Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Bhati on 18 August, 2025
SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 897/2022)
CNR No. DLNT01-011384-2022
FIR No. 681/2022
Police Station : Mukherjee Nagar
Under Section : 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
State V/s Deepak Bhati
S/o Mukesh Bhati
R/o H.No. 1010, Gali no. 7
Vijay Vihar, Balram Nagar,
Loni, Gaziabad, UP.
.... Accused
Date of committal to 30.11.2022
this court
Date of final 04.08.2025
arguments
Date of Judgment 18.08.2025
Appearance : Sh. Vikas-II, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Robin Kamra Ld. CLADC for accused.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX AND CASE GENESIS The Incident Nisha
1. On 21.07.2022 at 18:25:55, an information was Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:12:02 +0530 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 1 of 42 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati received at police station Mukherjee Nagar through CCTN to the effect that "Mukherjee Nagar Depot naale ke paas caller ne bataaya ki ek ladki ko kisi ne goli maar di hai, wo lady caller ke paas bhagti huyee aaye hai, usey hospital mein le gaye hain, STC Trauma Centre mein le gaye hain, need police", which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 67A, and was assigned to SI Rameshwar Dayal and HC Vinod, who immediately reached at the spot, where they came to know that the injured girl had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. In the hospital, SI Rameshwar Dayal and HC Vinod found the injured admitted in the hospital, but was unfit to give statement. Caller / complainant Anil Kumar, who met in the hospital and the doctors informed that the injured has been shot and is under medical treatment. Complainant took the police officials to the spot, where one empty cartridge, one green colour face mask were found.
2. IO recorded the statement of complainant Anil Kumar, wherein he complained that he is working as an Assistant Surveyor with Global Survey Company, and on 21.07.2022 at about 05.45 PM, he along with his associate Satish, was doing survey near Ganda Naala, Nehru Vihar, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, with the help of TS Machine, during the course of which he saw a girl (through TS Machine), coming towards them, waiving her hand and wearing blood Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 2 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:12:09 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati stained clothes. He ran towards her and was covered in blood. He made her to sit and in the meantime his associate Satish reached there on his scooty, and they both took her to Durga Hospital, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, from where, on the advice of doctor concerned, the injured was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital by a TSR. He further informed that on their way of hospital, the injured had told him that she had been shot by her friend Deepak son of Mukesh, who resides in her vicinity. On the basis of statement of complainant present FIR bearing No. 681/2021 was registered under Section 307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
INVESTIGATION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3. During the investigation, the accused Deepak Bhati was apprehended by SI Kuldeep, who at that time was posted in Special Staff (N/W) from Vishwas Nagar, and took him to police station and produced the accused and his bike before the IO SI Rameshwar Dayal, who arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. During investigation, accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol from his house. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, and after cognizance was taken by the Ld. Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.08.20 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 3 of 42 16:12:18 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati CHARGE
4. Charge was framed against the accused Deepak Bhati for offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to charge and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During trial, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in all.
S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW 1 SI Hansraj Duty Officer who proved DD No. 67 A and present FIR.
2. PW 2 Ms. Sahiba. Injured.
3. PW 3 Sh. Anil Kumar Who came to help the injured and took her to hospital.
4. PW 4 SI Kuldeep Apprehended the accused.
5. PW 5 HC Vinod Joined investigation with IO.
Kumar
6. PW 6 Dr. Anish Proved MLC of injured.
Kumar Choudhary
7. PW 7 Dr. Rohit Proved Discharge Slip of injured.
8. PW 8 Retired SI Crime Team Member.
Surender
9. PW 9 Ct. Shyamvir Member / Photographer in Crime Team.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 4 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:12:26 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
10. PW 10 HC Devender Deposited the case property with FSL.
11. PW 11 Dr. Naresh Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Kumar Rohini, Delhi.
12. PW 12 Sh. Satish Associate of Anil Kumar, who Kashyap helped him to get the injured medical aid.
13. PW 13 Ct. Krishan Deposited the exhibits in FSL.
Pal.
14. PW 14 Retired SI Investigative Officer.
Rameshwar Dayal Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit 1. DD entry No. 67A Ex. PW 1/A. 2. FIR Ex. PW 1/B. 3. Endorsement on rukka. Ex. PW 1/C.
4. Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Ex. PW 1/D. Act.
5. Photographs of motorcycle of the Ex. PW 2/A. accused.
6. Seizure memo of shirt of Satish, which Ex. PW 3/A. was worn by Anil Kumar.
7. Statement of Anil Kumar. Ex. PW 3/B.
8. Arrest memo of accused. Ex. PW 4/A.
9. Seizure memo of motorcycle. Ex. PW 4/B.
10. Seizure memo of clothes of injured. Ex. PW 5/A.
11. Seizure memo of bullet lead. Ex. PW 5/A1.
12. Seizure memo of shirt of complainant. Ex. PW 5/B. Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.08.20 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 5 of 42 16:14:43 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
13. Seizure memo of face mask, blood Ex. PW 5/C to gauze piece, earth with blood, earth Ex. PW 5/G. control and empty cartridge.
