Delhi District Court
State vs Sagar@Danny on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 17/2016)
CNR No. DLNT01-000438-2017
FIR No. 290/2016
Police Station Bawana
Charge sheet filed 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms
Under Section Act
Charge framed Under 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms
Section Act
State Vs. Sagar @ Danny s/o Sh. Anil r/o H. No.
209, Village Bajitpur, Delhi.
Date of institution 12.01.2017
Arguments concluded on 31.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 09.06.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that a PCR call vide DD No. 23A dated 04.07.2015 was marked to SI Uday. The caller informed that his brother has been shot dead. SI Uday reached at the spot i.e., Lachu ki meel wali gali, Bajitpur, Delhi, where he met Beat Constable Dheeraj. He came to know that injured has been shifted to M.V. Hospital Pooth Khurd. After leaving Ct. Dheeraj to guard the scene of crime, SI Uday SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 1 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:12:56 +0530 alongwith HC Surendra went to MV Hospital Pooth Khurd. At the spot, near shop of Vinay Electrician, blood was scattered and one pair of blue colour slippers was lying there. Near the shutter of the shop one led was also lying. On inquiry, IO came to know that one person namely Surender suffered gun shot injury and his brothers had taken him to Pooth Hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot.
1.2 SI Uday collected the MLC of the injured and patient was declared brought dead at 10.10 p.m. Ct. Anil also reached at the hospital. SI Uday met complainant Rishi Kumar at the hospital, who claimed himself to be an eye witness to the incident. SI Uday recorded his statement, who alleged that on 04.07.2016 at about 09:30 PM he alongwith his elder brother Surender were present at the shop of Vinay Electrician and were getting repaired cooler there. He further alleged that he was standing behind his brother Surender. In the meantime, accused Sagar came there and started abusing his brother and threatened by saying that "abhi to tumhari ladki ko chheda hai aur dekho main jail se bhee chhoot gaya, tumne mera kya bigad liya, main tum sabhi bhaiyon ka kaam tamam kar doonga" and fired gunshot at deceased Surender. He was accompanied by CCL "V". After firing the gun shot, they both fled way towards lachu ki meel on the motorcycle. He further alleged that he alongwith his brother Inderjeet shifted injured Surender to M.V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd, where he was declared dead. He further alleged that they had also got registered a case against accused Sagar qua incident of sexual assault with daughter of his brother Inderjeet. He further alleged that accused Sagar was also lodged in the jail in that case and when he came out from the jail in that case, he used to extend threats to them and used to stare at them. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, SI Uday prepared the rukka and handed it over to Ct.Anil, who took the rukka to police station and got the FIR SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 2 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:03 +0530 registered. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Vijay Kumar Katariya. Ct. Anil handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to IO Inspector Vijay Kumar Katariya at the spot. Thereafter, crime team was called at the spot and it inspected the scene of crime and clicked the photographs. 1.3 During investigation, exhibits i.e., blood stained earth control, earth control, blood in gauze, blue colour slippers and one bullet led were lifted from the spot. Post mortem of the dead body got conducted and after postmortem dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased. Site plan of place of incident was prepared at the instance of eye witness. 1.4 During investigation on receipt of secret information and at the instance of secret informer, accused Sagar was apprehended from Harevali Mode, Auchandi Bawana Road and during search one country made pistol was recovered from his possession. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded, pointing out memo of the place of incident was prepared at the instance of accused. PC remand of accused was obtained and during PC remand, efforts were made to trace CCL 'V' but he could not be traced. Exhibits were sent to FSL and sanction under section 39 Arms Act was obtained. After completion of investigation against accused Sagar @ Danny, charge sheet under section 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was filed against the accused.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 02.03.2017, charge under section 302/34 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 3 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:07 +0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 25 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW2 Sukhpal deposed that on 04.07.2016 at about 09:30 AM when he was returning from his work, on way the way in Lacchu ki meel wali gali, he saw that his neighbour Surender was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. He stopped his motorcycle and called at number 100 from his mobile No. 9990847571.
5. PW3 ASI Ramesh Chand, being the duty officer, exhibited FIR No. 290/16 as Ex. PW3/1, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/2, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/3, DD No. 23A as Ex. PW3/4 and DD No. 24A as Ex. PW3/5.
6. PW4 Ajay, identified the dead body of his neighbour Surender vide identification memo which is Ex. PW4/1.
7. PW5 SI Satyadev, being the Incharge Crime team, inspected the spot and prepared his crime team report which is Ex. PW5/1.
8. PW6 Ct. Vikas, being photographer in Crime Team, clicked the photographs of the spot on the instructions of Crime Team Incharge and IO. However, positive prints outs of the photographs could not be developed as film roll got damaged due to some technical defects. He exhibited the film roll as Ex. PW6/1.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 4 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.06.09
17:13:11 +0530
9. PW10 Inspector Devender Kumar, on the instruction of IO, he generated PCR forms bearing No. 04JUL161441213 and 04JUL161430688 on 04.07.2016 which are Ex. PW10/1 and Ex. PW10/2. He also issued certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW10/3.
