Delhi District Court
State vs Jammal Etc on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-000679-2014
SC No. 56565-2016
FIR No. 599/2014
PS: Patel Nagar
U/s. 307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
In the matter of:
State
(Government of NCT of Delhi)
Versus
(1) Jammal
S/o Shri Sardar Singh
R/o Village Badhi,
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
(2) Jatin Khatri
S/o Shri Bijender
R/o Anoop Nagar Village
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
(3) Shiv Kumar @ Tony
[Proclaimed Offender]
S/o Shri Ved Prakash
BST Road,
Teh. & P.S Gannaur,
District Sonepat,
Haryana.
State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 1 of 34
Date of Institution : 10.02.2015
Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025
Decision : Both accused
persons Jammal and
Jatin Khatri Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri have faced
trial in the present case for the commission of offences punishable under
sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Factual Background
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2014 at about
9 pm, Vipin Rajput (victim) was sitting in his Hyundai Car No. DL 2CAD
6159, parked at the corner of road no. 26, West Patel Nagar, Delhi and
was discussing something with his friend Amar Pandey. When Vipin
Rajput moved his car three persons suddenly came there and his car
brushed against one of them and consequently there was some altercation
and scuffle between them. Thereafter, the said three persons went away
and Vipin Rajput started moving his car after those persons and when they
reached at K.B. Fair Price Shop, West Patel Nagar the car of Vipin Rajput
again struck against one of those persons. When Vipin Rajput came out of
the car the said three boys started assaulting him. Thereafter two of those
boys exhorted “maar isko” and the third boy took out a pistol and fired a
gun shot at Vipin Rajput and thereafter the boy who fired at the victim ran
away. Further out of the other two boys one said to the other that ” Tony to
bhag gaya, hum bhi chalte hain” and they also fled from the spot.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 2 of 34
Thereafter Amar Pandey took the victim/ injured Vipin Rajput to his
house and thereafter Amar Pandey along with the wife of the victim/
injured took him to B.L. Kapoor Hospital and the wife of the victim/
injured made a PCR call. DD No. 39-A was received at the police station
regarding admission of victim/ injured at B.L. Kapoor Hospital with gun-
shot injury and the police machinery sprung into action. SI Vinay Kumar
reached at the hospital and after making preliminary inquiries at the
hospital and at the spot of the incident, he prepared rukka and the present
FIR was registered.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during
investigation a search was launched for the accused persons and the
police reached at the house of one Ms. Renu r/o A-873, Baba Faridpuri,
Patel Nagar, Delhi who informed that the one of the said boys namely
Jammal was residing at her house as a tenant along with his two friends
but they were not seen after the incident. On the basis of the identity card
of Jammal provided by the said lady, police reached at the house of
Jammal but he was not found there. His mobile phone was tracked and
accused Jammal was traced on the basis of his location details and on
inquiry from his relatives. On 26.08.2014, accused Jammal was arrested
from village Raipur, Sonipat, Haryana. He disclosed that two of his
associates accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were
involved with him during the incident. During investigation it was further
revealed that accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were
arrested in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25
Arms Act on the next day of the incident and the weapon of offence
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 3 of 34
(pistol) in the present case had also been recovered from them in the said
case by the police officials of P.S. Gannaur. Thereafter accused Jatin
Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony were arrested in the present case
as well. The case property (pistol) was subsequently seized in this case
also. All the accused persons refused to participate in TIP. However, on
10.11.2014, the victim/ injured identified the accused persons (Jammal,
Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar @ Tony) in the Court premises as the
culprits who had attacked him and asserted that accused Shiv Kumar @
Tony had fired the gun shot at him on the day of the incident and his
supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in this
respect.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against all the three accused persons for the offences under sections
307/34 of the IPC and section 27of the Arms Act.
Charge
5. On consideration of the entire material on record, charges
were framed against all the three accused persons for the offences
punishable under sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms
Act, to which the accused persons pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 14
witnesses to bring home the charge.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 4 of 34
7. PW1 Vipin Rajpoot is the injured in this case and he has
deposed that on 21.08.2014, he alongwith his friend Amar Pandey was
discussing some matter pertaining to property while sitting in his Hyundai
Verna Car No. DL 2CAD 6159. In the meanwhile, three persons came
there and knocked the back door of his car and he rolled down the
window of his side and asked them as to what the matter was, however
those persons started misbehaving with him and also abused him in filthy
language. His friend Amar pacified him and the above mentioned three
persons went ahead while abusing him (PW1).
8. PW1 further deposed that at that time, he was 100 meters
away from his shop and all the said three accused persons started moving
from there and he (PW1) started moving towards his shop and at that
time, his car slightly hit against one of the above-mentioned accused
persons. PW1 further deposed that he got down from the car and then, the
above-mentioned persons started scuffling with him and one of those
boys, fired a gun shot in his abdomen and thereafter, all of those persons
fled away from there. PW1 further deposed that from there, he was taken
to his house by his friend Amar and thereafter, he was taken to B.L.
Kapoor hospital by his wife and his friend and there he (PW1) remained
admitted there for about 12 days. In the hospital, he narrated the incident
to the police who recorded his statement. PW1 further deposed that a
cartridge case was recovered from the spot by the police. Later on, he
came to know that the weapon of offence was also recovered from the
possession of the accused persons. He further deposed that his car was
also taken into possession by the police and the same is Ex. P1. PW1
State v. Jammal & Ors.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 5 of 34
identified accused Jammal and accused Jatin in the court during his
testimony.
