Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh on 23 May, 2025
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 09
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
SC No. 552/2024
CNR No. DLWT01-008417-2024
FIR No. 31/2006
Police Station Paschim Vihar
Under Section U/s 302/34 IPC, 482/34
IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
State
Versus
1. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh
S/o.Sh. Ved Prakash
R/o. A-430, Jain Nagar,
Karala, Delhi.
2. Vikas @ Tinku (Proclaimed Offender)
S/o. Sh. Arun Sinha
R/o. 393, Mohalla Shanti Pur,
Dattan Ganj, Jharkhand.
3.Sanjeev @ Santosh (Proclaimed Offender)
S/o. Maghu Yadav
R/o. Unknown .....Accused persons
Date of Institution 25.07.2006
Date of Arguments 30.04.2025
Date of Judgment 23.05.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh is facing trial in present
case on allegations for murdering Jitender @ Ladi in
Judgment Page 1 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
furtherance of his common intention with his associates
Vikas @ Tinku (proclaimed offender) and Sanjeev
(absconder) and for possessing fire arms.
Brief Facts
2. On 13.01.2006, on receipt of DD No. 22 A ( Ex.PW1/C),
SI Vipin Kumar (PW13) along with Ct.Raj Kumar went at
the spot i.e. in front of House No. B-1, Paschim Vihar,
Near DDA Market, where they came to know that injured
was already shifted to SGM hospital. Ct. Raj Kumar was
deputed at the spot to look after the scene of occurrence
and SI went to SGM hospital.
3. SI Vipin collected MLC of injured Jitender @ Laddi and
sealed parcel of the clothes of injured vide memo
Ex PW13/A. Later on, it was found that injured was
shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. SI reached at
Agarsen hospital, where injured was declared unfit to
make a statement. No eye witness was available. From the
material which was available, SI concluded that offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC was made out and
accordingly, he prepared rukka and got registered the FIR.
4. From the spot two fired cartridges of 0.9 mm bore were
recovered vide memo Ex.PW6/A. SI collected a pallet
recovered from the body of injured Jitender @ Ladi vide
memo Ex.PW13/B. SI called crime team at the spot and
got scene of crime photographed and video-graphed.
Judgment Page 2 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
5. On 16.01.2006, SI Vipin recorded statement of Abdul
Sattar in the hospital, who claimed to be a driver of injured
and eye witness of occurrence. On his pointing out, SI
prepared rough site plan Ex. PW 13/C.
6. On 19.01.2006, SI recorded statement Ex.PW13/D of
Jitender @ Ladi. In his statement, Jitender @ Ladi
mentioned that he gave Rs. 3 lakhs to Vikas @ Tinku over
a period of 5-6 months and Vikas @ Tinku had refused to
return the same. On 13.01.06 at about 9.00 p.m. Jitender @
Ladi received a phone call from Tinku calling him near
Gyani Restaurant to discuss about repayment. Jitender @
Ladi reached there in his car where Vikas was already
present in his Indica car. Jitender stated that Vikas was
accompanied by accused Sonu @ Kuldeep and Sanjeev @
Santosh and Vikas and Kuldeep took out pistols from their
pockets and Kuldeep fired at Jitender @ Ladi. When
Jitender @ Ladi tried to run, he was fired from behind by
both of them. Thereafter, he fell unconscious.
7. On 02.02.2006, Abdul Sattar produced Indica car bearing
registration No. HR 05 Q 1613 which was seized vide
memo Ex.PW7/A. Pieces of front windscreen of the car
and hair were seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/B & C.
Car was got photographed. Mechanical inspection of car
was got conducted.
8. On 04.02.2006, Jitender @ Ladi unfortunately got expired
at Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. Section 302 IPC was added
Judgment Page 3 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
in the FIR. Postmortem examination of the body was
conducted and the body after postmortem examination was
handed over to relatives of the deceased.
9. On 17.02.2006 accused Kuldeep @ Sonu was arrested
while traveling in Indica Car bearing registration No.
PB-02-AG-1987. From his possession a pistol and seven
live cartridges were recovered. Indica Car was seized and
it’s actual registration number was found to be DL-9C-
G-7601 Accused was arrested and his disclosure statement
was recorded. Photographs of the car were taken and
Section 482 IPC and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act was
added. Statement of relevant witnesses were recorded.
Efforts were made to search co-accused Vikas @ Tinku
and Sanjeev, but no clue was found. Accused Kuldeep @
Sonu was charge-sheeted.