10. PW11 Ct. Naveen got deposited the exhibits in FSL.
11. PW12 W/ASI Baladevi, being duty officer, exhibited FIR No.194/2015 u/sec 354A/506 IPC as Ex. PW12/1.
12. PW13 Ct. Naveen, being the draughtsman, visited the spot i.e., Harijan Basti Village Bajitpur, Lacchu kee meel wali gali, near the shop of Vinay Electrician on 20.08.2016 where at the instance of IO Inspector Vijay Kumar, he took the measurement of the spot. He prepared scaled site plan which is Ex. PW13/A.
13. PW14 W/Ct. Sarita Sharma deposed that on 04.07.2016 at about 22:05:39 hours, she received telephonic call from mobile No. 99908447671 and caller informed that ek admi ko goli mar di hai, jisko le kar caller pooth hospital ja rahe hai. She further deposed that she sent the information to control room and also to police station Bawana and later on handed over the copy of PCR form which is Ex. PW14/A to IO.
14. PW16 Dr. Narayan Dabas, conducted postmortem examination on dead body of Surender on the request of Inspector Vijay Kumar on 05.07.2016 and prepared detailed report which is Ex. PW16/A. He opined death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to gun shot injury to the back of chest on SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 5 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:15 +0530 right side. All injuries were antemortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death, caused by projectile discharged from some firearm weapon which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
15. PW17 ASI Charan Singh Dahiya, being MHC(M), exhibited entry at serial No. 258 as Ex. PW17/A vide which Inspector Vijay Kumar deposited case property in malkhana on 05.07.2016. He also exhibited entry at serial No. 387 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW17/B vide which Ct. Amit Kumar deposited live cartridges in malkhana. He exhibited RC No. 128/21 dated 17.08.2016 and RC No. 133/21 dated 24.08.2016 as Ex. PW17/C and Ex. PW17/E vide which exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Naveen and acknowledgments thereof are Ex. PW17/D and Ex. PW17/F.
16. PW19 Dr. Abhishek Kumar examined patient namely Surender on 04.07.2016 at about 10:10 PM brought by Inderjit (brother) with alleged history of gun shot injury vide MLC No. 2625/2016 having printed serial No. 1169 which is Ex. PW19/A and declared him brought dead.
17. PW20 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on 17.09.2016, investigation was marked to him after transfer of first IO Inspector Vijay Kumar Katariya. He collected PCR form, got prepared scaled site plan and sent exhibits to FSL Rohini. He prepared charge sheet and filed the same before the court. He also filed supplementary charge sheet after receipt of opinion of Ballistic and sanction from concerned DCP under section 39 Arms Act.
18. PW21 Santosh Tripathi, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 17.08.2016, he received three sealed plastic jars from the SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 6 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:21 +0530 office of forwarding authority. He examined the samples from 23.09.2016 to 25.10.2016 but no metallic poison, ethyl or methyl alcohol, cyanide phosphide or pesticide could be detected in the exhibits. He exhibited his report dated 25.10.2016 as Ex. PW21/A. 19.1 PW22 Avinash Srivastav, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 28.09.2016 he received two sealed parcels. Parcel No.1 was found to be containing one country made pistol of .315/8 mm bore Marked as 'F1' and parcel No. 2 was having one bullet led marked as Ex. EB1 recovered from the spot. He further deposed that during examination, he found that country made pistol was designed to fire 8 mm cartridge and was in proper working condition.
19.2 He further deposed that he also received three 8 mm standard cartridges for the purpose of test firing and fired cartridges were marked as TB1 and TB3. After examination of test fired cartridges with Ex. EB1, characteristics of striations were found identical and opined that EB1 had been discharged from the country made pistol F1. He exhibited his report as Ex. PW22/A.
20. PW23 Kaushal Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, deposed that on 24.08.2016 nine sealed parcels were received in CFSL and marked to him. He further deposed that he opened the parcels, examined them and prepared his detailed report/serological report dated 30.11.2016 which is Ex. PW23/A. He further deposed that as per analysis, blood was detected on Ex. 1, 2a, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8a, 8c, 8d and 9.