9. PW2 ASI Suresh has deposed that on 22.08.2014, he was
posted at PS Patel Nagar, as Duty Officer from 12.00 night till 8.00 a.m.
and at about 12.45 a.m., Ct. Narender came at the police station with a
rukka which was sent by SI Vinay Kumar and on the basis of rukka, he
got registered the present case through computer operator. The copy of the
FIR is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he endorsed the rukka vide
endorsement which is Ex. PW2/B and handed over the rukka and copy of
FIR to Ct. Narender to dispatch the same to SI Vinay Kumar. The
certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act I respect of the
copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/C.
10. PW3 Amar Pandey is the friend of the injured and the eye
witness in this case and he deposed that on 21.08.2014 he went to block
no. 24 to meet with Vipin (injured) and there he met Vipin who was
present in his Hyundai Verna Car and they were discussing something
while sitting inside the car. After about ten minutes Vipin started the
vehicle and reversed his vehicle and in that process, the vehicle hit against
one of the accused persons. He identified the accused persons in the
Court. PW3 further deposed that one of the accused, knocked the car from
back side and stated “Dekh Ke Chalao” and also abused them (PW 3 and
injured). Vipin also retorted “Kya Dekh Ke Chalao Mein”. PW3 further
deposed that he rolled down the window of the car and tried to pacify
them. Thereafter, the accused persons moved forward and he told Vipin to
let the accused persons go first from there and thereafter, they would
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 6 of 34
move ahead. After sometime, Vipin again started the vehicle and moved
forward and when they reached near KB Fair Price shop, the vehicle
again hit against the accused persons due to which, either two of them or
all of them were feel down on the road. Vipin stopped the vehicle and got
down from it and the accused persons started abusing Vipin and two of
the accused persons started fisticuffs with Vipin while the third accused
fired a gun shot and Vipin received a gun-shot injury in his stomach. PW3
correctly identified accused Jammal and Jatin during his testimony while
alleging that they were the two accused persons who gave beatings to
Vipin. PW3 also correctly identified accused Shiv Kumar during his
testimony while alleging that he was the accused who fired gun shot at
Vipin. PW3 further deposed that the accused Jammal and Jatin were
continuously beating Vipin even after the gun shot injury. Vipin fell down
and the accused persons fled from the spot. PW3 further deposed that
Vipin was taken to nearby Anand Nursing Home by him, where the
mother and wife of Vipin also reached as the same is situated near the
house of Vipin. The concerned doctor at Anand Nursing Home refused to
admit Vipin as it was the matter of a gun-shot injury and then he (PW3)
took Vipin to BLK Hospital. In the meantime, the wife of Vipin informed
the police regarding the incident. At BLK hospital, Vipin was admitted
and the police officials also reached there. He further deposed that from
BLK hospital, he (PW3) went to the police station where he narrated the
incident to the police.
11. PW4 Ms. Renu deposed that she does not know any person
by the name of Jaimal/Jammal and no police official ever showed her any
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 7 of 34
CCTV footage. She further deposed that she did not give any room on
rent to Jammal. She further deposed that she does not know any of the
accused persons.
12. PW5 Ms. Shipra has deposed that on 21.08.2014 she was
present at her house and at about 9/9:15 PM, her husband was brought in
injured condition at their house by his friend Amar Pandey and she
observed a gunshot injury in the abdomen of her husband. PW5 further
deposed that she and Amar Pandey took her husband to B.L. Kapoor
Hospital and she made the call to PCR at 100 number and police officials
reached at the hospital.
13. PW 6 Insp. Pankaj deposed that on 21.08.2014, he was
posted with the mobile crime team as SI and on that day, he received an
information from the control room regarding firing at block no. 24, West
Patel Nagar; and that on receipt of the said information, he alongwith the
other staff reached at the spot where, he met with the IO SI Vinay Kumar
alongwith other staff members. PW6 further deposed that he inspected the
spot and found an empty cartridge case of 7.62 mm and IO seized the
same. He came to know that the injured had already been shifted to the
hospital. C.L. Pramod (photographer) took the photographs of the spot
from different directions on his (PW6) direction. He remained at the spot
from 11.20 pm to 12 midnight. PW6 further deposed that he prepared the
report regarding inspection of the spot which is Ex. PW 6/A and he
handed over the same to IO.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 8 of 34
14. PW7 Ct. Narender has deposed that in the month of August,
2014, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar and on the day of incident, he was
on night emergency duty at the PS alongwith SI Vinay Kumar and at
about 10.00 pm, a call was received at the PS regarding bullet injury to a
person and his admission in B.L. Kapoor hospital, and on receipt of the
said information, he alongwith SI Vinay Kumar reached at B.L. Kapoor
hospital. The concerned doctor intimated SI Vinay Kumar that the injured
was unfit for giving statement and the name of the injured was revealed as
Vipin Rajput. No eye witness was found at the hospital and therefore,
they went to the spot, however on enquiry no clue could be obtained
about the incident. They inspected the spot and found a cartridge case,
which was taken into possession by SI Vinay Kumar vide memo Ex.