14. Sketch of empty cartridge. Ex. PW 5/G1.
15. Personal Search Memo of accused. Ex. PW 5/H.
16. Disclosure statement of accused. Ex. PW 5/I.
17. Pointing out memo. Ex. PW 5/J.
18. Seizure memo of Pistol. Ex. PW 5/K
19. Sketch of Pistol. Ex. PW 5/L.
20. Site plan of place of recovery of Ex. PW 5/M weapon.
21. MLC of injured. Ex. PW 6/A.
22. Discharge Slip of injured. Ex. PW 7/A.
23. Endorsement of doctor concerned qua Ex. PW 7/B. injured being unfit for statement.
23. Nature of injuries being 'dangerous' on Ex. PW 7/C. slip dated 01.08.2022.
24. Crime Team Report. Ex. PW 8/A.
25. 26 Photographs clicked by Crime Ex. PW 9/A-1 Team. to PW 9/A-26.
26. Acknowledgment dated 12.08.2022 Ex. PW 10/A. qua deposit of case property with FSL.
27. FSL Report dated 07.02.2023. Ex. PW 11/A.
28. Rukka. Ex. PW 14/A.
29. Sketch of the spot. Ex. PW 14/B.
30. Seizure memo of blood gauge piece Ex. PW 14/C. cloth.
31. Upper clothes / Top of injured. Ex. P1.
32. Mask of injured. Ex. P2.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 6 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:14:50 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
33. Blood stained shirt of Anil Kumar. Ex. P3.
34. Weapon of offence / country made Ex. P4.
pistol.
35. Motorcycle. Ex. P5.
36. Blood stained Shirt of Satish. Ex. P6.
37. Road Certificate. Ex. P6A.
(Inadvertently marked as exhibit P6, for clarity to be read as Ex. P6A)
38. Blood on gauze. Ex. P7.
39. Blood stained earth. Ex. P8.
40. Earth control. Ex. P9.
41. Empty cartridge. Ex. P10.
6. During trial, accused admitted Entry No. 4393/22 dated 21.07.2022 in Register No. 19, Entry No. 4394/22 dated 21.07.2022 in Register No. 19, Entry No. 4417/22 dated 21.07.2022 in Register No. 19, Entry No. 4467 dated 21.07.2022 in Register No. 19, Entry No. 113/21/22 dated 12.08.2022 in Register No. 21, Entry No. 127/21/22 dated 14.09.2022 in Register No. 21, Entry No. 172/21/23 dated 31.10.2023 in Register No. 21, PCR Form dated 21.07.2022, FSL report dated 16.01.2024 and Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act, u/s 294 CrPC.
DEFENCE CASE
7. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Deepak Bhati denied all the allegations and claimed false Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 7 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:14:57 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati implication. His defence centered on the assertion that injured had intentionally and deliberately deposed against him in order to save her brother and to hide the business of illegal weapon of her family. It is further submitted that the injured accompanied her brother to the spot for supply of illegal weapons to some person and when the pistol / weapon was being checked by that person, inadvertently the trigger was pulled and injured sustained bullet injury. Accused submitted that he was not even present at the spot at the relevant time, and that he has been falsely implicated because of personal grudges and he being of other faith and religion.
8. In support of his defense, the accused examined his wife Smt. Anita as DW 1, who proved on record the following documents :
S.No. Nature of Document Exhibit 1. Copy of complaint dated 20.01.2017. Ex. DW 1/A. 2. Copy of complaint dated 19.01.2017. Ex. DW 1/B.
3. Original postal receipt dated 19.01.2017 Ex. DW1/C qua complaint dated 19.01.2017.
4. Computer generated copy of daily basic Mark A. attendance report qua Deepak Bhati issued by SAL Papers Pvt. Ltd from 01.07.2022 to 31.07.2022.
5. Copy of compromise / Faislanama dated Mark B. 20.01.2017.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 8 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:06 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
6. Copy of complaint dated 19.01.2017 Mark C.
9. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Vikas-II, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sh. Robin Kamra, Ld. CLADC for accused and have considered the rival contentions put forth by both the parties, gone through the relevant case law and have scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the written submissions filed by the defence.
ANALYSIS & REASONING
10. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that on the fateful day i.e. 2107.2022, accused Deepak Bhati, who was residing in the vicinity of the injured Sahiba and was earlier in relationship with her, telephonically asked her to meet him and after putting her under threat to life of her siblings, he took her to Ganda Naala Road, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on his motorcycle, and fired upon her using a country made pistol.
11. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the injured herself and two other independent witnesses, who helped her to get medical aid. All the three witnesses corroborated each other on all material aspects and fit the bill of a sterling witness, to the hilt. They have supported the prosecution case, in total letter and spirit, to the last digit. They Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 9 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:15 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati were the star and sterling witnesses of the prosecution and stood the test of a grilling cross-examination.
12. In Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 10 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:22 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
13. PW 2 injured Sahiba deposed that she was on talking terms with her neighbour accused Deepak Bhati (correctly identified) since the year 2016. However, in the year 2018, accused Deepak Bhati got married and thereafter she stopped talking with him. However, about 3-4 months prior to the incident in question, accused Deepak Bhati started making telephone calls and harassing her as he wanted to marry her. On her refusal, accused Deepak Bhati threatened to kill her. She further deposed that on 21.07.2022 at about 1:00 pm, the accused Deepak Bhati telephonically called her and threatened that if she did not talk to him, he would kill her brothers and Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 11 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:28 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati sister and he further asked her to meet him. Thereafter, accused came to meet her on his motorcycle and on being threatened by him, she sat on the motorcycle of the accused, who took her to a lonely area behind BBM Bus Depot, ganda naala road, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. She asked him as to why he had brought her there, on which he replied that he had brought her there to kill her and fired at her with a country made pistol. The bullet hit her on her chest. Thereafter accused left from there on his motorcycle.
14. She further deposed that she mustered courage and went ahead and saw one passer by, whose name was later revealed as 'Anil'. Said Anil tied his shirt on her wound and took her to Hindu Rao Hospital on a scooty with the help of some other person. She remained admitted in the hospital for about two weeks. Doctors of the said hospital did not allow her to talk to anyone during her treatment in the hospital. Her statement was recorded by the police at her house after her discharge from the hospital.
15. She further deposed that accused Deepak Bhati had snatched her mobile phone at the time of incident. She correctly identified her blood stained clothes, her mask, blood stained grey colour shirt which was tied by Anil on her wound, country made pistol, which was used by the accused Deepak Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 12 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:34 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati Bhati for firing upon her, motorcycle and the photographs of the motorcycle, which the accused Deepak Bhati was riding.
16. In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused PW 2 deposed that the police had recorded her statement in connection with the present case at her house but she did not remember the date. She denied the suggestion that her brother is involved in supply of illegal weapons or that on 21.07.2022, she had accompanied her brother to the spot for supply of illegal weapons to some person or that when the weapon/pistol was being checked by that person, inadvertently, the trigger was pulled and she sustained injury. She volunteered that it was the accused who shot at her. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not fire at her or did not cause any injury to her. She denied that she had falsely implicated the accused in the instance case only out of malice against him. She denied the suggestion that she had seen the pistol Ex. P-4 for the first time in the court on the date of her deposition. She volunteered that she had seen it for the first time on the date of incident when the accused had used it to shoot her.
17. She admitted it to be correct that on 21.01.2017, a settlement was arrived at between accused and her in the presence of all their family members that the accused and she Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 13 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:44 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati will not speak to each other and will stay away from each other. She voluntarily deposed that the accused continued to harass her and ultimately the incident took place. She had disclosed her mobile number to the police and it was the same number which was operative in her mobile phone, which was snatched by the accused.
18. PW 3 Anil Kumar specifically deposed that he was working as Assistant Surveyor in Global Survey Company, Bharat Nagar, Delhi and on 21.07.2022 at about 5:30 pm, he along with his associate namely Satish and senior surveyor Sunny, was doing the survey near ganda naala, Nehru Vihar, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, with TS machine. When he was focusing with TS machine, he saw that one girl was coming towards them waving her hands and when she came near them, he again focused and saw blood on her top. He immediately ran towards her and made her sit and asked her as to what had happened with her, pursuant whereto she told him that one boy namely Deepak Bhati who was living in her neighbourhood, had fired upon her. He tied his grey colour shirt on the wound of that girl to stop the bleeding. The said girl disclosed her name as 'Sahiba'.
19. PW 3 further deposed that thereafter he with the help of Satish, took Sahiba to Durga Hospital, Mukherjee Nagar, Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 14 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:15:54 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati from where, they were advised to take Sahiba to Trauma Centre and they accordingly hired a TSR and took Sahiba to Hindu Rao Hospital. He deposed that when they took Sahiba to Durga Hospital, Satish was driving the scooty and he took the shirt of Satish and wore the same, which also got blood stains from the blood of Sahiba.