21. PW24 Santosh Kumar Meena, Additional DCP, deposed that on SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 7 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:26 +0530 14.12.2016, file was put up before him for granting of sanction for prosecution under section 39 Arms Act. He further deposed that on the basis of material produced before him including copy of FIR, seizure memo, arrest memo, copy of disclosure and FSL report, he gave sanction under section 39 Arms Act which is Ex. PW24/A. MATERIAL WITNESSES 22.1 PW1 Inderjeet, who happens to be brother of deceased, deposed that on 04.07.2016 at about 09:20 PM, when he was present at his house, someone informed him that his younger brother Surender had been shot near the shop of one Vinay. He further deposed that prior to that he also heard a sound like something very heavy metal object had fallen on the ground but he ignored it. He further deposed that he immediately made a call at number 100 and left for the shop of Vinay. He further deposed that as soon as he had left his house, some villagers told him not to got to the spot rather to arrange a vehicle and accordingly, he requested his neighbour Bunty, who was having an ECCO car to take his brother to hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Bunty reached near the shop of Vinay where he saw that his brother Surender was lying there on the ground in a pool of blood and his brother Rishi was already present there. He further deposed that he again made a call at number 100. As PCR had not reached, he alongwith his brother Rishi shifted his brother Surender in the ECCO car and took him to MV Hospital Pooth Khurd. He further deposed that his brother could not survive and he expired in the hospital.
22.2 He was cross examined on behalf of State wherein he admitted that postmortem on the body of his brother had been got conducted on 05.07.2016 at Dr. BSA Hospital and he identified the dead body vide SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 8 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:31 +0530 identification statement which is Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that after postmortem, he received dead body of his brother vide memo which is Ex. PW1/B. He admitted that a case of Cherkhani was got registered against the accused on the complaint of his daughter Kalpana and accused remained in custody in that case. He further admitted that after accused came out on bail, he used to threaten them and used to say that he will take revenge. He further admitted that whenever accused had an opportunity to be in front of him, he used to stare at him. He further admitted that the information received by him regarding his brother Surender being fired at, the informer had told him that it was Sagar, who had fired at his brother.
22.3 During cross examination done on behalf of State he stated that except his brother Rishi, only one or two persons were present at the spot when he reached there. He stated that police had not reached at the spot in his presence. He admitted that from the period when accused came out from jail in cherkhani case to 04.07.2016 on which his brother Surender had been fired at, they had not made any complaint against accused Sagar regarding threat extended by him. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
23.1 PW7 Rishi Kumar, who happens to be brother of deceased, deposed that on 04.07.2016 at about 09:30 PM, he alongwith his elder brother Surender was present at shop of Vinay Electrician and were getting cooler repaired from Vinay Electrician. He further deposed that he was standing behind his brother Surender and suddenly accused Sagar reached there and started abusing his brother Surender. He further deposed that he threatened his brother saying that "abhi to tumhari ladki ko cheda hai aur dekho main jail se bhee choot gaya, tumne mera kya bigad liya, main tum sabhi bhaion ka kaam tamam kar doonga". He further deposed while abusing and threatening his SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 9 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:37 +0530 brother, accused Sagar took out a desi katta and fired at his brother Surender. He further deposed that after shooting his brother, accused Sagar ran towards Lachoo ki Meel and saw that CCL 'V' was also standing there on a bike and accused Sagar fled from there with him on his bike. 23.2 He further deposed that he and his brother Inderjeet took his brother Surender to MV Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi in ECCO Car of Bunty where doctor declared his brother dead. He further deposed that police met him at MV Hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW7/1. He had shown the place of occurrence to the police and site plan was prepared at his instance. He further deposed that accused Sagar had sexually assaulted his niece and an FIR was registered against him. After being released on bail in that case, he used to threaten them to take revenge.
23.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he himself had not made any call at number 100 after the incident and his brother Inderjeet had made a call at number 100 at around 09:45 PM. He stated that at the time of incident, some passersby were passing through the gali and some shops were also open. He stated that at the time of incident Vinay was inside the shop. He could not tell the registration number of the bike on which accused Sagar had fled alongwith CCL. He stated that he had seen desi katta for the first time in his life when accused Sagar fired upon his brother. He stated that prior to the incident, there had been no quarrel between his brother Surender and accused Sagar. He stated that there was no CCTV camera installed at or near the place of incident. He denied all the suggestions given on behalf of accused.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
24.1 PW8 HC Surender deposed that on 04.07.2016 at about 10:00 PM
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 10 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:13:41 +0530
on receipt of DD No. 23A, he alongwith SI Uday Singh went to Harijan Basti near shop of Vinay Electrician, Village Bajitpur, Delhi. He further deposed that lot of blood was lying in gali, two blue colour slippers ( hawai chappal) were also lying in the gali and one bullet led was also lying near the shutter of the shop. He further deposed that during local inquiry, it transpired that a person namely Surender had been shot at and his brothers had taken him to MV Hospital. He further deposed that in the meantime, beat Constable of the area Ct. Dheeraj also reached there and SI Uday Singh gave instructions to Ct. Dheeraj to guard the spot. He alongwith SI Uday went to MV Hospital. He further deposed that in hospital, IO collected MLC of Surender, who had been brought to hospital with alleged history of gun shot injury and doctor declared him brought dead. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Anil also reached at the hospital. One Rishi Kumar also met them in the hospital, who claimed himself to be brother of deceased and eye witness to the incident. He further deposed that SI Uday Singh recorded statement of Rishi Kumar, prepared tehrir and handed over to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. 24.2 He further deposed that thereafter as per instructions of SI Uday, he took dead body to mortuary of Dr. BSA Hospital and got it preserved there. He further deposed that after postmortem, concerned doctor handed over some sealed exhibits to IO Inspector Vijay Kumar, who seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW8/1.