PW7/A. PW7 further deposed that SI Vinay Kumar prepared rukka which
was handed over to him for getting the case registered and after getting
the case registered at PS, he returned to the spot with rukka and two
copies of FIR which were handed over to SI Vinay Kumar. PW7 further
deposed that the crime team members had already reached at the spot
prior to his returning at the spot and the crime team members inspected
the spot. SI Vinay Kumar recorded the statement of the In-charge of
Crime Team. The other staff members from the police station also reached
at the spot. PW7 further deposed that from the spot, he along with SI
Vinay Kumar again went to B.L. Kapoor hospital and at that time they
met with the wife of the injured in the hospital. The wife of the injured
narrated the incident which was reduced into writing by SI Vinay Kumar.
The wife of the injured pointed out towards a Verna vehicle, which was
found parked near the hospital, while stating that at the time of the
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 9 of 34
incident, the injured was present in the said vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle
was checked from inside and one half filled bottle of liquor, lying on the
backside and two packets of Namkeen, lying on the dashboard were
recovered. PW7 further deposed that surgery was done by the concerned
doctor on the injured and thereafter, doctor handed over a sealed pullanda
of the piece of cartridge, which was taken out from the body of the
injured, to SI Vinay Kumar and SI Vinay Kumar further handed over the
said pullanda to PW 7. PW 7 that outside the hospital, they met an eye
witness whose name he did not remember. PW7 further deposed that from
the hospital, they along with the abovesaid eye witness returned at the
spot and from the spot, he went to the PS for depositing the pullanda.
PW7 further deposed that the above-mentioned car was taken into
possession by SI Vinay Kumar vide memo Ex. PW 7/B. The empty
cartridge is Ex. P-1
15. PW8 Dr. Harpreet, Sr. Emergency Medical Officer, B.L.
Kapoor Hospital, Pusa Road, Delhi was deputed by the Medical
Superintendent for deposing on behalf of Dr. Vibhor Tiwari who had left
the said hospital. PW8 deposed that he can identify the writing and
signatures of Dr. Vibhor Tiwari as he had worked with PW 8 and PW 8
had seen him writing and signing the documents. PW8 further deposed
that as per record, on 21.08.2014, one injured namely Vipin Rajput was
brought to the casualty with alleged history of penetrating injury with
query of gun-shot injury. The above mentioned injured was medically
examined by Dr. Vibhor Tiwari and in this regard, he prepared MLC No.
667/14 which is Ex. PW 8/A which bears the signature of Dr. Vibhor
Tiwari at point A. As per record, the injured was referred to Surgery
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 10 of 34
Department. PW8 further deposed that as per record, the injured was
having circular wound of 5 to 7 mm with irregular necrosed skin margin
at umbilical region. There was no burn or tattooing on the person of the
injured. As per record, it was also observed that there was a 5 to 7 mm
tear mark in the shirt of the injured.
16. PW9 Ct. Satender Kumar has deposed that on 24.08.2014, he
was posted at PS Patel Nagar and on that day he joined the investigation
of the present case with SI Vinay Kumar and continued to remain with
him till 26.08.2014. PW9 further deposed that on 24.08.2014, he
alongwith Ct. Praveen and SI Vinay went to Baba Faridpuri, A-873 to
make inquiry about the two tenants who were residing there and met with
the daughter of the landlord namely Renu, who stated that from
22.08.2014 onwards i.e. from the date of incident, the above-mentioned
tenants did not come there. PW9 further deposed that SI Vinay showed a
video footage of the incident to Ms. Renu and on seeing the same Ms.
Renu stated that the footage was showing one of her tenants namely
Jaimal. SI Vinay collected the police verification record of the tenant
along with a copy of the ID proof of Jaimal from Ms. Renu. PW9 further
deposed that through the ID proof of Jaimal, they came to know that he
was a resident of village Badi, District Sonipat, Haryana. Therefore, they
went to the native place of Jaimal and at the house of accused Jaimal, they
met his father who stated that accused Jaimal was not present and he had
gone somewhere in Delhi.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 11 of 34
17. PW 9 further deposed that they collected the mobile number
of Jaimal from his father. Later on, SI Vinay discussed the matter with the
SHO and obtained the Call detail record of the mobile number of accused
Jaimal. Through the Cell ID Chart, they came to know that accused
Jaimal was present at village Beedhal, Tehsil Gauhana, District Sonipat,
Haryana. They reached there and came to know that at above mentioned
village, the maternal uncle of accused Jaimal was residing, who on
interrogation, disclosed that accused Jaimal was present at village Raipur,
District Sonipat, Haryana. Therefore, they went to village Raipur. SI
Vinay collected the detailed information about the house of accused
Jaimal at village Raipur. Therefore, they went to the house of accused
Jaimal and from there, they apprehended accused Jaimal @ Jammal. PW9
further deposed that accused Jaimal was interrogated and during
interrogation, he stated that on the day of the incident, his two other
companions also assisted him in committing the offence and disclosed
their names as Shiv Kumar and Jatin. The disclosure statement of accused
Jaimal was recorded which is Ex. PW 9/A. The accused Jaimal was
arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 9/B
and Ex. PW 9/C respectively. PW9 further deposed that pursuant to his
disclosure statement, accused Jaimal led the police to the house of
accused Jatin at Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. There they
met with the mother and sister of accused Jatin who told them that about
two days ago, accused Jatin was arrested in a case at PS Gannaur.