20. He further deposed that police reached at Hindu Rao Hospital and he handed over blood stained shirt of Satish, which was worn by him, to the police. Police recorded his statement at Hindu Rao Hospital, which is Ex. PW3/B. He along with police officials went to the spot and had shown them the place of occurrence. He identified both the said shirts, on being produced by MHC(M)
21. In his cross examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW 3 deposed that he had not handed over any document to the police regarding his employment with Global Survey Company or to show that he was working near the spot on 21.07.2022. He denied the suggestion that the girl had not disclosed her name as 'Sahiba' or that she did not tell him that that one boy namely Deepak Bhati who was living in her neighbourhood, had fired upon her. He denied the suggestion that he was not working near the spot on 21.07.2022 or that he did not take Sahiba to Hindu Rao Hospital. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 15 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:02 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
22. PW 12 Satish Kashyap deposed that he was working as Assistant Surveyor at Global Survey Company, Bharat Nagar, Delhi and on 21.07.2022, he along with his associate namely Anil and Sr. Surveyor Sunny were doing the survey near ganda Nala, Nehru Vihar, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi with TS Machine. At about 05.45 pm, Anil saw one girl coming towards them and that she was bleeding. He further deposed that Anil ran towards her and also asked him to follow him. He took his scooty and with the help of Anil, they took that girl to Durga Hospital, Mukherjee Nagar on his scooty. They were asked to take her to trauma centre, pursuant whereto Anil took the girl to Hindu Rao Hospital in a TSR. The shirt of Anil got blood stained, so he gave his shirt to Anil. He also reached at Hindu Rao Hospital, where the said girl was got admitted. He informed the police and they along with the police went to the spot, where police recorded his statement and statement of Anil. He correctly identified his shirt as well as the blood stained grey colour shirt of Anil
23. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 12 deposed that he had never given any document regarding his employment with Global Survey Company. He had not told the police that Sunny was also working at the place where they were working. He volunteered that Sunny had Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 16 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:09 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati left with his equipments prior to seeing the girl by him. He did not remember whether the seat of his scooty got blood stains or not but volunteered that as they were sitting on the scooty, the blood might have got wiped with their clothes. He further deposed that police was not informed from Durga Hospital. No public persons were passing through from the spot as it is a jungle and secluded area. He did not remember whether police obtained his signature on any paper or not. In his presence, the girl was saying "bhai mujhe bacha lo". He was standing near his scooty at a distance of 20-25 meters from Anil when he spotted the girl. When he reached, the girl was sitting on the wall and she told that she had been coming from far distance and requested them to save her and to take her to hospital. He further deposed that during the course of transit of the victim from the place of incident to the hospital, she was conscious and they were consoling her that they would reach the hospital in time, and she was requesting them to save her life.
24. He denied the suggestion that that no blood was lifted from his scooty as the scooty was not used to shift the victim to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at Ganda Nala near Mukherjee Nagar and due to this reason, he had not given any document to the IO pertaining to his employment or his field work on that day.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 17 of 42 16:16:16 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
25. PW 3 Anil Kumar and PW 12 Satish Kashyap are independent public witness, who as a humanitarian gesture, finding the injured bleeding helped her and shifted her firstly to Durga Hospital and thereafter to Hindu Rao Hospital, in a TSR. Though they did not witness the assault, but they were present so near the place of incident that they immediately reached there to help her, and their testimony that later they came to know from injured Sahiba that it was her neighbour Deepak Bhati, who had fired upon her, is quite relevant as Res-Gestae.
26. The accused in his defence has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the injured in connivance with the police due to malice against him and in order to save the actual assailant. However, it is to be kept in mind that the presence of the injured witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted and the fact that she had received injuries during the course of incident, can also not be doubted and disbelieved. It needs to be kept in mind that the injured, who has sustained such grievous injuries, which had she not been fortunate enough, could have resulted in her death, would not save her actual assailants, only to falsely implicate another person.
Witness Testimony Analysis
27. The prosecution presented a compelling case through fourteen witnesses, creating an unassailable chain of Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 18 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:23 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati evidence:
Primary Witness - The Victim (PW-2 Sahiba) : Sahiba's testimony forms the cornerstone of the prosecution's case. Her account demonstrates remarkable consistency and credibility despite the trauma she endured. She testified that:
She had known the accused since 2016 as a neighbor. Their relationship ceased in 2018 when he married another woman.
Despite a formal settlement between their families in 2017 agreeing to maintain distance, the accused resumed contact approximately 3-4 months before the incident. The accused persistently harassed her telephonically, demanding she speak with him.
On the day of the incident, the accused called her around 1:00 PM, threatening to harm her siblings if she refused to meet him.
Under duress, she accompanied him on his motorcycle to an isolated area behind the BBM Bus Depot. The accused explicitly stated his intention to kill her before firing the weapon.