25. PW9 HC Anil, deposed that in the intervening night of 04- 05.07.2016 at around 12 midnight, on the instructions of IO, he reached MV Hospital, Pooth Khurd and met SI Uday Singh. He further deposed that SI Uday Singh handed over tehrir to him and he went to police station and got the FIR registered through duty officer. He further deposed that after registration SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 11 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:47 +0530 of FIR, he came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to Inspector Vijay Kumar, who was already present there.
26.1 PW15 Ct. Dheeraj, deposed that on 05.07.2016 when he was on patrolling duty at Auchandi Boader, SI Uday Singh met him. He further deposed that at about 08:40 PM, one secret informer met them, who informed that accused Sagar, who was involved in the present case was present at Harewali Mod, Auchandi Bawana for meeting some one. He further deposed that SI Uday Singh requested 3-4 passersby to join the proceedings but none agreed and left without disclosing their name and address. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Uday Singh and informer left from there and reached at Harewali Mod, Auchandi Bawana road where at the point out secret informer accused Sagar was apprehended. He further deposed that IO conducted search of accused Sagar and one desi katta was recovered from the left side dub of his jeans pants which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW15/D after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW15/C. He further deposed that thereafter, IO conducted inquiries from accused and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW15/A, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW15/B. 26.2 He further deposed that thereafter, the proceeding was conducted by IO/SHO Vijay Kumar Kataria. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Sagar @ Danny was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW15/E. Accused Sagar @ Danny led the police party at the place of incident i.e. Lachu kay Meel wali gali and pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW15/F. He further deposed that thereafter accused led the police party to the house of CCL 'V' at Village SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 12 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:13:51 +0530 Dariya Pur, however, he was not found there. He correctly identified the desi katta recovered from the possession of accused as Ex. P15/P1. 26.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he had informed about the said information of SI Uday Singh to SHO to join the investigation in the present matter. He stated that the case property was not deposited by him in malkhana. He stated that the desi katta was recovered from the left dub of the worn pants of the accused. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
27.1 PW18 Retd. Inspector Vijay Kumar Katariya, being the IO deposed about the investigation done by him, he deposed that on 04.07.2016 on receipt of call vide DD No.23A regarding "somebody had fired upon my brother", he went to the spot i.e., Near Vinay Electronic Shop, Harijan basti, Village Bajitpur where he met Ct. Dheeraj. He further deposed that he was informed by Ct. Dheeraj that injured had already been taken to MV Hospital by SI Uday and HC Surender. He further deposed that he called the crime team at the spot and Ct. Anil came to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He further deposed that when crime team was inspecting the spot, SI Uday also reached there. He further deposed that he seized the exhibits lifted by Crime Team vide seizure memos which are Ex. PW18/A, Ex.
PW18/B, Ex. PW18/C, Ex. PW18/D and Ex. PW18/E. He also prepared sketch of the led which is Ex. PW18/F and site plan which is Ex. PW18/G at the instance of brother of deceased. He further deposed that he tried to search for accused but they could not be located.
27.2 He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Uday went to BSA Hospital and got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of deceased. He further deposed that he recorded dead body identification SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 13 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:54 +0530 statement of relative of deceased and handed over the dead body after postmortem. He further deposed that he also seized the exhibits handed over to him by the doctors at mortuary BSA Hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he came back at the police station and in the evening he alongwith SI Uday visited Auchandi Border where they met Ct. Dheeraj and secret informer. He further deposed that on the basis of secret information and at the instance of secret informer, accused Sagar was apprehended and a desi katta was recovered from his possession. He further deposed that accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted, his disclosure statement was recorded and on pointing out of accused, pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared.
27.3 He further deposed that on next day, one day PC remand of accused was obtained and during PC remand accused was taken to Village Qutub Garh where he alleged threw the empty cartridges but same could not be recovered and memo in this regard was prepared which is Ex. PW18/H. He further deposed that he tried to locate co-accused i.e., CCL 'V' but he could not be traced. He further deposed that on 20.08.2016, he called Assistant Draughtsman and took him to place of incident and got prepared scaled site plan. He exhibited desi katta recovered from possession of accused as Ex. P1, bathroom slippers as Ex. P2 and bullet lead as Ex.P3. 27.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused he stated that he did not record statement of anybody from the Vinay Electronic Shop as it was night time and shop had already been closed. He stated that no independent witness met them at the spot on the day of incident. He stated that the earth control and blood stained earth control were lifted by SI Uday and Ct.