Therefore, they went to PS Gannaur and on inquiry, they came to know
that accused Jatin was arrested in a case at PS Gannaur and thereafter, he
was lodged in jail at Sonipat. PW9 further deposed that from Tehsil
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 12 of 34
Gannaur, they returned to Delhi alongwith accused Jaimal. At Delhi,
accused Jaimal led them to the place of occurrence and a pointing out
memo was prepared which is Ex. PW 9/D. The medical examination of
accused was got conducted at Lady Harding Hospital. Thereafter, accused
Jammal was taken to P.S Patel Nagar where he was put behind bars. PW9
further deposed that later on, once he went to Jail at Sonipat along with SI
Nitish Kumar who made inquiry about the accused Jatin.
18. PW10 HC Parmod has deposed that on 21.08.2014 he was
posted at Mobile Crime Team, Central District and on that day on receipt
of call from the Control Room he along with SI Pankaj, In-charge, Mobile
Crime Team and other team members reached in front of shop no. 22/16-
17, KBS Fair Price, West Patel Nagar where he took 11 photographs of
the place of the incident. PW10 further deposed that out of the 11
photographs, only six photographs could be developed through the
negatives. The photographs are Ex. PA to Ex. PF and their negatives are
Ex. PX (colly.).
19. PW11 SI Hari Krishan has deposed that on 22.09.2014 one
sealed parcel, sealed with the seal of SS along with the request for its
examination was handed over him and that he opened the parcel and
found one country made pistol and one live cartridge therein. He
examined both the articles and gave his report that the country-made
pistol is in working condition and the cartridge was a live one. He
resealed the parcel with pistol and cartridge with the seal of HK and
prepared his report which is Mark 11A.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 13 of 34
20. PW 12 HC Rajesh has deposed that on 22.08.2014 he was
posted as MHC(M) at P.S Patel Nagar and on that day SI Vinay Kumar
deposited one car and two sealed parcels at the malkhana along with
copies of seizure memos. He made entry regarding the same in Register
No. 19 pertaining to year 2014. Copy of entry no. 2536 is Ex. PW12/A.
PW12 produced the original Register No. 19 pertaining to year 2016. As
per serial no. 3235 on 03.08.2016, five live cartridges were handed over
to SI Nitesh Mehra for the purpose of test firing at FSL. Copy of the
Entry at serial no. 3235 in Register no. 19 is Ex. PW12/B. PW 12 also
produced the RC Register pertaining to year 2016-17. As per RC No.
14/21/17, three sealed parcels along with 5 live cartridges were handed
over to SI Nitesh Nehra to be deposited at FSL Rohini. Copy of RC No.
14/21/17 is Ex.PW12/C.
21. PW13 Inspector Nitesh has deposed that on 10.09.2014 he
was posted as SI at P.S Patel Nagar and on that day, the case file of the
present FIR was handed over to him for further investigation as the earlier
IO was on training. He perused the case file and came to know that the
earlier IO had already taken permission from the court for arrest and
interrogation of accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni and accused Jatin Khatri
who were lodged in Sonipat Jail in some other FIR. PW13 further
deposed that after informing the Jail Superintendent he interrogated
accused Jatin Khatri and accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni at Sonipat Jail. Ct.
Satender had accompanied him. PW13 further deposed that accused Shiv
Kumar @ Toni was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A and
accused Jatin Khatri was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/B.
He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Shiv Kumar @ Toni
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 14 of 34
which is Ex. PW13/C and the disclosure statement of accused Jatin Khatri
which is Ex. PW13/D. He gave intimation of the arrest of accused to the
concerned Jail Superintendent and requested for production of both the
accused in the court in muffled face. He returned back to the PS and
recorded the statement of Ct. Satender. PW13 further deposed that on the
next day, both the accused persons were produced before the concerned
Ld. MM in muffled face and he moved applications for conducting their
TIP, however, both of them refused to join the proceedings and both the
accused were sent to JC. Thereafter, the concerned IO returned from his
training and the case file was handed over to him.
22. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar, is the IO of the case and has
deposed that on 21.08.2025 he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Patel
Nagar and in the intervening night of 21/22.08.2014, he was on night
emergency duty; and that his duty timings were from 08:00 PM to 08:00
AM. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that at about 09:50
PM on receipt of DD No. 39-A regarding admission of one injured person
at BLK Hospital, he along with Ct. Narender went to BLK Hospital
where one injured Vipin Rajput was found admitted in the hospital but he
was unfit for statement as informed by the concerned doctor. PW 14
Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that the wife of injured Ms.
Shipra who had made the PCR call was present in the hospital and she
informed him that injured Vipin Rajput was present with one known
person namely Amar Pandey who had brought him to the house and
informed her that he was shot; and thereafter she had brought her husband
to the hospital. PW14 further deposed that the car by which the injured
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 15 of 34
was brought to the hospital, belonging to the injured DL 2C AD 6159
Hyndai Verna, was parked in front of the hospital; and that he seized the
same vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. On searching the vehicle, PW14
found certain articles such as liquor bottle, plastic glass and some
namkeen lying in the car. PW 14 further deposed that thereafter he
obtained the contact details of the witness Amar Pandey from the wife of
the victim and he was telephonically asked to come to the hospital. Amar
Pandey reached the hospital; and thereafter he along with Ct. Narender
and Amar Pandey went to the spot i.e. Block 24, Main Road, Near Fair
price Shop, West Patel Nagar. The Crime team was also called at the spot
and the spot was inspected along with the members of the crime team and
photographer at the instance of Amar Pandey. On inspecting the spot, one
empty cartridge was found near the fair price shop which was seized vide
memo Ex. PW-7/A; and that Amar Pandey informed him that when the
victim Vipin Rajput was shot, he was sitting in his car and had not seen
the entire incident.
