Delhi District Court
State vs Farman@Deva on 6 August, 2025
DLNE01-000101-2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NORTH-EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. : 44402/2015
State Vs : FARMAN @ DEVA
FIR No. : 292/2014
U/s : Khajuri Khas
PS : 395/307/396/325/302/34 IPC.
CNR No. : DLNE01-000101-2014
Date of Institution : 11.11.2014
Date of Judgment reserved on : 05.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.08.2025
Brief details of the case
A)Offence complained of : 396/397/307/302/120B/34
and section 25/27/54/59
Arms Act
B)Name of the accused : Farman @ Deva
S/o Moinuddin
R/o near Eidgah, Alvi
Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad,
UP.
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 1/27
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:43:51
+0530
C) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
D) Final order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
The case of prosecution
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2014, on receipt of DD
No. 42A regarding an incident of firing upon one person, SI Manoj Kumar
alongwith Ct. Nareshveer and Ct. Somveer reached at Gali no.2 Sadatpur
Extension. However, on reaching at the spot, it was found that injured have already
been removed to GTB Hospital. Accordingly, after leaving Ct. Somveer at the spot
in order to safeguard and preserve the scene of crime, SI Manoj Kumar alongwith
Ct. Nareshveer, also proceeded to the hospital and collected the MLCs of the
injured persons namely Yogesh Kumar, Ramesh Arya and Smt. Kamna. On the
MLC of the injured Yogesh Kumar, the nature of injuries were described as ‘gun
shot/under observation’, on the MLC of injured Ramesh Arya the injuries were
described as ‘sharp/under observation’ and on the MLC of Smt. Kamla the injuries
were described as ‘firearms injury and patient brought dead’. Further since, injured
Ramesh Arya was opined by the doctors concerned to be in fit state of mind for
giving his statement, SI Manoj recorded the statement of Ramesh Arya, wherein,
he has stated the following facts:
“ब्यान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर परिवार सहित रहता हूँ। तथा मैन
करावल नगर रोड पर Arya Filter House के नाम से सेनेटरी सांप
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 2/27 Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:01
+0530
चलाता हूँ। मेरी दुकान पर योगेश s/o किरोरीमल शर्मा Rto D-3/38
दयालपुर दिल्ली बतौर हेल्पर पिछले एक साल से नौकरी करता है। आज
शाम समय करीब 7:45 P.M. पर मैनें अपनी उपरोक्त दुकान बंद की
तथा दिन की बिक्री का cash लगभग 25000/- रू अपने काले रंग के
हैंड बैग में रखकर अपने घर की तरफ चल दिया। जो मेरे उपरोक्त बैग में
कु छ कागजात; ATM card, credit card भी थे। जो मैं अपनी
दुकान के बराबार वाली गली नं. 2 सादतपुर में लगभग दस कदम ही
चला होगा किं अचानक वहा खडे चार लडको ने मुझे घेरकर मेरे साथ
मार-पिटाई शुरू कर दी। जो मैने अपना उपरोक्त काला बैंग बाये हाथ में
पकड़ा हुआ था जो दो लड़को ने मेरा बैंग छिनने की कोशिश की जो मैने
नहीं छोड़ा जो इस पर उपरोक्त लडको में से एक ने चाकू अपनी जेब से
निकाल कर मेरे बाये हाथ पर चाकू से वार किया तथा मेरे बैंग लूट लिया
तथा मेरे मुँह पर भी चाकू से वार किया जो मैंने शोर मचाया तो मेरी
दुकान पर काम दुकान पर काम करने वाला योगेश मेरी मदद के लिए
आया और उसने उन चारों लड़को में से एक को पकड़ लिया। जो इसी
दौरान उपरोक्त चारों लड़को में से दो लड़को ने अपने कपड़ो में छिपा
कट्टा वं पिस्टल निकाल कर फायर करना शुरू कर दिया। जो गोली
योगेश के बायें पैर मे घुटने के उपर लगी। तथा दाहिने पैर में घुटने के
निचे लगीं जो उपरोक्त लड़के गोलियां चलाते हुए भागे तथा इनमें से दो
लड़के पास मे ही खड़ी एक m/cycle को स्टार्ट करके भाग गये तथा
दो पैदल भाग गये। जो इन लड़को द्वारा गोली चलाने पर एक औरत जो
एक आदमी के साथ स्कू टी पर जा रही थीं। उसके भी बायें कं धे पर गोली
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGHState Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 3/27
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:06
+0530
लग गयीं। जो उस औरत के चिल्लाने पर स्कु टी चलाने वाले आदमी नें
स्कू टी रोक दीं। जो उस औरत के भी खून निकल रहा था। जो उपरोक्त
चारों लड़के मेरा बैग लूटकर तथा हमको चोट पहुंचाकर व मेरे नौकर
योगेश व उपरोक्त औरत को गोली मारकर भाग गयें। मैं उपरोक्त
चारो लड़कों को सामने आने पर पहचान सकता हूं। उन चारो लड़कों के
खिलाफ कानूनी कार्यवाही की जायें। आपने मेरे बताएनुसार लिखा, पढ
लिया, सुन लिया ठीक है।”
2. After recording the statement of injured Ramesh Arya, SI Manoj Kumar
alongwith Ct. Nareshveer again proceeded to the spot in question where the crime
team had already conducted the instruction of the spot. After their arrival at the
spot, SI Manoj Kumar also found that there were 3 empty cartridges with
engraving 7.65 KF, one live cartridge with engraving 7.65 KF and one misfired
live cartridge with engravings BNNKF lying on the spot. Further he also noticed
that the blood was also lying at the spot i.e. at main Karawal Nagar Road in front
of Arya Filter House. A scooty make Activa bearing no. DL-4SCF-4488 was also
found stationed at the spot.