Dheeraj on his directions. He stated that he had sent intimation regarding arrest of accused to his mother but he did not remember her phone number. He SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 14 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.06.09 17:13:59 +0530 denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
28.1 PW25 SI Uday Singh deposed that on 04.07.2016 on receipt of dd No. 23A regarding murder, he alongwith HC Surender reached at the place of information i.e., Harijan Basti, village Bajitpur near Vinay Electrician shop where blood was scattered in the gali, one pair of blue colours slippers and one led were lying. He further deposed that he came to know that one person namely Surender was murdered and in the meantime, beat constable Dheeraj also came there. He further deposed that no eye witness found there and after directing Ct. Dheeraj to preserve the scene of crime, he alongwith HC Surender went to MV Hospital, Pooth Khurd where he collected MLC No. 2625/16 of injured Surender, who was declared brought dead by the doctor. In the meantime, beat constable Anil also came there. He further deposed that he also met Rishi Kumar, who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident. He recorded his statement, prepared rukka which is Ex. PW25/A and handed over the same to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. 28.2 He further deposed that dead body was preserved at Dr. BSA Hospital mortuary and thereafter, he came back at the spot where Inspector Vijay Kataria and Ct. Dheeraj were present. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. anil also came at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Inspector Vijay Kataria as further investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that he also handed over MLC of deceased to Inspector Vijay Kataria.
28.3 He further deposed that crime team officials inspected the place of incident and Inspector Vijay Kataria lifted the earth control from the place of incident, blood stained earth control, blood in gauze, led from the spot and blue colour slippers and same were seized. He further deposed that eye witnesses SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 15 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:02 +0530 were searched near the place of incident but no one was found. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to Dr. BSA Hospital Mortuary where dead body was duly identified by relatives of deceased and after postmortem dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased. He further deposed that IO also seized the sealed exhibits which were handed over by the doctor. 28.4 He further deposed that on the same day, on receipt of secret information, he alongwith IO as well as Ct. Dheeraj went to Auchandi Border where secret informer met them. On the basis of secret information, they went to Harevali Mod where at the instance of secret informer, accused was apprehended and arrested. He further deposed that during search of accused one country made pistol was recovered from left dub of pants worn by accused. The country made pistol was seized and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at the instance of accused. 28.5 He further deposed that on next day, PC remand of accused was obtained and during PC remand, accused let them to Village Qutubgarh Road leading towards Auchandi Border and pointed out towards the field by stating that it was the same place where he had thrown the empty cartridge after taking out the same from country made pistol after committing murder of Surender. IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused. He further deposed that CCL 'V', who was also involved in the incident was searched but he could not be traced. He exhibited blood stained earth control as Ex. P4 and blood stained cotton wool swab and blood stained earth as Ex. P5. 28.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused he stated that public persons were passing near the place of incident but none had agreed to join the investigation. He stated that no videography was done at the time of cursory search of accused. He admitted that in personal search memo, the country made pistol had not been shown. He stated that no public person was SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 16 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:06 +0530 present at the time of recording of disclosure statement of accused. He admitted that IO did not prepare any site plan of the place of recovery. He denied all the suggestion put on behalf of accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
29. After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.02.2025, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidences put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he was not present at the time of incident at the spot. No weapon was recovered from his possession and same has been planted upon him me by the IO. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
30. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
31. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. A. K. Vashisht, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused.
32. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. Accused was involved in a matter of eve teasing wherein the victim was niece of the deceased. Accused was arrested in FIR No. 194/2015 u/sec 354A/506 IPC. After being released on bail, accused was nursing grudge against the entire family of the deceased and was looking for an opportunity to take revenge from them. On the date of incident, deceased had gone to the shop of an electrician to get repaired his water cooler alongwith complainant PW7 Rishi Kumar. Accused came there alongwith his associate CCL and fired upon the deceased with the country made revolver and SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 17 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:11 +0530 fled away from the spot. The bullet was recovered from the spot as it pierced through the body of the deceased. The cause of death is gun shot injury and the weapon was recovered from the possession of the accused on the same day. As per the ballistic report, the bullet recovered from the spot was fired from the country made revolver recovered from the possession of accused. Prosecution has examined, PW1 Inderjeet, PW2 Sukhpal and PW7 Rishi Kumar in the category of material witnesses and they have thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. Defence has failed to elicit anything from the cross examination of these witnesses. The investigation process is duly proved by the police officials. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused under section 302/34 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625.
