereafter, deposed on same lines as that of PW-6 regarding interrogation, arrest, personal search of accused Shekhar AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:43 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 7 of 20 @ Kuliya, recording of his disclosure statement and prepared sketch of knife. PW-8 also correctly identified case property i.e. knife as Ex. P1.
14. PW-9 is HC Ravi Kumar who deposed that on 07.07.2017, MHC(M) handed over three sealed pullandas to him with RC to be deposited with FSL Rohini, Delhi. He took the same to FSL, Rohini and deposited it there. After deposition, FSL official handed over acknowledgment receipt to him and handed over the same to MHC(M) and proved the same vide Ex. PW 9/A. He deposed that said pullandas were not tampered and seals were intact while the same were in his possession.
15. PW-11 is SI Satpal who deposed that in the month of May, 2024, he was directed to file supplementary charge-sheet in the Court. He had collected the FSL result from Malkhana and prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed before the Court.
16. PW-12 is IO/ SI Sumit Kumar Rawat, who deposed that on 08.02.2013 investigation of the present was marked to him and on 12.02.2013, the complainant was admitted in JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital and he visited there to know the condition of complainant/ victim where he came to know that one leg of victim had been amputated. Therefore, after discussion, Section 326 IPC was added. PW-12 deposed that an application filed by the complainant was pending before the Court in which the complainant had alleged that his statement has not been recorded properly, therefore, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:48 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 8 of 20 1/E was got recorded vide application Ex.PW12/A. He received the copy of statement vide his application Ex.PW12/B. PW-12 further deposed on the same lines as that of PW-5 SI Suresh and proved arrest memos of accused T. Dhanshekharan @ Ganesh vide Ex. PW 5/A, accused K. Thangvel as Ex. PW 5/B and accused Mariyappan @ Ajit as Ex. PW 5/C. He further deposed that he conducted personal search of accused T. Dhanshekharan @ Ganesh as Ex. PW 12/C, accused K. Thangvel as Ex. PW 12/D and accused Mariyappan @ Ajit as Ex. PW 12/E. PW-12 deposed that during investigation, he submitted the MLC of injured in the hospital for final opinion and doctor had opined on the MLC that nature of injury was dangerous to life. After discussion, Section 307 IPC was added. He further deposed that on 30.04.2017, the blood sample of complainant was taken from the hospital which was given by the doctor with the seal of LBS HOSP KP on the MLC No. 5922 which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/F and on 07.07.2017, the exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Ravi. He further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statements of the police witnesses and after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. PW-12 correctly identified all accused persons before the Court.
Expert witnesses
17. PW 10 is Sh. Kaushal Kumar, Retd. Junior Forensic / Chemical Examiner in FSL, Rohini, Delhi who deposed that on 07.07.2017, three parcels in sealed condition with sample seal were received in their office in case FIR No. 29/2013 from the Police Station Kalyan Puri and the same were marked to him AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:52 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 9 of 20 for examination. He found seals were intact and tallied with the sample seals. He examined the contents of the said parcels and detected blood on Ex. 1 i.e. one wet foul smelling cut / torn khakee colour jeans pant, and Ex. 3 i.e. white gauge cloth peace having dark brown stains described as blood sample of injured Ajay. He further deposed that DNA profile was generated from the source of Ex. 3. However, DNA profile could not be generated from the source of Ex. 1 which may be due to degradation / inhibition of the sample. PW-10 proved his detailed report no. FSL-2017/B-5110 dated 31.08.2017 vide Ex. PW10/A and submitted the attested copy of allelic report as Ex. PW10/B.
18. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
19. During trial proceedings, Ld. Counsel for accused persons as well as accused persons voluntarily made a statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. and without admitting the contents thereof did not dispute genuineness of proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of complainant Ajay recorded by the then Ld. MM Sh. Devender Kumar Garg Ex.C1 (colly) (7 pages), MLC No. 515/13 dated 13.01.2013 of patient Ajay Ex.C2, nature of injury given by Dr. Ashish Shankar as grievous and dangerous to life Ex.C3, MLC No. 5922/17 dated 30.04.2017 of patient Ajay Ex.C4 prepared by Dr. Abbas Ali, FIR of present case i.e. FIR No. 257/2016 Ex.C5 recorded by HC Satyavir Singh and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.C6 and regarding endorsement on the statement of Rakesh dated 30.04.2017 Ex.C7 made by HC AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:42:56 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 10 of 20 Satyavir Singh. As such, the witnesses sought to formally prove these documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
Statement of Accused person(s)
20. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating evidence appeared against them during trial were put to them. All accused persons though denied the said evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. Matter thereafter, proceeded for recording of defence evidence. Since, accused persons did not wish to lead any defence evidence, the matter straightaway proceeded for final arguments.