3. Accordingly, on the basis of the statement of injured Ramesh Arya and the
MLCs of other injured, prima facie offences u/s 394/397/302/34 IPC and section
25/27 Arms Act were found to be committed. Hence, after preparing a rukka on the
basis of the statement of injured Ramesh Arya, SI Manoj Kumar got the present
case FIR registered through Ct. Nareshveer.
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:12
+0530
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 4/27
4. After the registration of the case FIR, further investigation of the case was
assigned to Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh. On the assignment of the case,
Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh also reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Nareshveer
and met with the first IO SI Manoj Kumar who handed over the MLCs of all the
injured and other documents to the IO. SI Manoj Kumar also handed over a sealed
pullanda relating to the seizure of clothes of injured Yogesh to the IO.
5. During the course investigation, IO Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh preared a
site plan of the spot at the instance of complainant Ramesh Arya. Further he also
collected and seized the empty cartridges, live cartridge and misfired cartridge and
sealed the same with his seal. The scooty found stationed at the spot was also
seized and taken into custody. IO also got conducted the postmortem on the dead
body of the deceased Kamna and also collected and seized the recovered bullets
from the body of the injured as well as their clothes collected by the hospital
authorities. The blood samples of injured Ramesh Arya and Yogesh Kumar were
also collected for the purpose of matching/comparision with the seized material.
6. Thereafter, on 27.03.2014, on receipt of information regarding registration of
DD No. 21B at PS Khajuri Khas by SI Virender Singh, Crime Branch, in respect of
apprehension and disclosure statement/involvement of accused Arif, Yusuf, Farman
@ Deva, Maqsood Ahmad @ Sonu, Shahzad, Farman and Rahees, relating to the
commission of the incident of the present case FIR, IO Inspector Arvind Pratap
Singh also reached at Crime Barnch Office Dariyaganj, alongwith his other staff
and came to know about the recovery of fire arms from the possession of accused
Yusuf and as well as one motorcycle at the instance of accused Farman and
Shahzad which were allegedly used during the commission of the incident in
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 5/27 BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:18
+0530
question. Thereafter, on 28.03.2014, IO moved an application for issuance of
production warrants of the abovesaid accused persons before the Court and after
their appearance in the Court, obtained the police remand of accused Shahzad,
Farmaan and Rahees who during the course of their police remand got recovered
their mobile phones which were used by them during the commission of the
incident in question in order to keep in contact with each other. On 02.04.2014, IO
also obtained the police remand of accused Arif, Yusuf, Maqsood Ahmad and
Farhan @ Deva and during their police remand, the abovesaid accused also got
recovered their mobile phones which were also allegedly used by them for the
same purpose. The accused Maqsood Ahmad @ Sonu also got recovered one knife
which was allegedly used during the incident for causing injuries to injured
Ramesh Arya. Further, all the accused persons also made their disclosure
statements confessing to the commission of alleged offences. The accused persons
also pointed out the place of incident during their police remand and pointing out
memos were also prepared by the IO at their instances.