33. Per contra, Sh. A. K. Vashisht, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that this is a false and concocted case hoisted against the accused. Eye witness Rishi Kumar is a planted witness in this case and his conduct is highly improbable, if he was present at the spot. Prosecution has withheld material witness namely Vinay on whose shop the alleged incident took place. There is no documentary prove that accused had threatened the family of the deceased after he was being released on bail in FIR No. 194/2015. The weapon has been planted upon the accused by the IO and there is no explanation as to why public persons were not joined in the arrest and recovery proceedings. Accused SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 18 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:15 +0530 has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and he is entitled to be acquitted accordingly.
34. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
35. The accused Sagar @ Danny has been charged for the commission of offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC and section 25/27 Arms Act.
36. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 300 IPC "Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 19 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.06.09
17:14:19 +0530
SECTION 302 IPC
Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.] SECTION 25 ARMS ACT Punishment for certain offences.- Whoever(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures,] sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b)shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] [Inserted by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] in contravention of section 6; or
(d)brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] [Substituted 'three years but which may extend to seven years' by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 27 ARMS ACT
27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 20 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:23 +0530 a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
37. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.........."
38. Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 21 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:29 +0530 for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Ram Gopal in "India of Vedic Kalpsutras" has stated that even under the ancient system of Administration of Criminal Justice, the benefit of doubt was always be given to the accused. So, Apasthamba laid down that the king should not punish any person in case of doubt.
39. It appears seemly to trace the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt as evolved by Superior Law Courts of England and India. In Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions, (1947) all England law reports 372 Volume 2 Lord Denning J. observed, "I ..... prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to lead only to a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond doubt......"
40. The concept of benefit of doubt has been explained in numerous decisions which are being followed in catena of cases. A stream of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commencing with the M. G. Aggarwal, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1963 2 SCR 405,491; AIR 1963 SC 200 and Climax by Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 (82) ACC 467 (SC) has settled the law wherein it was held that prove beyond reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt. It is a fair doubt based upon reason or common sense.
41. This court cannot be oblivious that in a criminal trial suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 22 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:33 +0530
This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vagues conjectures from sure conclusions.
42. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 7 SCC 171, it has been held that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubts and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence and hence, there must be proper and legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused.
43. In this backdrop, I shall proceed to delve upon and evaluate the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MOTIVE 44.1 Prosecution has projected a case that the motive behind the murder was the grudge of the accused as he was arrested in FIR No. 194/2015 PS Bawana under section 354-A/506 IPC. After being released on bail in that case, accused was continuously threatening the entire family and ultimately he succeeded in committing the murder of the deceased. Motive assumes a great significance in a crime as mostly crimes are done in pursuance of a motive and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive behind the crime to prove the culpable intent of any accused.
44.2 In Ravi Sharma Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2022 SC 4810, it has been held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into significance in a case of involving eye witnesses, it may not be so, when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence.
44.3 In Indrajeet Das Vs. State of Tripura Criminal Appeal No.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 23 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:37 +0530
609/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2023, it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. Motive may also have a role to play in a case based upon direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in case of circumstantial evidence then a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances. 44.4 In Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2023 SC 193, it was held that motive, when proved, supplies additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, absence of motive, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 5273 to the effect that failure to prove motive in case of circumstantial evidence is not fatal to the prosecution but it could be a missing link in the chain of incriminating circumstances. Once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. 44.5 In the present case there is an eye witness PW7 Rishi Kumar, who has been examined by the prosecution and therefore, motive has become of secondary importance in this case as it is not mandatory for the prosecution to prove the motive. Despite the presence of eye witness, the motive behind the offence needs to be considered by the court to effectively evaluate the case of the prosecution. It is not in dispute that FIR No. 194/2015 was registered against the accused and the victim was daughter of PW1 Inderjeet. It is also not in dispute that accused remained in custody in that FIR for a considerable period of time. PW1 and PW7 have categorically deposed that accused used to threaten them when he was out on bail. PW7 has categorically stated that in his examination in chief that abhi to tumhari ladki ko cheda hai aur dekho main SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 24 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:40 +0530 jail se bhi choot gaya, tumne mera kya bigad liya, main tum sabhi bhaiyo ka kaam tamam kar dunga. This threat was extended by the accused soon prior to committing murder of the deceased. PW7 further deposed that accused used to threaten them that he will take revenge. PW1 has also corroborated the previous conduct of the accused after being released on bail though, he was not present at the time of incident. The documentary evidence in the form of FIR No.194/2015 and oral testimonies of PW1 ad PW7, to the effect that accused used to threaten them after being released on bail, I am of the considered view that accused had the motive to commit the murder of the deceased and prosecution has successfully prove this fact against him.