23. PW14 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka on
the basis of the DD No. 39A which is Ex. PW-14/A, handed over the
same to Ct. Narender for registration of FIR and after about one hour, Ct.
Narender returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and
original rukka to him as investigation was marked to him. PW14 further
deposed that the crime team inspected the spot and took photographs of
the spot. He recorded statement of the members of crime team as well as
of Amar Pandey and wife of the victim. He also prepared the site plan at
the instance of Amar Pandey. PW14 further deposed that thereafter, he
again went to the hospital where the concerned doctor handed over to him
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 16 of 34
a sealed pullanda and sample seal stated to contain the bullet piece
recovered from the body of the injured which was seized by him vide
memo Ex. PW-14/C. He also collected the MLC of the injured.
24. PW14 further deposed that on the next day, he along with his
team consisting of several police officials searched for the assailants and
they also did a house to house survey of various houses near the fair price
shop where various tenants were residing. During the survey, one
landlady namely Renu r/o A-863, Baba Farid Puri informed them that one
tenant namely Jammal was residing in her property as a tenant and his
two friends were also living there and all of them were not seen after the
night of the incident. Renu also provided a photocopy of the voter ID card
of Jammal which was available with her. PW14 further deposed that they
went to the address mentioned on the ID card which was of village Badi,
Sonipat. However, they could not find Jammal at his residence and his
father Sh. Sardar Singh met them who provided the mobile number of
accused Jammal. Thereafter, Jammal was searched on the basis of his
CDRs and mobile phone location. PW14 further deposed that on
26.08.2014, accused Jammal was traced through his mobile phone and his
location was found at Village Raipur, Sonipat, Haryana. They went there
where accused Jammal was found at the house of his relative and accused
Jammal was apprehended from there and arrested in the present case vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-9/B and his personal search was also conducted vide
memo Ex. PW-9/C. PW14 further deposed that accused Jammal was
interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.
PW-9/A. Accused Jammal was kept in muffled face. PW14 further
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 17 of 34
deposed that during interrogation, accused Jammal disclosed the names of
his two associates who were accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar.
Thereafter, police went for their search at Gannaur at the instance of
accused Jammal but they could not trace accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv
Kumar but it came to their knowledge that they have been arrested in
some other case on the next day of the incident and were currently lodged
in custody.
25. PW14 further deposed that he obtained the details of the said
case from PS Gannaur. Thereafter, accused Jammal was brought to the
spot and at his instance, pointing out memo Ex. PW-9/D was prepared.
Medical examination of accused was got conducted and he was lodged in
the lockup. PW14 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 27.08.2014, he
went to the hospital where injured Vipin was found fit for statement and
he recorded his statement. Thereafter, he produced accused Jammal
before the concerned court in muffled face. He filed an application for
conducting TIP of accused Jammal. The TIP was fixed for 05.09.2014.
Accused Jammal was sent to JC. On the same day, he also moved an
application for issuance of production warrants of accused Shiv Kumar
and Jatin Khatri. On 02.09.2014, accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar
were required to be produced on production warrants but they were not
produced. He again moved an application for issuance of production
warrants on which he was given permission to arrest and interrogate the
accused persons in jail. Since w.e.f 03.09.2014, he was on training for 3
weeks during that period, accused Jatin Khatri and Shiv Kumar were
arrested by SI Nitesh. PW14 Inspector Vinay Kumar further deposed that
he again took over the investigation of the case on 28.09.2014 and on
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 18 of 34
03.10.2014, he visited PS Gannaur as the weapon of offence was seized
by the police officials of PS Gannaur in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS
Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act from accused Jatin Khatri. He
recorded the statement of the concerned IO and police officials, however,
the weapon of offence was not handed over to him as the same was
required in the said FIR. PW 14 further deposed that on 09.11.2014, he
moved an application before the concerned court having jurisdiction over
PS Gannaur for custody of the weapon of offence. The application was
allowed. Thereafter, he received the weapon from MHC(M) PS Gannaur
and deposited in the malkhana of PS Patel Nagar. Thereafter, he prepared
the chargesheet and filed it before the court. Thereafter, he was
transferred from the PS and further investigation was handed over to SI
Nitesh. PW14 correctly identified accused Jammal in the court. Thereafter
PE was closed.
Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
26. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the
accused persons namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri and their statements
under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused persons denied the
prosecution version and stated that they are innocent. The accused
persons further stated that they were not present at the spot at the time of
the alleged quarrel and no quarrel had taken place with them.
Defence Evidence
27. The accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 19 of 34
support of their defence.
28. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld.
Counsels for the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri and have given due
consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
Appreciation of Evidence, Analysis of Contentions and Findings:
29. The version of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2014 at about
9:15 pm near house no. 24/9, West Patel Nagar, Delhi the three accused
persons had a quarrel with the injured/ victim Vipin Rajput as his Hyundai
Car had hit against them and thereafter all the three accused persons
assaulted the victim/ injured, and accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri abused
the victim and started beating him and further exhorted “maar isko” and
the accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony fired a gun-shot at the victim with a
pistol. Afterwards the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from
accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony and accused Jatin Khatri in case FIR no.
