[ad_1]
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 BhatiCHARGE
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 Bhatiapplied 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 Bhatiestablishing 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 Bhatiimmediately 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 Bhatiscene 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 +0530FIR No. 681/2022 : PS Mukherjee Nagar Page 33 of 42
SC No. 897/2022 State Vs. Deepak BhatiKnowledge – 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 byFIR 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 Bhatiactual 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 SahayFIR 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
[ad_2]
Source link