10.On 16.03.2007 an information was received from Crime
Branch, Rohini, that accused Santosh Yadav @ Sanjeev
was apprehended by them, who had disclosed his
involvement in present case. Accused Sanjeev @ Santosh
was arrested from Jail and his disclosure statement was
recorded. Accused Santosh @ Sanjeev declined to join the
TIP proceedings. Thereafter, on completion of
investigations, charge sheet was filed.
Charge
11.On 25.07.2007, charge for offence punishable under
Section 302/34 IPC and 482/34 IPC was framed against
accused. On 17.02.2006 charge for offence punishable
Judgment Page 4 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act was also framed against
accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed trial.
12.On 24.08.2011, accused Santosh Yadav was declared
proclaimed offender and vide orders dated 02.05.2012,
accused Sonu @ Kuldeep was declared proclaimed
offender. Accused Sonu @ Kuldeep was re-arrested on
18.09.2024.
Prosecution Evidence
13. Prosecution examined 26 witnesses.
PW Name Nature Deposition 1 HC Yoginder Police Proved FIR as Ex.PW1/A, his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. Also proved DD No 22A & 23A as Ex. PW1/C&D in respect of information that one man was shot in front of Jain Mandir, B1, Kothi no. 1, Paschim Vihar. 2 Dr. Brajesh Doctor Proved MLC of deceased Singh Ex.PW2/A and deposed that clothes of accused were handed over to IO in sealed condition 3 Rakesh Kumar Public Identified and received dead body vide memo Ex PW3/A &B 4 Abdul Sattar Eye-witness Hostile. Did not support the prosecution case. 5 Dr. Manoj Doctor Proved post-mortem report Dhingra as Ex.PW5/A and detailed opinion as Ex.PW5/B. 6 Ct. Rajkumar Police On 13.01.2006 went to the spot along with SI Vipin. Proved seizure of empty Judgment Page 5 of 37 S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors. cartridges vide memo Ex. PW6/A. 7 ASI Kamal Police Joined investigation of the Singh case with SI Vipin Kumar. Deposed that statement of Jitender @ Laadi was recorded by SI Vipin Kumar on 19.01.2006. Proved seizure of Indica car, broken pieces of glass and hair present in the car vide memo as Ex. PW7/A to C. Proved identification statements Ex.PW7/D and Ex. PW3/A of the dead body by the relatives of deceased. 8 Dharamjeet Public Owner of Tata Indica car no. DL 9C G 7601 (Ex. P-3). He deposed that the car was given by him to accused Kuldeep about 15 days prior to the date of occurrence. 9 HC Madan Police Proved DD No. 37 dated Singh 04.02.2006 in respect of death of deceased. 10 Dr. Aditya Doctor Proved death summary and certificate Ex. PW10/A & B of deceased. 11 ASI Dev Singh MHC(M) Proved deposit of case property with the malkhana and sending it to FSL vide Ex.PW11/A & B. 12 HC Inder Singh Police Deposited case property with FSL 13 SI Vipin Kumar Initial Reached at the spot on
Investigating receipt of DD No. 22A and
Officer on the basis of the
circumstances prepared
rukka Ex.PW13/A and got
registered FIR. Seized
empty cartridges (Ex. P-7)
from the spot vide memo
Ex. PW6/A and recovered
Judgment Page 6 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
pallet (Ex. P-6) from the
body of injured Jitender vide
memo Ex. PW13/B.
Recorded statement of eye-
witness, prepared site plan
Ex. PW13/C, recorded
statement Ex. PW13/D of
Jitender @ Ladi. Seized
Indica car (Ex.P-8), glass
pieces (Ex. P-1) and hair
(Ex. P-2) as Ex. PW7/A to
C. Got inspected the vehicle,
carried out proceedings U/s
174 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.
PW13/E & F, arrested
accused Sonu @ Kuldeep.
Proved sketch of pistol and
7 live cartridges(Ex. P-4 &
P-5) recovered from the
possession of accused Sonu
@ Kuldeep as Ex. PW13/G,
proved its seizure memo as
Ex. PW13/H, proved seizure
of car no. PB-2AG-1987
vide memo Ex. PW13/J,
recorded disclosure
statement of accused vide
Ex. PW13/K, took his
personal search vide memo
Ex. PW13/L and arrested
him vide memo Ex.
PW13/M, prepared pointing
out memo of the place of
occurrence at the instance of
accused vide memo Ex.