7. During the course of investigation, the IO also moved an application for the
judicial TIP of the accused persons. However, accused Arif, Yusuf, Farman @
Deva and Maqsood Ahmad refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Later on,
accused Maqsood Ahmad @ Sonu and Farman S/o Gufran were found to be
juvenile during the course of investigation and accordingly they were forwarded to
juvenile justice board for further necessary action against them as per law. IO also
collected the postmortem report of the deceased Smt. Kamna. All the exhibits
seized during the course of investigation were also duly sent to FSL for obtaining
expert opinion/report. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, a chargesheet for
the commission of all the alleged offences was filed against accused Arif, Yusuf,
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 6/27 SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:23
+0530
Farman, Shahzad, Rahees before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court
on 25.06.2014 u/s 396/397/307/302/120B/34 and section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
8. It is relevant to note here that after the filing of the chargesheet, since,
accused Yusuf and Arif were also found to be already declared as minor in case
FIR No. 155/13 PS Kamla Market, both accused Yusuf and Arif were also
forwarded to juvenile justice board for further necessary action as per law.
9. Thereafter, on compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, 1973, the case was
committed by the Court of Ld. MM before this court on 27.10.2014.
10. After the committal of the case to this Court, arguments on the point of
charge were heard by the then Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Thereafter, vide order
dated 20.12.2016, both accused Rahees and Shahzad were discharged from the
present case. However, a formal charge for the commission of offences u/s
395/307/325/396/302/34 IPC was framed against accused Farman @ Deva for the
purpose of trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. During prosecution evidence, in order to discharge its burden and prove its
case against the accused, the prosecution has examined total 22 witnesses.
12. Injured Sh. Ramesh Arya and Yogesh Kumar are PW2 and PW3
respectively.
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 7/27 2025.08.06
15:44:29
+0530
13. PW4 Sh. Gopal, is husband of deceased Smt. Kamna.
14. PW5 Sh. Lalit Kumar Girdhar is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no.
DL-4SCF-4488 i.e. the vehicle which was being driven by PW4 on the day of
incident.
15. PW6 is Sh. Akhilesh Jain who had informed the police regarding the
incident in question on 100 number.
16. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW1 ASI Pradeep Kumar, PW7 HC Maan
Singh, PW8 SI Manoj Kumar, PW10 Ct. Somveer, PW11 HC Shiv Dutt, PW12 Ct.
Ganga Ram, PW13 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW14 SI Jagbir Singh, PW15
Inspector ES Yadav, PW17 W/HC Deepa, PW18 ASI Charan Singh, PW19 HC
Rakesh, PW20 HC Ajit Singh and PW22 Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh, are all the
police officials. Where PW8 SI Manoj Kumar and PW22 Inspector Arvind Pratap
Singh are the 1st and 2nd IO of the case respectively, the other witnesses are the
police officials who had joined the investigation of the case with the IOs during the
course of the investigation. All the police witnesses have simply deposed about the
proceedings conducted during the course of investigation.
17. PW9 Inspector Virender Singh has deposed regarding the apprehension of all
the accused persons on 26.03.2014 from Delhi-UP Border, Khajuri Pusta Road on
the basis of a secret information after conducting a raid with the raiding team.
Though PW9 deposed regarding the recovery of a country-made pistol from the
possession of accused Yusuf, one USA made pistol from the possession of Arif,
however, it was deposed by PW9 that nothing was recovered from the possession
of present accused Farman @ Deva except the key of the car in which all of them
Digitally
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 8/27
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:34
+0530
were traveling and had reached at the place from where they were ultimately
apprehended by the raiding team.
18. PW16 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer and PW21 Sh. Sanjay Singh, Asst.
Manager, Regulatory, Aircel have simply deposed that during the course of
investigation on the request of the IO, they have provided the relevant record
relating to mobile phone numbers 9540753012, 9718663918, 9891763086,
8750375136 and 8285376302 in the form of CAF/CDR/CIF and certificate u/s 65B
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cover letter and cell ID chart etc. The relevant
record is already Ex. PW16/A to Ex. PW16/M and Ex. PW21/A to Ex. PW21/E.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.PC
19. On the completion of prosecution evidence, an examination of accused
under Section 313 Cr.PC was also conducted on 05.05.2025. During his
examination, the accused denied all the allegations leveled against him and
claimed his innocence stating that he has been falsely implicated in the present
case. No evidence was, however, led by the accused in his defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/ SUBMISSIONS
20. I have already heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defense
counsel during the course of final arguments at length and have also duly gone
through the entire case file and material available on record.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 9/27 SINGH
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:39
+0530
21. In the present case the accused is being tried for the commission of offences
u/s 395/307/325/396/302/34 IPC. Thus in order to prove its case against the
accused, the prosecution is required to prove the commission of the abovesaid
offences by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
22. Now the court shall proceed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in
order to find out whether the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden to
prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts or not?