She positively identified the accused and the weapon used in the assault.
28. Independent Witnesses (PW-3 Anil Kumar & Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 19 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:30 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati PW-12 Satish Kashyap): These witnesses provided crucial corroborative evidence as independent observers who:
Discovered the victim in a severely injured state. Provided immediate assistance and medical aid. Transported her to medical facilities. Heard her identify the accused as her assailant (admissible under the doctrine of res gestae). Maintained consistent accounts throughout cross- examination.
29. Though the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, on being put a question to the effect that injured was on talking terms with him since the year 2016, and after he got married in 2018, she stopped talking to him, replied in negative, but during cross examination of PW 2, a suggestion was put to her on behalf of the accused that a settlement was arrived at between accused and injured in the presence of all their family members that henceforth they would not speak to each other and would stay away from each other, which was admitted to be correct by her. The said suggestion in itself denies the version of the accused that he and the injured were not on talking terms. The said settlement dated 20.01.2017 has been placed on record by Smt. Anita, wife of accused, herself as Mark B. Though the said document has not been proved as per Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 20 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:38 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati standard of proof required, but since the same has been placed on record in defence itself and has not been refuted by the prosecution, to arrive at a logical conclusion, the court can take judicial notice of the same. Vide the said settlement dated 20.01.2017, the families of both the accused and the injured had arrived at a settlement to the effect that accused Deepak would be made to understand not to have talking terms with victim.
30. It is also not in dispute that the accused Deepak Bhati entered into matrimony through court marriage with Smt. Anita in 2018, as deposed by DW 1 in her cross examination. As per the testimony of PW 2, after the accused Deepak got married , she stopped talking to him. During her cross examination, this aspect of her testimony has not been questioned and as such it remained uncontroverted. PW 2 further testified that even after the settlement was arrived at between their families, accused continued to harass her. Again no cross examination of the witness has been conducted on this part of her testimony. It is settled law that no cross examination on a particular aspect amounts to admission. As such, there was a 'motive' i.e. the accused who was earlier having proximity and relationship with injured, when she stopped talking to him, he got annoyed and frustrated.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 21 of 42 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:45 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
31. Further more, the accused has taken the plea of alibi, submitting that at the time of incident, he was not present at the place of occurrence and that he was present at his work place, and to substantiate his version, document Mark A has been placed on record by his wife DW 1 Smt. Anita, with the submission that said document Mark A is Daily Basic Attendance Report of accused issued by his employer company i.e. Sal Papers Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that as per document Mark A, on 21.07.2022 accused Deepak Bhati arrived at his place of work on 09.04.30 but there is no departure time.
32. In a crime, the most essential part of proving the guilt of the accused is to prove that the accused was the person who committed the crime, and the prosecution shall have to prove that the accused was present at the place where the crime took place and has thus committed the crime. If the accused could prove on record that he was 'elsewhere' from the place where the crime took place, he is able to prove his innocence.
33. Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act states that whoever wishes the Court to believe the existence of any fact has the burden to prove such fact. Therefore, it is the burden upon the accused to prove the existence of the fact that he was elsewhere from the crime spot. Accused has to prove the plea with no reasonable doubt. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 22 of 42 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:16:53 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
34. In the case in hand, the document Mark A has not been proved as per the standard of proof required. Further more, the said document is a computer generated document, purported to have been issued by Sal Papers Pvt. Ltd. (employer of the accused as claimed by his wife). DW 1 Smt. Anita, who placed the said document on record, in her cross examination, admitted it to be correct that document Mark A is a computer generated document, which was not generated by her, and that she cannot produce the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act in this regard. Further more, the said document neither bears any seal or signature of the company, who purportedly issued the same. The said document Mark A also does not disclose as to from where the said company is operating Except for the said document, no other document has been placed on record to show that accused Deepak Bhati was actually working in the said company.
Defense Evidence Analysis
35. The defense presented limited evidence through the accused's wife (DW-1 Smt. Anita), attempting to establish:
(a) Prior Settlement Agreement: Documentary evidence of a 2017 family settlement requiring both parties to maintain distance, which ironically supported the prosecution's case by Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 23 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:00 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati establishing their prior relationship and the accused's knowledge of the victim's desire to avoid contact.
(b) Alibi Evidence: A computer-generated attendance report purportedly showing the accused's presence at work on the day of the incident.
36. Failure of Alibi Defense :- The alibi defense has failed for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate Documentation :- The attendance record lacked proper authentication under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Absence of Verification :- No company seal, signature, or supporting documentation.
3. Incomplete Information :- The record showed arrival time (09:04:30) but no departure time, failing to account for the accused's whereabouts during the incident.