PW13/N, interrogated
accused Sanjeev @ Santosh
and recorded his disclosure
statement vide memo Ex.
PW13/O.
14 SI Mahesh Draughtsman Proved scaled site plan Ex.
Kumar PW14/A of the spot
15 ASI Ram Phul Police Deposed that on 1301.2006.
On receipt of DD No. 22A,
he along with Ct. Virender
Judgment Page 7 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
reached at the spot where
injured Jitender was having
bullet injury on his chest
and he along with
Ct. Virender took him to
SGM Hospital and on the
way injured told him that
accused Sonu @ Kuldeep
and Vikas @ Tinku fired on
him.
16 Inspector Police Proved arrest of accused
Sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev @ Santosh from
Tihar Jail vide Ex. PW16/A
and his disclosure statement
was recorded vide memo
Ex. PW13/O. He collected
FSL Result Ex. PW16/B.
17 HC Man Mohan Police Filled PCR Form
Ex.PW17/A with regard to
information of gun shot fire.
18 JS Pawar Mechanical Inspected car no. HR 05
Engineer 01613 and gave a report
dated Ex. PW18/A also
inspected Indica car no. DL
9C-G-7601 containing
forged number plate PB 02
AG 1987 vide his report
Ex.PW18/B.
19 HC Hariom Police Proved arrest of accused
Santosh Yadav in case FIR
No. 262/07 under Section 25
Arms Act and proved his
disclosure statement as Ex.
PW19/A.
20 DCP HGS Police Accorded Sanction under
Dhaliwal Section 39 Arms Act as per
letter Ex PW16/X.
21 HC Virender Police On receipt of DD No. 22A,
Kumar he along with PW15 ASI
Ram Phul reached at the
spot. Deposed on similar
lines as of PW15.
Went to Agarsen Hospital
with SI Vipin (PW13).
Judgment Page 8 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Proved seizure of clothes
and pallet from body of
injured Jitender @ Ladi as
Ex PW13/A & B.
22 Vishal Kumar Photographer Took photographs of Indica
Car HR-05-Q-1613 &
PB-02-AG-1987 as Ex
PW22/ A-1 to A-11.
23 Subodh Rai Public Called at 100.
24 Inspector Investigating Proved arrest and seizure of
Narender Officer pistol and cartridges and
Chawla Indica car from accused
Sonu @ Kuldeep. Obtained
sanction to prosecute
accused Sonu @ Kuldeep
under Arms Act.
25 SI Rakesh Police Proved sanction accorded
Kumar under Section 39 Arms Act
as per letter Ex PW16/X.
26 VR Anand Scientific Proved FSL Result (Ballistic
Officer FSL Division) as Ex PW16/B.
Plea of Accused
14. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC,
accused stated that he has been falsely implicated by SI
Vipin Kumar in connivance with Dharambir Singh (PW8)
because of a property dispute with him.
Arguments
15. Sh. Pankaj Bhatia Ld Addl. PP for State submitted that
deceased Jitender @ Ladi before his unfortunate death had
given a statement Ex. PW13/D wherein he clearly stated
that accused Sonu @ Kuldeep along with co-accused
Vikas took out their pistols and fired at him and when he
tried to escape, he was again fired by both the accused
persons from behind. It is further submitted that the
recovery of the murder weapon i.e. a pistol (Ex.P-4) from
Judgment Page 9 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
the possession of accused Sonu @ Kuldeep proves that no
other person but accused Sonu @ Kuldeep committed
murder of Jitender @ Ladi after firing bullet on him. It is
stated that the forensic evidence brought on record proves
that the bullet was fired by pistol Ex. P-4 recovered from
the possession of accused Sonu @ Kuldeep. Hence, it is
submitted that case of the Prosecution stands proved
against accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
16.On the other hand, Sh. D.S. Kohli, Ld. Defence Counsel,
submitted that the eye-witness Abdul Sattar (PW4) has not
supported the case of prosecution. It is stated that arrest
and recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession
of accused Sonu @ Kuldeep in view of lack of credible
evidence is highly doubtful. It is further argued that
statement of deceased Jitender on which the prosecution
heavily relied to prove its case against accused is not
proved in accordance of law. It is stated that the
prosecution is unable to bring any credible evidence
against the accused Kuldeep @ Sonu and as such he is
entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
17. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defense
counsel at length. I have perused the material on record
and written submissions filed on behalf of accused.