23. It is relevant to note here that during their examination in the Court, PW2
and PW3 who are the injured/victim as well as the main eye witnesses of the
incident have deposed as follows:
(i) Testimony of PW2 Sh. Ramesh
(a) Examination in chief-:
Dated 28.07.2017
“I have been residing at the aforesaid address for about last
fifteen years. I am running a shop with name of Arya Filter
House at Main Karawal Nagar Road. One Yogesh is working at
my shop as helper. He has been working with me since last
about five years. 23.03.2014, at about 7.45 pm, I collected my
cash of approximately about Rs. 25000/- from my shop and
thereafter I shut my shop. I had kept the aforesaid amount in
black colour bag and started going to my house on foot. At that BALWINDER
SINGHState Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 10/27BALWINDER
Digitally signed by
SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:44:45 +0530
time, I was also having ATM card, Credit Cards and some other
documents in the said bag. I hardly took about 15-20 steps, four
boys came there and surrounded me. They started beating me. I
was carrying the aforesaid bag containing the
aforesaid documents and bag in my left hand. Two of those four
boys started snatching my bag, but I did not leave the same. One
of those boys gave knife blow on my left hand and on my face.
They forcibly snatched my bag. I raised alarm. On hearing my
cry, said Yogesh came at the spot to help me. Yogesh came at the
spot for my help. Many persons had collected there. In the
crowd, I saw that Yogesh was having bullet injuries in his leg.
Someone called at 100 number. PCR officials came there and I
was taken to GTB Hospital. In the hospital, the police met me
and my statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.
PW2/A which bears my signature at point A. After discharge
from the hospital, I came back to my house. In the morning, the
police came at the spot and I was also called there and they
made inquiry from me regarding place of occurrence. I had
shown the place of occurrence to the police. Thereafter the
police came to me but I do not remember the exact date,
however, they came after about 15 days and they made inquiry
from me about the incident and my statement was recorded by
the police to that effect. On the next day of the incident l.e
24.04.14 the police came to my house and I handed over
bloodstained jersey which I was wearing at the time of
incident,to the police and it was sealed by the police in a parcel
BALWINDER
SINGH
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 11/27 Digitally signed by
BALWINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:44:50 +0530
and the parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.
PW2/B and it bears my signature at point A. cannot identify any
person from those boys who robbed and assaulted me as I had
not seen them properly due to darkness. Except this, I do not
know anything else.”
(b) Cross examination of PW2 by Ld. APP for the State-:
Dated 22.09.2017
“Today I do not remember as to whether Yogesh
had overpowered one person who snatched the bag from me. I
also do not remember that on this, two boys/assailants had taken
out pistols and started firing. I also do not remember that Yogesh
received one bullet injury on his left leg (upper portion of knee)
and also received bullet injury on his right leg (lower portion of
knee). At this stage, portion from A to A of statement Ex.