4. Lack of Corroboration :- No additional employment documentation or witness testimony.
37. Implausibility of Alternative Theory :- The defense's suggestion that the victim was injured during an illegal arms transaction lacks credibility because:
1. No Supporting Evidence :- No witness testimony or material evidence supports this theory.
2. Victim's Immediate Identification :- The victim Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 24 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:07 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati immediately named the accused to her rescuers.
3. Motive Establishment :- The prosecution clearly established the accused's motive through harassment evidence.
4. Medical Evidence Consistency :- The injury pattern supports deliberate targeting rather than accidental discharge.
38. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that accused has failed to prove on record that on the fateful day and time, he was present at his work place. Now it is for the prosecution to establish that he was present at the place of occurrence and to substantiate his presence, the prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW 2 Sahiba, who categorically deposed that on 21.07.22, accused took her to a lonely area behind BBM Bus Depot, ganda Naala Road, Mukherjee Nagar,Delhi, where he shot her with a country made pistol. During her cross examination, suggestion put to her that accused was not present at the spot, has been denied specifically by her.
39. The defence raised on behalf of the accused to the effect that on the fateful day, injured had accompanied her brother for supply of illegal weapon and when the weapon was being checked, the trigger was pulled inadvertently, due to which she sustained injury, does not hold much water, in the Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 25 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:18 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati absence of any substantial evidence / proof in this regard.
MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE.
40. As per the three star witnesses examined by the prosecution, after the injured was shot by accused, she was seen by Anil Kumar and his associate Satish, who took her firstly to Durga Hospital and then to Hindu Rao Hospital, where she was medically examined by PW 6 Dr. Anish Kumar Choudhary vide MLC No. 4840 Ex. PW 6/A. The said MLC was prepared on 21.07.2022 at 6.38 PM, and in the relevant column it is mentioned that the injured was brought to the hospital by Anil (public person), with alleged history of fire arm injury at around 5.40 PM as told by patient and person who brought the patient. On her medical examination, cone contusion wound approx 2 ½ cm x 2 cm over right side of upper chest and one laceration approx 2 cm 1 cm over left side of upper chest were found. The patient was declared unfit for statement at 8.45 pm on 21.07.2022.
41. On 22.07.2025, an application was moved by SI Rameshwar Dayal before the doctor concerned seeking permission to record the statement of injured, but the doctor concerned i.e. Dr. Rohit examined in the court as PW 7 vide his endorsement Ex. PW 7/B, declared the patient unfit for statement on 22.07.2025 at 4.15 PM. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 26 of 42 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:26 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
42. Ultimately the patient was discharged from hospital on 01.08.2022 vide Discharge Slip Ex. PW 7/A, which gives the detail of all the medical aid provided to her including "ICD placement done on 21.07.2022, the patient was then shifted to ICU for further monitoring & observation on 21.07.2022 and shifted back to ward on 27.07.2022. Further more, the nature of injury sustained by the injured has been opined to be Dangerous by PW 7 Dr. Rohit Kumar, vide slip dated 01.08.2022.
Forensic Reports
43. The conclusion part of FSL report dated 07.02.2023 Ex. PW 11/A reads as "DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '11' is matching with the DNA profiles generated from the sources of exhibits '1', '2', '4', '5,' '9', '10'."
In the said report, the aforesaid exhibits are as under
(a). Exhibit 1 : Blood on gauze piece said to be from the scene of crime.
(b). Exhibit 2 : Concrete material kept in polythene said to be blood stained earth from the scene of crime.
(c) Exhibit 4 : One face mask (cloth) having brown stains said to be blood stained face mask from the Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 27 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:35 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati scene of crime.
(d) Exhibit 5 : One top having darker stains said to be upper cloth of injured Sahiba.
(e) Exhibit 9 : One shirt having dark brown stains said to be shirt used by the injured to stop bleeding.
(f) Exhibit 10 : One shirt having brown stains said to be worn by the complainant Anil.
(g) Exhibit '11' is blood gauze said to be of injured Sahiba.
44. From the said report, it is clear that blood stains present on upper clothes of injured, shirt of Anil which was used by injured to stop bleeding, mask of injured, shirt of Satish, which was later worn by complainant Anil, earth control, pertain to the blood of injured Sahiba.
45. The second FSL report dated 16.01.2024 Ex. A-1 issued by Ballistics Division concludes that the cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' (fired empty cartridge) has been fired through the country made pistol .315" bore marked as exhibit 'F1'. It also concludes that the individual characteristics of striations present on evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' and on test fired bullet marked 'TB1' to 'TB3', on examination and comparison under Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC, were found identical, and hence it is evidence that bullet Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 28 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:45 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati marked exhibit 'EB1' has been discharged through the country made pistol .315" bore marked exhibit 'F1'. It further clarifies that exhibits 'F1' / EC1 & EB1 (bullet mark) are firearm / ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959.