312/2014, PS Gannaur. Accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony absconded during
trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 21.12.2017.
The prosecution has therefore contended that both the accused persons
namely Jammal and Jatin Khatri are liable to be convicted for the offences
punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
30. On the other hand both the accused persons namely Jammal
and Jatin Khatri have denied the prosecution version and have contended
that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they did not have
any quarrel with the victim and they were not even present at the place of
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 20 of 34
the alleged incident. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued
that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1 (injured)
and PW 3 (eye-witness) in as much as PW 1 has deposed that it was
accused Jatin Khatri who had shot the injured while PW 3 has deposed
that it was accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony (who is P.O.) who had shot the
injured. They have further argued that PW 1 has not deposed that the
accused persons had given any beatings to him. Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons have further argued that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW
3 cannot be relied upon in view of various other contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements therein. They have further contended
that no such incident had taken place. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jatin
Khatri has further argued that there is no cogent and viable evidence to
show that the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from the accused
Jatin Khatri. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have accordingly
asserted that the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri deserve to be acquitted
for the alleged offences.
31. The crucial point for determination is as to whether the
accused persons Jammal and Jatin Khatri are liable for the offences under
section 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
32. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have contended that the
incident had not taken place at all and that is why there are material
contradictions in the testimonies of the injured PW 1 and the eye witness
PW 2 on vital aspects. They have further argued that it is quite surprising
that neither PW1 nor PW3 immediately made a call at 100 number nor
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 21 of 34
did they raise any alarm and even no public persons interfered. During the
cross examination of PW 1 and PW 3, certain suggestions were given to
them in this respect. It is seen that both PW 1 and PW 3 have consistently
deposed that three persons had a quarrel with the injured/ victim and one
of them fired a gun shot at the victim. The contention regarding other
contradictions in their testimonies would be discussed later on. The other
issues that PW1 nor PW3 immediately made a call at 100 number nor did
they raise any alarm and even no public persons interfered, are minor
issues, which do not affect the veracity of the prosecution case qua the
fact that the quarrel took place wherein the victim received a gun-shot
injury, as different persons may react differently in a given scenario. The
fact of the matter is that on the night of the incident the victim was
admitted at B.L. Kapoor Hospital and his MLC Ex. PW 8/A shows that he
suffered a gun-shot injury. PW 14, the IO has deposed that the concerned
doctor had also handed over to him a sealed pullanda stated to contain the
bullet piece recovered from the body of the injured which was seized by
him vide memo Ex. PW-14/C. The empty cartridge was also recovered
from the place of the incident. PW8 Dr. Harpreet from B.L. Kapoor
hospital has also deposed that as per record, the injured was having
circular wound of 5 to 7 mm with irregular necrosed skin margin at
umbilical region and it was also observed that there was a 5 to 7 mm tear
mark in the shirt of the injured. Thus, there is no doubt that the victim had
suffered a gun-shot injury and therefore it cannot be said that no such
incident took place.
33. However, the prime question is that who fired the gun shot at
the victim. The case of the prosecution is that accused Shiv Kumar @
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 22 of 34
Tony, Jammal and Jatin Khatri had assaulted the victim on account of a
sudden quarrel as the vehicle of the victim had hit them and thereafter
accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri had exhorted “Maar Isko” and thereafter
accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony who was having a pistol with him had shot
the victim. By way of his supplementary statement recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. on 10.11.2024 the victim identified the accused persons in the
court complex after they had refused to participate in TIP and he was
informed about the names of all the three accused persons and thereafter
he categorically stated that accused Shiv Kumar had fired the bullet at
him. In fact in his initial statement (under section 161 Cr.P.C.) also, which
is Mark A, the victim/ injured had stated that the two accused persons had
referred to the third accused, who had fired the gun-shot, as Tony. Coming
to the evidence on record, PW3, the friend of the victim and the eye
witness to the incident has deposed that accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri
gave beatings to the victim and accused Shiv Kumar had fired the gun-
shot at the victim.
34. In contradistinction to this position, PW1, the victim, has
deposed that when he got down from the car the accused persons started
fisticuffs and one of the boys fired a gun-shot at him and thereafter they
fled from there. PW 1 identified accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri in the
Court and stated that the accused Jatin had fired the gun-shot and he
further stated that cannot identify the third assailant i.e. Shiv Kumar. PW
1 was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and despite
pointing out by the Ld. Addl. P.P., he stated that he is unable to identify
accused Shiv Kumar. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had stated to the
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 23 of 34
police that accused Shiv Kumar had fired the gun-shot at him. PW 1 was
confronted with his supplementary statement (under section 161 Cr.P.C.)
from point A to A-1 which was recorded on 10.11.2024 and he stated that
he had not made any such statement. He also did not identify the alleged
weapon of offence i.e. the pistol which was recovered.
35. Therefore, PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution
that accused Shiv Kumar @ Tony had fired the gun-shot at him. This is a
glaring inconsistency in the testimony of PW1 and PW3. In fact the
testimony of PW 1 on this point is at complete variance with the
prosecution case and his own supplementary statement dated 10.11.2024
under section 161 Cr.P.C. which he has not very surprisingly disowned.
Coming to the weapon of offence, PW 14 has deposed that the weapon of
offence was recovered from accused Jatin Khatri in case FIR no.