PW2/A is read over and explained to the witness but witness
states that he does not know the above said facts. A It is correct
that after committing robbery upon me, all the persons who
robbed me, ran away from there and out of them, two persons
ran away on the motorcycle which was parked nearby the spot at
that time. It is correct that when the above persons were firing,
one bullet had hit to one lady who was sitting on the pillion seat
of the scooty and was crossing from the spot. Later on, I had
come to know that after receiving the bullet injury, the said lady
shouted, on this, the person who was driving the scooty stopped
Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 12/27 SINGH
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
Date:
2025.08.06
15:44:57
+0530
the same. It is further correct that blood was oozing from the
person of the said lady. It is correct that 06.05.2014 the police
official came to my shop and they inspected the spot at my
instance and took measurements. My statement was also
recorded by the IO in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that on
27.05.14 I along with Yogesh Sharma had come to KKD Court
or that I had identified accused Farman @ Deva present in court
along with his other three associates namely Maksood @ Sonu,
Arif and Yusuf( whose names were revealed as above at that
time) when they were being produced before the court No. 66 or
that I so stated in my supplementary statement dated 27.05.14
mark A, confronted with statement portion A to A, where it is so
recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my
supplementary statement mark A that accused Farman @ Deva
had snatched my hand bag of black colour when I resisted,
Maksood @ Sonu attacked upon me with a knife and caused
injury upon my left hand and on my face. Confronted with
statement Mark A, from portion B to B, where it is so
recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to the police
in my statement Mark A that accused Farman @Deva
was overpowered by my employee namely Yogesh Sharma or
that when other two accused persons namely Arif and Yusuf
fired shots upon Yogesh Sharma, accused Farman @ Deva
rescued himself from the grip of Yogesh Sharma. Confronted
with statement Mark A, from portion C to C where it is so
recorded. It is further wrong to suggest that on the same day BALWINDER
SINGHState Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 13/27 Digitally signed
by BALWINDER
SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:45:02 +0530
one another person was also brought by the police for producing
the same in the court and I had identified the said person also
whose name was revealed as Rahis and told the 10 that the said
Rahis used to visit my shop for purchasing articles of
submersible boaring. Confronted with statement mark A, from
portion D to D where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that
accused Farman @ Deva who is present in court today is the
same person who snatched my ba containing cash amount of
Rs.25,000/- approximately. It is further wrong to suggest that I
am intentionally not identifying the accused Farman@ Deva as I
have been won over by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I
am deposing falsely. I can identify my clothes i.e jersey if shown
to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one yellow color
envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL DR.RS, Delhi. After
breaking open the seal, the envelope is opened and from it one
jersy is taken out and shown to the witness to which witness has
correctly identified to be the same which was handed over by
him to the police. The jersy is Ex. P1. ”
(c) Cross examination of PW2 by Ld. Defense Counsel-:
Dated 03.02.2018
“Nil. Opportunity given.”
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:45:07
+0530
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 14/27
(ii) Testimony of PW3 Sh. Yogesh
(a) Examination in chief-:
Dated 03.02.2018
“I have been working as helper in the shop Arya Filter House
situated at B-98, Sadatpur, Main Road, Karawal Nagar, Delhi
for the last 4-5 years. Mr. Ramesh Arya is my employer. On
23.03.2014, we had closed our shop. I was going towards my
home. At about 7.45 PM, I heard the noise of cry of my
employer Sh. Ramesh Arya, he was shouting ” Mujhe kyon
maar rahe ho, mujhe kyon maar rahe ho.” I rushed to Sh.
Ramesh Arya. There was dark at the spot. I caught hold one of
the assailant from behind. Suddenly one bullet hit my both the
legs due to which I sustained injury. Some public persons
removed me to a nearby Nursing Home i.e. Triveni Nursing
Home. I was given first-aid there. Thereafter, I was shifted to
GTB Hospital where treatment was given to me. My wearing
pants was also taken by the doctor in the hospital. Later on, I
came to know that one lady had also sustained bullet injury,
while she was passing through the spot on the scooty which was
being driven by her husband, due to which she died. Police
officials met me in GTB Hospital. I was inquired by the police
officials but my statement was not recorded. I told the police
officials that I had not seen the faces of assailants as I am not Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 15/27 2025.08.06
15:45:16
+0530
aware whether any there was dark at the spot. assailant is
present in the Court today as I had not seen the faces of the
assailants at the time of incident. I do not know anything else
about this case. ”
(b) Cross examination of PW3 by Ld. APP for the State- :
Dated 03.02.2018
“It is correct that on the day of incident, Sh. Ramesh Arya had
kept the cash amount in a black color handbag before closing
the shop and at the time of incident, he was carrying the said
bag with him. I had not stated to the police officials that after
closing the shop I was waiting for some transportation to reach
to my house. (Volunteered. My house is situated just near to
my work place and I used to go to my house on foot).
(Confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A from point A to A
where it is so recorded). It is correct that after hearing the noise
of crying I immediately rushed to Gali No.2, Sadatpur Extn.,
and saw that four persons were giving beatings to Sh. Ramesh
Arya and they were also trying to snatch his black color
handbag from him. I had not stated to the police in my
statement Ex. PW3/A that out of four assailants, one assailant
had taken a knife from his pocket and gave its blow on the left
hand and face of Sh. Ramesh Arya and they had also robbed
his black-color handbag. (Confronted with statement Ex.
PW3/A from point B to B where it is so recorded). It correct Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGHState Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 16/27 SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:45:32
+0530
that I had overpowered one of the assailant and he tried to flee
away but I had not allowed him to run away from there. But I
had not raised any alarm as bachao”. (Confronted with
statement Ex. PW3/A from point C to C where it is so
recorded). It is correct that out of remaining three assailants,
two assailants started firing by pistol and katta (country made
pistol) but I had not told to the police that aforesaid two
assailants took out the said weapon from their wearing clothes.
(Confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A from point D to D
where it is so recorded). It is correct that one of the assailant
opened fire upon me as a result of which I sustained bullet
injuries on my both the legs and the assailant who was
overpowered by me, had managed to free from my clutches. It
is correct that one of the assailant had also opened fire upon
the public person who had tried to help us. I had not stated in
my statement to the police that I had also heard cry of a lady
when accused persons opened fire upon public persons.
(Confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A from point E to E
where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my statement Ex.
PW3/A to the police that two assailants run away from the spot
on a black-color motorcycle inside the gali along with black-
color handbag of Sh. Ramesh Arya while remaining two
assailants who were carrying weapons in their hands, run away
from spot towards a gali. (Confronted with statement Ex.
PW3/A from point F to F where it is so recorded). It is correct
that I had told the description of assailants to the police, Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 17/27 15:45:38
+0530
however, I had not seen the faces of any of the accused
persons. I had not stated in my statement Ex. PW3/A to the
police that one lady who was also passing through the spot on
a Activa Scooty bearing No. DL-4SCF-4488, had sustained
bullet injury on her left shoulder and blood was oozing out
from her shoulder and spread on the ground, Main Karawal
Nagar Road and her husband removed her to GTB Hospital by
a TSR. (Confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A from point G to
G where it is so recorded). Volunteered. I was told by the
police officials regarding injuries sustained by aforesaid lady
in the GTB Hospital. It is correct that PCR van reached at the
spot and removed me as well as Sh. Ramesh Arya to GTB
Hospital and I came to know regarding the death of the
aforesaid lady in the GTB Hospital only. It is correct that
police officials met me in the same night in the GTB
Hospital. At this stage, statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C_dated 27.05.2014 which is Ex. PW3/B of the witness is
read over to him to which he denies having made any such
statement at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that on
27.05.2014, I had visited the Karkardooma Courts with Sh.
Ramesh Arya and met with any police official in front of Court
Room No. 66 on that day where I identified four persons who
were in the police custody and informed the 10 that they had
committed offence with me as well as Ramesh Arya on
23.03.2014 at about 7.45 PM at Gali No.2, Sadatpur Extn.,
near Arya Filter House. It is wrong to suggest that police
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 18/27 SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:45:44
+0530
officials had interrogated the aforesaid four accused persons
upon which they disclosed their identity as Farman @ Deva,
Maksood Ahmad @ Sonu, Arif & Yusuf. It is wrong to suggest
that I had told the police that accused Farman @ Deva had
snatched the black-color handbag containing cash from Sh.
Ramesh Arya and accused Maksood Ahmad @ Sonu had
inflicted knife injuries to Sh. Ramesh Arya. It is worng to
suggest that I told the 10 that the assailant who was
apprehended by me at the spot during the incident was Farman
@ Deva. It is wrong to suggest that I told to the 10 that
accused Arif had opened fire upon me as a result of which I
sustained gun shot injuries on my both the legs and accused
Yusuf also opened fire with country made pistol and accused
Arif opened fire upon the public persons who were started to
gather there. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my
statement that accused Farman @ Deva and Maksood Ahmed
@ Sonu run away from the spot on a motorcycle. It is wrong to
suggest that the lady sustained gun shot injuries which was
fired by accused Arif. It is wrong to suggest that I had also
identified one person on that day who was also in police
custody whose identity I revealed later on as Rahees who used
to come to our shop to purchase parts of submersible. The
attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused namely
Farman @ Deva who is standing in the dark and after seeing
him, witness stated that since there was dark at the spot at the
relevant time, hence, he cannot identify the accused present in Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 19/27 2025.08.06
15:45:49
+0530
the Court. It is wrong to suggest that accused Farman @ Deva,
who is present in the court today, is the same person who
snatched black-color hand bag containing cash amount from
the possession of Sh. Ramesh Arya. It is wrong to suggest
thattam intentionally not identifying the accused Farman @
Deva as I have been won over by the accused. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely on the point of identity of
accused in order to save him. I can identify my wearing clothes
which were seized by the doctors in the hospital, if shown to
me. At this stage, Id. Defence Counsel submits that identity
of the clothes of the witness is not being disputed.”