46. In view of the same, it is clear that the bullet shot which caused injuries to the injured Sahiba, was shot from country made pistol which was sent to FSL and as per the prosecution case, the same was recovered from the house of accused at his instance.
Recovery of Weapon.
47. Now the question arises if the prosecution has been able to prove that the said country made pistol was recovered from the house of accused at his instance. To substantiate this aspect, prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW 14 IO SI Rajeshwar Dayal and PW 5 HC Vinod, who corroborated each other and specifically deposed that the accused took them to his house and got recovered the said country made pistol from inside the bed placed in his house, and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/K. Thereafter during their testimony in the court, both the said witnesses as well as the injured PW 2 Sahiba correctly identified the said country made pistol. PW 2 specifically deposed that it was the same country made pistol, which was used by the accused for firing Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 29 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:17:52 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati upon her. The suggestion put to PW 2 to the effect that she had seen the pistol Ex. P-4 for the first time during her testimony in the court was specifically denied by her. Rather, she went ahead and voluntarily deposed that she had seen the same for the first time on the date of incident when the accused had used it to shoot her.
48. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that no public witnesses was joined in the investigation by the IO when the alleged recovery was made or that no videography or photography of the proceedings was made or that the local police was not informed prior to recovery of country made pistol.
49. PW 14 IO SI Rameshwar Dayal has stated in his cross examination that he asked some of the residents in the neighbourhood to join the investigation but none agreed. For want of public / independent witnesses, prosecution case cannot be rejected. I place reliance upon Ambika Prasad Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 2000 (2) SCC 646, wherein it was observed that "It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. The attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes is indifferent. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is therefore not correct to reject the prosecution version Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 30 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:03 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor is it proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.
50. The absence of public witnesses during the recovery of a weapon does not automatically invalidate the recovery or the testimony of police witnesses. While ideally, independent public witnesses should be present, their non-joining isn't fatal to the prosecution's case, especially if the police witnesses' testimony is credible and inspires confidence. Courts often scrutinize the evidence of police witnesses closely, but their testimony isn't automatically rejected simply because they are police officers. If the testimony of police officers can be corroborated by other evidence or circumstances, it strengthens the prosecution's case.
51. Further more, the absence of local police during the recovery of a weapon does not automatically invalidate a prosecution case if there are credible eyewitnesses.
52. In the present case, since the testimony of police officers is duly corroborated by the material witness PW 2, the same cannot be disregarded.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:11 +0530 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 31 of 42 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
53. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution, with the help of the material witnesses and the corroboratory evidence of the police officials, witnesses from FSL and the doctor concerned, is able to prove its case against the accused that it was he, who fired at injured Sahiba and caused her dangerous injuries, as detailed in the prosecution case, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
OFFENCE U/S 307 IPC
54. The accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. For ready reference, Section 307 IPC is being reproduced herein below :
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
55. Intention, knowledge and motive are the most important aspects under criminal law in determination of the consequences of various acts. Evidently, from the bare reading of Section 307 IPC, these aspects are vital in the instant case too. As such, a brief legal position concerning these words and how these should be read and interpreted is given herein Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 32 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:18 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati below:-
Intention - "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do that act. An act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it used as a synonym for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependent on proof of intention, the court must have proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer intention from conduct, and one matter that has to be taken into account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime. Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be proved even in regard to offences under the Special Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:25 +0530 FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 33 of 42 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati Knowledge - Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of the fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden the question of knowledge becomes immaterial.
Motive - Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quite different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not a sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
Motive, though not a sine qua non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a factor which may be considered in determining the guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration along with the evidence of prior insanity. But if the Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 34 of 42 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:34 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.
The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of the actor. But in cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
56. In view of the legal proposition detailed above, the facts of the present case are required to be tested in order to ascertain the culpability of accused Deepak Bhati for the offence u/s 307 IPC, with which he is charged.
57. From the unrebutted testimony of PW 2 / injured Sahiba, it is clear that the accused, in a pre-planned manner telephonically called her and thereafter took her to a lonely place, where he shot her. PW 2 specifically deposed that on Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 35 of 42 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:43 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati being asked by her from accused as to why he had brought her there at a lonely place, he replied that he had brought her there to kill and fired. There is no rebuttal to this part of her testimony. As such, there is no doubt that the accused had an intention and full knowledge of his act while firing upon the victim that his that act could cause her death. Accused Deepak Bhati is a man of age, and presumably possesses the prudence, every man of his age is expected to have. In every prudent man intrinsic is the knowledge, that if a person is shot by a gun, it could result in his / her death. The motive of the accused while causing such injuries / gun shot is also well established as discussed above.
58. In order to prove offence under Section 307 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of accused would have amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder.