312/2014 PS Gannaur u/s 393/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act. However, there is
no cogent and viable evidence to establish that the pistol was recovered
from accused Jatin Khatri. No witness in respect of the recovery of the
said pistol in case FIR no. 312/2014 PS Gannaur has been examined nor
the seizure memo has been properly proved. The statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Naresh from PS Gannaur recorded in this case shows
that the said pistol was recovered from accused Shiv Kumar. Considering
the evidence on record it would be difficult to hold that it was the accused
Jatin Khatri who had fired the gun-shot at the victim. Accused Shiv
Kumar has been declared as a proclaimed offender. The FSL report (by
which the prosecution seeks to link the recovered bullet with the
recovered pistol) is therefore not relevant in so far as the present accused
persons Jammal and Jatin Khatri are concerned.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 24 of 34
36. Now assuming for the sake of arguments that it was the
accused Shiv Kumar who had fired the gun shot at the victim, as has been
deposed by PW 3, then the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri, if at all can
be held liable for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC, it can
only be with the aid of section 34 IPC.
37. Now Section 34 IPC enacts a rule of vicarious criminal
liability that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance
of the common intention of all thereby making every such person liable
for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In the
judgment titled as Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad reported as AIR 1955
SC 216 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, enunciating the principles with
respect to section 34 IPC, observed that:
“……33. Now in the case of section 34we think it is
well established that a common intention presupposes
prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because
before a man can be vicariously convicted for the
criminal act of another, the act must have been done
in furtherance of the common intention of them all:
Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [(1945) L.R. 72 I.A.
148, 153, 154.]. Accordingly, there must have been a
prior meeting of minds. Several persons can
simultaneously attack a man and each can have the
same intention, namely the intention to kill, and each
can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet
none would have the common intention required by
the section because there was no prior meeting of
minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In a case like that,
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 25 of 34
each would be individually liable for whatever injury
he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for
the act of any of the others; and if the prosecution
cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he
cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an
intention to kill could be proved in his case: Barendra
Kumar Ghosh v. King- Emperor [(1924) L.R. 52 I.A.
40, 49] and Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [(1945)
L.R. 72 I.A. 148, 153, 154.]. As their Lordships say
in the latter case, “the partition which divides their
bounds is often very thin: nevertheless, the distinction
is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in
miscarriage of justice”.
34. The plan need not be elaborate, nor is a long
interval of time required. It could arise and be formed
suddenly, as for example, when one man calls on
bystanders to help him kill a given individual and
they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their
assent to him and join him in the assault. There is
then the necessary meeting of the minds. There is a
pre-arranged plan however hastily formed and rudely
conceived. But pre-arrangement there must be and
premeditated concert. It is not enough, as in the latter
Privy Council case, to have the same intention
independently of each other, e.g., the intention to
rescue another and, if necessary, to kill those who
oppose.
35. In the present case, there is no evidence of any
prior meeting. We know nothing of what they said or
did before the attack-not even immediately before.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 26 of 34
Pandurang is not even of the same caste as the others,
Bhilia, Tukia and Nilia are Lambadas, Pandurang is a
Hatkar and Tukaram a Maratha. It is true prior
concert and arrangement can, and indeed often must,
be determined from subsequent conduct as, for
example, by a systematic plan of campaign unfolding
itself during the course of the action which could only
be referable to prior concert and pre- arrangement, or
a running away together in a body or a meeting
together subsequently. But, to quote the Privy
Council again, “the inference of common intention
should never be reached unless it is a necessary
inference deducible from the circumstances of the
case”.
38. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is clear that there was a
quarrel on account of the fact that the vehicle of the victim hit the accused
persons. The material on record further reveals that the victim was
consuming liquor and was also somewhat aggressive though PW 3 was
trying to diffuse the situation. Thus, it is case of a sudden quarrel and it
cannot be said that there was pre-meditated plan in execution of which the
accused persons attempted to murder the victim. Whether such common
intention developed at the spot is naturally the next question. It is trite that
intention is a state of mind and cannot be proved by direct evidence and
has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances and the events which
preceded, attended and followed the crime.
39. None of the witnesses have deposed that the accused Jammal
and Jatin Khatri had exhorted the accused Shiv Kumar or had restrained
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 27 of 34
or caught hold of the victim or had in any other manner assisted accused
Shiv Kumar in shooting the victim. There is no evidence as to what they
said before or at the time of or after the incident of shooting from which
such common intention to shoot the victim could be deciphered. The
accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri were not in possession of any weapon.
In fact, there in no evidence to the effect that at that point of time they
were even aware that accused Shiv Kumar had a pistol or that he was
going to use the said pistol in the incident. There is only one piece of
evidence which may support this theory which is that PW3 has deposed
accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri were continuously beating the victim
even after the gun-shot injury. However, this piece of evidence pales into
insignificance as the victim/ injured himself has not stated this fact and
this apparent contradiction persuades this Court not to place any reliance
on the same. There is no other evidence that the accused Jammal and Jatin
Khatri shared common intention with the accused Shiv Kumar to shoot
the victim or did any act in furtherance of the same.
40. There is another aspect in the matter. During cross
examination, PW3 has stated that on the night of the incident the police
officials had also taken him to the place of the incident where in one of
the houses CCTV cameras were installed and all of them had seen the
CCTV footage of the incident. However, no such CCTV footage has been
proved on record. This was a vital piece of evidence to establish the
actions of the accused Jammal and Jatin Khatri and since this vital piece
of evidence has been kept away from the scrutiny of the Court adverse
inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution on this count.