(b) Cross examination of PW3 by Ld. APP for the State:
Dated 03.02.2018
“It is correct that Arya Filter House is also situated opposite the
place of incident. My above said scooty was also seized by the
police in the present case and later on, it was got released by its
rightful owner. ”
(c) Cross examination of PW3 by Ld. Defense Counsel:-
Dated 03.02.2018
“Nil. Opportunity given.”
24. PW4 Sh. Gopal, husband of deceased Smt. Kamna has deposed as followsBALWINDER
SINGH
Digitally signed by
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 20/27 BALWINDER
SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:45:56 +0530
during his examination in the court :
(a) Examination-in-chief :-
Dated 02.04.2018
“In the year, 2014 I was residing at H.No. 72, Gali No.
6, Dayalpur, Delhi. On 23.03.2014 I alongwith my wife
(since deceased) was going towards Karawal Nagar on
scooty. When I reached opposite to Gali No.2, Shahdatpur
Extension, I heard a sound of fire and my wife who was sitting
on the pillion seat, cried and she tapped her hand on my
shoulder, on which I stopped the scooty and found that blood
was oozing from her mouth and she was having a wound on
her left shoulder and it was bleeding from her
shoulder. Thereafter I took my wife to GTB Hospital in a TSR. In
the hospital after examination by the doctor, it was revealed that a
bullet was hit on the shoulder of my wife and thereafter my wife
was declared brought dead. Thereafter I came back to my house.
Next morning I again went to the mortuary of GTB Hospital.
After the postmortem, dead body wife was handed over to me.
Prior to the postmortem, the identification of the dead body was
got established by the police and I had identified the dead body
of my wife Kamna. My statement was recorded by the police in
this regard and same is Ex. PW4/A which bears my signature at
point A. Thereafter the dead was cremated. In the hospital, two
injured persons( one the owner of Arya Filter House and other
was his employee) had come in my presence. I cannot tell the Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:46:02State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 21/27 +0530
nature of their injuries. However, they had sustained injuries in
the very incident in which my wife sustained bullet injuries.”
(c) Cross examination of PW4 by Ld. Defense Counsel-
Dated 02.04.2018
“Nil. Opportunity given.”
25. The testimony of PW 6 Sh. Akhilesh Jain is also reproduced as follows:
(a) Examination in chief-:
Dated 11.07.2018
“On 23.03.2014, I was residing at B-111, Gali No.2, Sadatpur
Extension, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. At about 7.45 PM I was taking
meal at my house along with my father. I heard noise of some
commotion. I along with my father came out of my house. I saw
my neighbour Mr. Ramesh Arya who was running a shop, lying
on the ground in the injured condition. One another person was
also lying in the gali in the injured condition. I informed the
police on 100 number through my mobile No. 9953334379. I
was informed by my neighbour Sh. Ramesh Arya that some
persons had snatched his black colour hand bag. PCR Van came
there and took both the injured to the hospital. The police
officials met me and also made inquiry from me.”
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:46:08
+0530
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 22/27
(b) Cross examination of PW6 by Ld. APP for the State- :
Dated 11.07.2018
“It is incorrect that I came out from my house after hearing the
noise of firing, confronted with statement Ex. PW6/A where it is
so recorded. (Vol. I had heard only the noise of Bachao-2 and
thereafter I came out of my house.) It is incorrect that I was
informed by my neighbour Ramesh Arya that four persons had
snatched a black colour hand bag containing cash (sell amount)
and when he resisted, one of them caused injuries to him
through a knife and when he cried, his servant namely Yogesh
apprehended the person who snatched his bag and thereafter out
of aforesaid four persons, two persons took out pistol as well
as country made pistol and started opening firing as result
of which Yogesh sustained injuries on his leg and one lady
had also sustained bullet injuries at Main Road Karawal
Nagar while she was going on a two wheeler scooter along
with her husband, confronted with statement Ex.PW6/A where
it A is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely-on- some material aspects as I have been won over by
the accused.”
26. Thus, on the perusal on the testimony of the main star witnesses of the
prosecution namely PW2 and PW3 i.e. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Arya and Yogesh
Kumar, who are also the victim/injured of the incident in question, it is found that
both the witnesses have completely failed to support the case of the prosecution
BALWINDER
SINGH
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 23/27 BALWINDER
Digitally signed by
SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:46:14 +0530
during their examination in the court. Though PW2 and PW3 deposed regarding
the incident of robbery as well as sustaining of a knife injury by PW2 on his face
and bullets injuries by PW3 on his legs and the death of one woman (deceased Ms.