59. Motive, knowledge and intention coupled with the actual assault by the accused upon the injured on vital part of her body i.e. chest by a gun shot, make it very clear that the accused in all his fury and rage, had every intention to kill the her and made an attempt to do so. All the ingredients of the Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 36 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:18:52 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati offence, in my opinion, are proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, against the accused, by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused Deepak Bhati is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC.
SECTION 25/27 ARMS ACT
60. The accused has also been charged for the offences u/s 25/27 Arms Act. It may be noted in this regard that relevant part of section 3(1) of Arms Act states that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules mad there under.
61. The first pre-condition for an offence under Section 25(1) (a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control. In any disputed question of possession, specific facts admitted or proved alone will establish the existence of the de facto relation of control or the dominion of the person over it necessary to determine whether that person Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 37 of 42 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:19:08 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati was or not in possession of the thing in question. If the possession includes the constructive possession of the firearm in question then even though he had parted with physical possession on the date when it was recovered, he will nonetheless be deemed to be in possession of that firearm.
62. In the case in hand, the recovery of country made pistol at the instance of the accused from his house has been established by the prosecution from the testimony of police witnesses. PW 2 has specifically deposed that it was the same pistol, which was used by the accused for firing upon her. The country made pistol, its sketch as well as seizure memo have been duly proved.
63. Further as per result of FSL Ex. A-1, such weapon is a firmarm as defined in arms Act, and that the same was in working condition and the test fire was conducted successfully by using three 8 mm / .315 cartridges received in laboratory for test firing. As such, it is opined that Ex. F1 i.e. pistol in question is ammunition defined as in Arms Act.
64. From a combined reading of evidence of PW2 with with testimony of police officials, it is clear that article found in possession of accused proved to be a firearm.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 38 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:19:16 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
65. Ms. Sandhya Swamy, the then Addl. DCP-1, (NW), Delhi granted the requisite sanction under section 39 of Arms Act proved as Ex. A-2. The same has has been accepted by the accused. Thus, the requirement of prosecution under section 39 Arms Act is also satisfied relating to the prosecution of offence u/s 3 of such Act.
66. Under these facts and circumstances, particularly having regard to the evidence of PW2 read with testimony of police officials and FSL result proved on record, it is held that accused was in possession of a firearm as well as ammunition in it. Further, no evidence is led by the defence at all to show that he had any license regarding such firm arm and such ammunition as mandatory under section 3 of Arms Act.
67. Essential Elements: Section 307 IPC requires proof that the accused performed an act with such intention or knowledge that if death had resulted, the act would constitute murder. Intention and Knowledge: The prosecution established both elements through:
1. Pre-meditation Evidence: The accused's telephonic threats and deliberate luring of the victim to an isolated location.
2. Explicit Statement of Intent: The victim's unrebutted testimony that the accused stated his intention to kill her. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 39 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:19:24 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati
3. Choice of Weapon: Use of a firearm targeting vital organs demonstrates lethal intent.
4. Target Selection: Shooting at the chest area, known to contain vital organs.
68. Motive Establishment: The court recognized a clear pattern of harassment stemming from:
Prior relationship between the parties The accused's frustration over the victim's refusal to resume contact Persistent threatening behavior despite family intervention Escalation to violence when other methods failed
69. Medical Corroboration: The dangerous nature of injuries, requiring intensive medical intervention and resulting in life-threatening conditions, supports the conclusion that the accused's actions could reasonably have caused death. As such, he is held guilty of the offence under section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act.
70. The next question is whether accused used such country made pistol loaded with live cartridges and therefore, committed offence u/s 27 of Arms Act?"
71. It may also be noted that section 27(1) of the Arms Act mandates that whoever, inter alia, uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 40 of 42 Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:19:35 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further it may also be noted that section 5(1) of Arms Act states that no person shall use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
72. As also noted above, it is deposed by PW2 that accused aimed the firearm in question at her and fired at her. As such, there is categorical evidence of PW2 that such fire arm was used by the accused in committing such crime in question. It may further be noted that it is not the case of accused nor any evidence is placed on record that such accused had a license for such use as required under section 5 of Arms Act. Accordingly, accused is held guilty of the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act.
73. Accordingly, accused Deepak Bhati is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC for attempting to murder (injured Sahiba) and for the offence punishable u/s Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 41 of 42 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.08.20 16:19:50 +0530 SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak Bhati 25/27 Arms Act for possessing and using fire arm in contravention of section 3 and 5 of Arms Act.
Nisha Digitally signed
by Nisha Sahay
Announced in the open court Sahay Saxena
Date: 2025.08.20
today i.e. 18.08.2025. Saxena 16:20:04 +0530
(NISHA SAHAY SAXENA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 42 of 42