Final Arguments on behalf of Both Sides
21. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and accused persons.
22. It is primarily argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous injuries to complainant Ajay with a knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that attack caused death of complainant Ajay, they would have been guilty of committing murder. It is argued that while committing the said offence, accused Shekhar @ Kuliya used the deadly weapon i.e. dagger/ knife and the prosecution has successfully established the chain of circumstances which are consistent with the guilt of accused persons and wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of their innocence. It is further argued that all the police witnesses AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:01 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 11 of 20 deposed in sync with each other and correctly identified all the accused persons and duly proved their arrest and respective recoveries. It is thus, prayed that all accused persons are liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and accused Shekhar @ Kuliya be also convicted for offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act and 174-A IPC.
23. Per contra, it argued by Ld. Counsels for accused persons that the case of prosecution suffers from material lapses and glaring contradictions in the statements of witnesses. It is argued that complainant/ injured Ajay as well as eye-witnesses Atul and Ruby are the sole eye-witnesses to the alleged incident in question and all of them failed to identify any of the accused person as assailant. During cross-examination, PW-1 Ajay specifically stated that names of accused persons were told to him by the police. Moreover, he was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident in question. It is further argued that alleged recovery of dagger/ knife from the possession of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya is shrouded in suspicion as police failed to join any independent public witness at the time of arresting and carrying out recovery proceedings against him. Thus, it is prayed that all the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
Analysis and Findings.
24. Before embarking on the discussion of appreciation of evidence, cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence must be kept in mind, according to which a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and more AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:05 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 12 of 20 serious the offence, stricter is the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight- jacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties, it is for the Court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
25. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, testimonies of complainant/ PW-1 Ajay, his sister Rubi and his brother Atul are vital. The testimonies of all these witnesses are being discussed herein for better appreciation of evidence.
26. PW-1 is complainant/ injured Ajay who deposed that on 13.01.2013 at about 10:30 PM, when he was present in the gali, 4 persons were quarreling near his house. His brother intervened to calm them down but despite that they continued with their quarrel. Complainant also tried to pacify them, but one of those persons stabbed him with a knife on his left thigh on which he raised alarm and some public persons of their locality came to help him. Thereafter, all the said persons who were quarreling and had stabbed him, fled away from the spot. Complainant further deposed that police arrived at the spot and took him to LBS hospital and from there he was referred to GTB hospital after providing primary treatment. PW-1 proved his statement as Ex.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.01.15
17:43:09 +0530
FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 13 of 20
PW 1/A. He though failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants who were quarreling and caused stab injuries to him.
27. PW-1 was thereafter, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he resiled from his previous statement. During his cross-examination, he admitted that when no action was taken by the police against the assailants, he moved a complaint against all the assailants to the higher police authorities and also to the court through his advocate. PW-1 further admitted that the said complaint was made by him against accused persons and proved the complaint vide Ex.PW1/B. He further admitted that he had also given his photograph about amputation of his left leg due to injuries sustained in the incident vide Ex. PW 1/P1. He further admitted that he also made another complaint to the higher police authorities for not taking action against all accused persons and proved the said complaint vide Mark PW1/A. PW-1 further proved his complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. PW 1/C along with his affidavit Ex. PW 1/D. PW-1 admitted that during investigation he was produced before Ld. Magistrate to whom he narrated the whole incident and his statement was recorded as Ex.PW1/E. He further admitted that he told in his statement Ex.PW1/E that he was stabbed by accused T. Dhanshekharan @ Ganesh on his left thigh and thereafter all the other accused persons fled away. He though failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants and stated that names of accused persons were told to him by the IO. He categorically denied the fact that he had been won over by the accused persons.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.01.15 17:43:14 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 14 of 20
28. PW-3 is Rubi who deposed that on 13.01.2013 at about 10:30 PM, she heard noise of quarrel between some person and on hearing the same, her brother Ajay went outside and asked them not to quarrel and tried to pacify them. But one of those boys took out knife and caused injuries to her brother Ajay who sustained knife injury on his thigh. PW-3 was thereafter, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as she resiled from her previous statement. During her cross-examination, she denied that she identified the person who stabbed her brother Ajay as Shekhar @ Kuliya or that said accused was present in the Court. She denied the fact that she had been won over by the accused persons as such, deposed wrong facts before the Court.
29. PW-4 is Atul i.e. brother of complainant, who deposed on the similar lines as that of PW-3 about the incident having taken place. However, he too could not identify any of the accused persons as assailants during recording of his testimony. PW-4 was thereafter, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he resiled from his previous statement. During his cross- examination, he denied that he narrated whole incident to the police or that he saw the assailant who stabbed his brother. He further failed to identify accused Shekhar @ Kuliya and denied the fact that he had been won over by the accused persons.