Kamna) due to bullet injury during the commission of the incident in question,
however, both PW2 and PW3 have failed to identify the accused during the course
of the trial as one of the assailant/member of the dacoit gang which had committed
the incident in question. Both PW2 and PW3 while deposing in the court stated
that due to the darkness at the time of the incident they could not see the faces of
the assailants and as such cannot identify the present accused.
27. Further it is also seen that both the witnesses have also made serious
variance from their previous statements recorded the course of investigation and
even also denied stating a number of facts which were mentioned in their police
complaint Ex. PW2/A as well as statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex. PW3/A
and Ex. PW3/B.
28. It is further noticed that during their cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State, both PW2 and PW3 have again denied the role and involvement of the
present accused in the commission of the alleged offences and despite the direct
suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, they again failed to identify the
accused and denied his involvement in the incident in question. Both PW2 and
PW3 have also denied seeing the accused and identifying him before the police
officials as one of the assailants during the course of investigation when the
accused was still in the custody of the police post his refusal to participate in TIP
proceedings.
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:46:22
+0530
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 24/27
29. Similar is the position of other public witnesses namely PW4 Sh. Gopal,
who is the husband of deceased Ms. Kamna and PW6 Akhilesh Jain who had
informed the police about the incident after making 100 number call. PW4 while
deposing in the court stated that at the time of incident he was riding the scooty
and his deceased wife was sitting behind him on the pillion seat and that he he had
stopped his scooty after he heard a sound of fire and her wife tapped on his
shoulder. He further deposed that he noticed that blood was oozing out of the
mouth of her deceased wife and she was having a wound on her left shoulder and
thereafter, he took her wife to GTB Hospital where upon her medical examination
it was revealed to him that a bullet was hit on the shoulder of his wife due to which
she has already died and was declared brought dead. PW4 also did not depose that
he had witnessed the incident or that the accused was also one of the members of
the assailants who had fired the gunshot leading to the death of his wife and injury
to others injured.
30. Likewise, PW6 has also turned hostile while deposing in the court and denied
witnessing the incident. PW6 deposed that on the day of incident and at the
relevant time he was taking meal at his house alongwith his father and on hearing
some commotion, he had come out of his house with his father and saw that his
neighbour Ramesh Arya/PW2 was lying on the ground in injured condition and
there was one another person who was also lying in the gali in the same injured
condition. Thereafter, he informed the police by making a 100 number call from
his mobile phone. PW6 further denied that he was informed by PW2 regarding the
commission of the alleged offences.
31. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are also merely the police BALWINDER
SINGH
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 25/27 Digitally signed by
BALWINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.08.06
15:46:29 +0530
officials who have also simply deposed regarding the proceedings conducted
during the course of investigation and their testimony also does not helped the
prosecution to discharge its burden to prove the commission of alleged offences in
question by the accused. These witnesses have only deposed about the events
which took place post the occurrence of the incident and registration of the case
FIR and their testimonies also do not in any way prove the role or involvement of
the accused in the commission of the alleged offences. Though, as per the
testimony of PW9, the accused was arrested with his other associates on the basis
of the secret information on 26.03.2014, however, admittedly nothing
incriminating was recovered from the possession of the present accused at the time
of such apprehension. Neither any case property relating to the present case was
recovered from the possession of the accused nor there is any other incrimination
material seized from his possession. Further, there is also no other direct or
circumstantial evidence available in the present case which may link the accused
with the commission of the alleged offences and may prove him as one of the
assailants or member of the dacoit gang which had committed the offences in
question. Further since both the eye witnesses/injured PW2 and PW3 have already
failed to identify the accused as one of the assailant/member of the dacoit gang, the
mere refusal on the part of accused to participate in TIP proceedings during the
course of the investigation also does not per se prove his role in the present case.
32. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the court comes to
the conclusion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against
the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused Farman @ Deva is
accordingly acquitted for all the alleged offences u/s 395/307/325/396/302/34 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 26/27
15:46:34
+0530
33. Copy of this judgment be given to both the sides free of cost.
34. Let the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by BALWINDER
on 06.08.2025 BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:46:39 +0530
(BALWINDER SINGH)
ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD
Courts/Delhi/06.08.2025
It is certified that this Judgment contains 27 pages and each page has been
signed by undersigned. Digitally signed
by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.06
15:46:44
+0530(BALWINDER SINGH)
ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD
Courts/Delhi/06.08.2025State Vs. Farman @ Deva FIR No. 292/2014 Page No. 27/27