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 28 of 34
41. In somewhat similar facts in the judgment titled as Wakil
Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2005 Cri.L.J. 3410 the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held:
“……..8. Having heard the learned counsel for
appellants and for the State as also after perusing the
entire evidence on record and considering the law of
common intention on the basis of the above-
mentioned Apex Court pronouncements, it emerged
that the incident occurred all of a sudden on a spur of
moment when deceased Mahesh was asked by the
appellants to go some step ahead inside the bus. At
that juncture, deceased Mahesh denied to go ahead
because there was no space in front of him. During
this period, some verbal hot talk took place between
the appellants and deceased and appellant Wakil
Khan took out knife from his pocket and caused as
many as five blows in quick succession on the person
of deceased. Even if all the evidences of eye
witnesses are accepted, the appellant Tajuddin and
Bhuru Khan cannot be convicted for the offence
under section 302/ 34 of IPC because there is
absolutely no evidence that the appellants were
having pre-meeting of minds, premeditation and pre-
plan for committing murder of deceased Mahesh and
in furtherance of the common intention appellant
Wakil Khan caused injuries by knife. There is also no
evidence on record that while causing five knife
blows by appellant Wakil Khan, the deceased was
held or caught hold of continuously by appellant
Bhuru Khan. Admittedly, appellants were not having
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 29 of 34
any previous enmity with the deceased and they were
also not having any prior information about travelling
of deceased Mahesh in the bus. Appellants Bhuru
Khan and Tajuddin were not having any weapon in
their possession. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that no case is made out for convicting the
appellants Bhuru Khan and Tajuddin under Section
302/34 of IPC…..”
42. The inevitable conclusion is that there is not even an iota of
cogent and viable evidence on record to establish that the accused Jamaal
and Jatin Khatri shared any common intention with accused Shiv Kumar
@ Tony to fire a gun shot at the victim or did any act in furtherance of the
same. The necessary concomitant is that they cannot be held liable for the
offence under section 307 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC. Further
since it has not been established accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri had used
any fire arm in the incident they cannot be held liable for the offence
under section 27 of the Arms Act.
43. The only question which remains to be answered is as to
whether the accused persons can be convicted for a minor offence of
beating the victim.
44. It is seen that PW 1 has not clearly deposed that the accused
Jamaal and Jatin Khatri had beaten him. Though PW 3 has stated so but
his cross examination reveals that he was sitting in the car and came out
later on. When the injured has himself not clearly stated that he was
beaten by the accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri, the testimony of PW 3
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 30 of 34
cannot be given over importance. The expression used by PW1 during his
testimony is that the accused persons started scuffling with him. It may be
noted that this expression ‘scuffling’ has a bilateral connotation implying
a quarrel or fight from both sides as opposed to the words ‘assault’ or
‘beating’. The material on record further reveals that the victim was
consuming liquor and was also somewhat aggressive and had hit the
accused persons while driving his vehicle. Thus what followed was
initially a quarrel from both sides. Moreover, the MLC of the victim does
not reflect any other injuries apart from the gun shot injury. Thus the
allegation of the victim being beaten by the accused Jamaal and Jatin
Khatri has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the
accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri also cannot be held liable for the offence
under section 323 IPC.
45. It may be noted that in the judgment titled as “S. L. Goswami
v. State of M.P.” reported as 1972 CRI. L. J. 511 (SC) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held:
“….In our view, the onus of proving all the
ingredients of an offence is always upon the
prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the
accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to
somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the
defence of the accused does not appear to be credible
or is palpably false that burden does not become any
the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that
it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the
essential elements in the prosecution case, which
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 31 of 34
would negative it. It is not however for the accused
even at the initial stage to prove something which has
to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the
ingredients of the offence with which he is charged,
and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the
accused has to establish his plea, the standard of
proof is not the same as that which rests upon the
prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused,
and the evidence on his behalf probabilises the plea
he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable
doubt…..”
46. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is
upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge
beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of
the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as
Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII
(2007) SLT 454 (SC).
47. In the judgment titled as Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya
v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held:
“…….Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take
the place of proof, and there is a large difference
between something that `may be’ proved and `will be
proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take placeState v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 32 of 34
of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental
distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that
mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of
legal proof. The large distance between `may be’ true
and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear,
cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a
convict, and the basic and golden rule must be
applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the
distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the
court must maintain the vital distance between
conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on
the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny
based upon a complete and comprehensive
appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the
quality and credibility of the evidence brought on
record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of
justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances
of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must
be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a
merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based
upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR
1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v.
State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984
SC 1622; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan,
(2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P.,
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 33 of 34
AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State
of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249; State through CBI v.
Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017;
and Ramesh Harijan v. State v. State of U.P., AIR
2012 SC 1979)….”
Conclusion:
48. On the basis of the material available on record I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond
reasonable doubt, the alleged offences against the accused persons Jamaal
and Jatin Khatri. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. The
accused Jamaal and Jatin Khatri are accordingly acquitted for the offences
punishable under section 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
49. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary
compliance.
Digitally signed
by SAURABH
SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court Date: 2025.07.16
15:59:05 +0530
on the 16.07.2025).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State v. Jammal etc.
FIR No. 599/2014; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 34 of 34
[ad_1]
Source link