30. Thus, all the three material public witnesses including injured Ajay failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants who caused knife injuries to him, thereby demolishing the entire case of prosecution. As regards, arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that complainant Ajay made complaints against all AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:19 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 15 of 20 the accused persons to the higher police authorities and further filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court naming all the accused persons, it is relevant to note that PW-1/ complainant Ajay clarified in his testimony that the names of accused persons were told to him by the IO. Thus, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 307/34 IPC are not proved against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
31. As regards recovery of weapon of offence i.e. dagger/ knife from the house of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya, it is pertinent to note that as per the Biological report no. FSL FSL-2017/B-5110 dated 31.08.2017 Ex. PW 10/A, it was reported by Junior Forensic/ Chemical Examiner (Biology) that DNA profile could not be generated from the source Ex. 1 (i.e. clothes of injured) which may be due to degradation / inhibition of the sample. Moreover, no blood was found detected on Ex. 2 (i.e. knife/ dagger) seized during investigation. Thus, the recovery of alleged weapon of offence i.e. dagger/ knife at the instance of accused no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya is without any consequence. Also, the alleged recovery of dagger/ knife is shrouded in suspicion in as much as IO failed to join any independent public witness during recovery proceedings despite the fact that house of accused is located in a thickly populated residential area. In the case of Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to observe as under:-
".... It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop−keepers could have been AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:24 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 16 of 20 persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC...."
32. Further, in the case of Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that:-
".... It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been the fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non−joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make prosecution case highly doubtful...."
33. During cross-examination of PW-6 ASI Sunder Pal, he gave evasive replies regarding joining of public persons at the time of apprehension of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya from Kalyan Puri bus terminal. PW-6 could not disclose the mode with which AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:29 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 17 of 20 he along with accused Shekhar @ Kuliya went to the house of latter to recover alleged weapon of offence. He could not further disclose as to whether any other person was residing in the said house or if the door of the house of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya was locked or not. While, he conceded to the fact that there were other houses adjacent to the house of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya, he did not remember, if IO had asked any neighbour to join the recovery proceedings. IO/ SI Rahul further admitted during cross- examination that he did not join any independent public person or neighbour during investigation or recovery proceedings and further did not issue any notice to them. Thus, the recovery of dagger/ knife at the instance of accused Shekhar @ Kuliya is fraught with amibiguties and he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act on the basis of suspicion.
34. With respect to offence under Section 174 A IPC against accused Shekhar @ Kuliya, it is apparent from the record that after being granted bail, he stopped appearing before the Court. Various processes were issued against him by Ld. Trial Court to secure his presence but in vain. NBWs were also issued against him which received back unexecuted. Finally, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the accused which received back duly executed and on account of non-appearance of accused on the date fixed for hearing, he was declared Proclaimed Offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 18.02.2019. PW-7 HC Lalit who executed the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. duly proved his report as Ex.PW7/C. Nothing substantial is brought on record on behalf of accused AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:33 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 18 of 20 Shekhar @ Kuliya to point out any anomaly in execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. In these circumstances, offence under Section 174 A IPC is established against the accused Shekhar @ Kuliya and he is convicted of the said offence.
Conclusion
35. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, observations as above and fact that the complainant/injured and other material public witnesses failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons and therefore, all accused persons i.e. accused no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya S/o Sh. Palvi Swami, accused no. 2 Mariappan @ Ajit S/o Sh. Durwasan, accused no. 3 T. Dhanshekharan S/o Sh. M. Tangairaj and accused no. 4 K. Thangavel S/o Sh. P. Kandaswamy are acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, as alleged against them.
36. As regards offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act, material inconsistencies were found in the testimonies of recovery witnesses i.e. PW-6 ASI Sunder Pal and PW-8 IO/ SI Rahul Rathore. Moreover, the entire recovery proceedings are shrouded in suspicion owing to non-joining of any independent public witnesses by the IO. Therefore, accused no. 1 is also acquitted of offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. However, essential ingredients of offence under Section 174-A IPC are duly proved against accused no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya beyond reasonable doubt AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.01.15 17:43:38 +0530 FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 19 of 20 and he is convicted for the offence under Section 174-A IPC accordingly.
37. Let accused be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment is given to accused no. 1 Shekhar @ Kuliya free of cost.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.01.15 17:43:43 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN) COURT ON 15.01.2026 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI This judgment contains 20 pages and each paper is signed by me.Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.01.15 17:43:51 +0530 (AKASH JAIN) ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI FIR No:- 29/2013 State v. Shekhar @ Kuliya Etc. Page No. 20 of 20