ROLE OF EYE WITNESS 45.1 Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. A. K. Vashisht vehemently argued that PW7 Rishi Kumar is a planted witness in this case. It is pointed out that PW7 Rishi Kumar happens to be real brother of the deceased and therefore, he is an interested witness. Had it been the case that he was an eye witness to the incident then he should have tried to save the deceased being his real brother. This witness did not inform the police despite having a mobile phone with him. It is further pointed out that PW7 Rishi Kumar is an unreliable witness as he has failed to answer the question of the defence during cross examination. 45.2 It is a matter of record that PW7 Rishi Kumar has admitted that deceased was his real brother. When he was asked as to why he did not call the police at number 100, he had explained the his brother Inderjeet had informed the police. Therefore, he has given a reasonable explanation for not informing the police. Moreover, the court can understand the mental state of a person whose real brother was shot dead in his presence. There is no doubt that he must be in state of shock and this may be the reason that he could not inform SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 25 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.06.09 17:14:47 +0530 the police. This aspect has become irrelevant as police was already informed by PW1 Inderjeet as well as PW2 Sukhpal.
45.3 Ld. Defence counsel has also cross examined this witness on this aspect as he failed to disclose the registration number of the motorcycle. Going by the prudence of a common man, the focus of PW7 Rishi Kumar was towards the victim as he was shot down in his presence and therefore, it is quite acceptable that he could not note down the registration number of the motorcycle. When a witness states that he had seen the country made revolver for the first time in his life then his reaction is quite understandable. When a person is not apprehending that such kind of glaring incident would happen in his presence then he is bound to land in a trauma and state of shock which would affect his actions as well as his capability to assess the situation. 45.4 The testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the basis that he happens to be real brother of the deceased. Although, such kind of testimonies need to be considered and accepted by the court with great caution but if they are found to be reliable and trustworthy then their testimonies cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are relatives of the victim. PW7 Rishi Kumar has successfully stood the test of cross examination and has explained his conduct of not informing the police and his inability to note down the number of the motorcycle. Moreover, the version of PW7 has been corroborated by PW1 Inderjeet and PW2 Sukhpal. PW1 Inderjeet was informed that Surender has been shot and when he reached at the spot, PW7 Rishi was present there. Both of them took injured to the hospital. It is a matter of record that in the MLC of the deceased name of PW1 Inderjeet has been mentioned which is again indicative of the fact that he had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. PW2 has also deposed that he saw the victim in the pool of blood and he had informed the police at number 100. The testimonies SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 26 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:14:50 +0530 of PW1, PW2 and PW7 are in corroboration of each other and presence of PW7 at the spot is duly proved. Therefore, I find no merit in the argument of Ld. Amicus that PW7 is a planted witness and he was not present at the spot at the time of murder.
CAUSE OF DEATH
46. It is a matter of record that gun shot was fired upon the deceased by accused and he was shifted to Maharishi Valmiki Hospital at 10:10 PM. He was examined by PW19 Dr. Abhishek Kumar vide MLC which is Ex. PW19/A and the doctor observed gun shot injury on the body of the deceased. Deceased Surender was declared brought dead. His postmortem was got conducted by Dr. Narayan Dabas on 05.07.2016. The postmortem has been proved as Ex.
PW16/A. As per this report there were two injuries on his body. Injury No. 1 is a gun shot entry wound present on the back on right side with blackening and tattooing over and area of 8cm x 8cm with inverted margins 6cm away from midline. The second injury is gun shot exit wound with no singeing, no blackening, no tattooing over the front of abdomen 6 cm away from the midline. The death is due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to gun shot injury to the back of chest on right side. All injuries were ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death and caused by projectile discharged from some firearm weapon which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The viscera of the deceased was also preserved. As per viscera report which is Ex. PW21/A, no metallic poison, ethyl or methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, etc. was detected in the viscera. Therefore, it is duly proved by the prosecution that the death was caused due to the gun shot injury with entered the body of the deceased from back side and took exit just above the abdomen area.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 27 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:14:56 +0530
ABSENCE OF WITNESS NAMELY VINAY
47.1 It is also argued on behalf of defence that prosecution has
withheld person namely Vinay in presence of whose shop the incident had occurred. If his shop was opened at that time then he must be an eye witness to the incident and prosecution has no reason for not examining him in this case. The only reason for withholding this witness is that his shop was not open at that time and if that was the case then the entire case of the prosecution would be a bunch of lies.
47.2 I am in agreement with ld. Defence counsel that IO ought to have examined the electrician Vinay during investigation and he should have been brought before the court as a prosecution witness. The point raised by ld. Defence counsel is related to number of witnesses to be examined by the prosecution to prove its case.
47.3 In case titled as Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and others Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 2688 and in Rama Krishna Madhusudhan Nayar Vs. State of Maharasthra AIR 2008 SC 927, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person can be convicted on the basis of the solitary evidence, if he is wholly reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticisms and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone, conviction can be maintained. 47.4 Keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in above mentioned case and section 134 Indian Evidence Act, prosecution is not duty bound to examine any particular number of witnesses to prove its case. As stated above, it is the quality of the evidence which is material and not the quantity. Prosecution has examined PW7 Rishi Kumar as an eye witness and defence has failed to raise any suspicion over his credibility. The testimony of this witness is sufficient enough to prove the fact that accused Sagar had fired SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 28 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.06.09 17:15:01 +0530 upon victim Surender and committed his murder. Situation would have been ideal, if electrician Vinay was also examined as prosecution witness but his absence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as its case stands proved on the basis of PW7 Rishi Kumar.
47.5 Needless to say, to conduct an investigation is job of the investigating officer and if he commits any mistake and leaves any lacuna in the investigation then the victim and his family cannot be made to suffer. In Sunil Kundu Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013 (4) SCC 422, while commenting upon the lacunas in the investigation, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"19. We began by commenting on the unhappy conduct of the investigating agency. We conclude by reaffirming our view. We are distressed at the way in which the investigation of this case was carried out. It is true that acquitting the accused merely on the ground of lapses or irregularities in the investigation of a case would amount to putting premium on the depreciable conduct of an incompetent investigating agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging in perpetrators of crimes. This Court has laid down that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored subject to a rider. They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality. If the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored. In this case, the lapses are very serious."
47.6 The absence of witness Vinay is due to the negligence of the investigating officer. As stated above, this lacuna is not going to affect the case of the prosecution as there is another eye witness PW7 Rishi Kumar, who has proved the fact that accused has fired upon the victim. Hence, I do not find any merit in the argument that the absence of electrician Vinay has completely demolished the case of the prosecution.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 29 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.06.09
17:15:05 +0530
RECOVERY OF WEAPON
48.1 Ld. Defence counsel has argued the IO did not join any public
witness despite ample opportunity available with the IO to do the same at the time of alleged recovery of country made pistol from the possession of accused. The weapon has been planted upon by the IO to falsely implicate the accused.
48.2 It is correct that no public witness was joined by the IO at the time of arrest of accused and recovery of weapon from his possession. The issue regarding absence of public persons in proceedings conducted by the IO has been deliberated over by Hon'ble Apex Court on numerous occasions. 48.3 In Rizwan Khan Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4297, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non- examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see "Pardeep Kumar (supra)].
In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat similar submission of non-
examination of independent witnesses, while dealing with the offence under the NDPS Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under:
"15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521, relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature."
48.4 Therefore, it is settled that the entire proceedings qua SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 30 of 32 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:08 +0530 recovery of weapon cannot be doubted merely due to absence of public persons. During cross examination of PW25 SI Udai Singh, it is nowhere suggested to him that there were any public witness present at the spot when the recovery of weapon was effected by the IO. It is apparently an argument cropped up into the mind of Ld. Defence counsel at the stage of final arguments and it was not in contemplation at the time of cross examination of IO.
48.5 It is also worth consideration that one bullet was recovered from the spot by the police as it entered into the body of the deceased and came out from the chest and fell down on the ground. By the time the bullet was recovered by the police, accused was not in custody and no recovery of weapon of offence was effected. The said bullet was seized by the IO and it was sent to ballistic expert opinion. The ballistic report has been proved as Ex. PW22/A wherein it is opined by PW22 Avinash Srivastava that recovered bullet i.e., EB1 has been discharged through the country made pistol Ex. F1. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that recovered bullet from the spot was fired from the country made pistol recovered from the possession of accused. The connection between the recovered bullet and country made pistol is so glaring and decisive in nature that there was no scope of planting the weapon upon the accused. When the bullet was recovered, accused was yet to be arrested but subsequently, the weapon got connected with the bullet which was discharged from the same weapon. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument of Ld. Defence counsel that recovery proceedings are tainted one or that weapon of offence has been planted upon by the IO.
SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 31 of 32
PS Bawana
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.06.09
17:15:11 +0530
CONCLUSION
49. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Sagar @ Danny on the basis of reliable testimony of eye witness PW7 Rishi Kumar. Accused fired upon deceased Surender as he was furious as he was arrested in another case of eve teasing got registered against him on the complaint niece of deceased Surender. The bullet which caused the death of Surender was fired from the country made pistol which was recovered from the possession of accused. As it has been proved by PW7 Rishi Kumar that accused Sagar had used the country made pistol in the incident and same was recovered from his possession by the police, prosecution has successfully proved allegations under section 25/27 Arms Act against him. Therefore, accused Sagar @ Danny stands convicted for committing offence under section 302 IPC read with section 25/27 Arms Act and it is ordered accordingly.
50. Matter be listed for arguments on sentence. Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.06.09 17:15:15 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 09.06.2025 ASJ:Special Judge (NDPS) (running in 32 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 17/2016, FIR No. 290/2016 State Vs. Sagar @ Danny Page No. 32 of 32 PS Bawana