Appreciation Of Evidence and Analyis
18.Cause of Death: Before adverting to discussions in respect
of incident in question, let us examine what is the cause of
Judgment Page 10 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
death of the deceased. Case of the prosecution is that the
deceased suffered bullet injuries.
19.Post-mortem report Ex. PW5/A is prepared by Dr. Ashish
Jain who opined that cause of death of Jitender was
septicemic shock as a result of wide spread infection
subsequent to trauma of a gun shot injury. All injuries were
found ante-mortem in nature and time since death was also
found consistent with the hospital timing of death.
Accordingly, it is concluded that deceased Jitender died an
unfortunate homicidal death.
20.Prosecution intends to prove its case on the following
grounds:
a) Eye witness account
b) Statement (Ex PW13/D) of Jitender given to PW13 SI
Vipin Kumar wherein he named accused as an assailant.
c) Account of incident given by deceased Jitender to ASI
Ram Phool (PW15) and HC Virender Kumar (PW21)
while he was taken to hospital by them.
d) Recovery of weapon of offence
21.Let us examine as to whether the prosecution has been able
to prove the above noted facts to prove the culpability of
accused Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh.
22.Eye Witness Account: Prosecution case in short is that on
13.01.2006 near B-1/1, DDA Market, Paschim Vihar
accused along with his associates fired upon deceased
Judgment Page 11 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Jitender. At the time of the incident Jitender was traveling
in his Indica car, which was driven by PW4 Abdul Sattar,
and in the presence of Abdul Sattar accused Kuldeep along
with co-accused Vikas took out their pistols and fired at the
chest of Jitender.
23.In respect of the incident, a statement of deceased Jitender
was recorded by PW13 SI Vipin Kumar on 19.01.2006 and
in this statement, the deceased mentioned that he went to
meet accused along with his driver Abdul Sattar (PW4) at
B-1 Market, Paschim Vihar, at the spot accused took out
his pistol and fired upon him.
24.However, PW4 Abdul Sattar did not support the
prosecution case and he denied that he was present at the
spot at the time of incident. PW4 stated that he was
working with deceased Jitender as a driver and on
13.01.2006 at about 9 PM, he met Jitender firstly at
Paschim Vihar and thereafter he went to the house of
deceased at Ashok Vihar to pick his mother. PW4 deposed
that when he reached at the house of deceased, mother of
deceased received an information that Jitender had been
shot, and thereafter, he brought mother of the deceased to
SGM Hospital, where Jitender was found admitted.
25.PW4 deposed that in the hospital, he was apprehended by
some police officials and then for next three days he was
kept at the police station and was let off on 16.01.2006,
after making him to sign some blank papers.
Judgment Page 12 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
26.Since PW4 did not support the prosecution case, he was
declared hostile witness and despite his detailed cross
examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW4 maintained
that he was not present at the spot at the time of the
incident nor he saw accused firing upon the deceased.
From the deposition of PW Abdul Sattar, it becomes
evident that he did not support the prosecution version that
he witnessed to the incident.
27.Statement of Jitender (deceased): Prosecution relied upon a
statement Ex.PW13/D of deceased Jitender recorded by
PW 13 SI Vipin Kumar on 19.01.2006 to establish the role
of accused in commission of murder.
28.As per Ex.PW13/D, deceased stated that he was doing a
business with Vikas @ Tinku who took ₹3 lakhs from him
and for last 5-6 months, he was asking Vikas to return the
money. In this regard meetings also took place between
them. Jitender stated that Vikas @ Tinku had asked him to
forget about the money and also threatened him.
29.Jitender stated that on 13.01.2006 at about 9 PM, he
received a call from Tinku on his mobile and Tinku called
him at a restaurant in front of B-1 Market, Paschim Vihar
and stated that he wanted to talk in respect of the money.
Jitender along with his driver, Abdul Sattar went there in
his car. There Vikas @ Tinku was already sitting in his car.
His two friends, accused Sonu @ Kuldeep and Sanjeev
Judgment Page 13 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
also came there and after asking about the money, Vikas
and Kuldeep took out pistols from their pockets and after
threatening him fired on his chest and then Jitender ran
from there and accused persons ran after him but Jitender
kept on running and after a short distance, he fell down
and became unconscious. Jitender specifically named
Vikas @ Tinku, Sonu @ Kuldeep and Sanjeev as the
persons who fired upon him.
30.Death summary Ex.PW10/A of deceased Jitender is on
record and it shows that deceased Jitender was on
ventilator support prior to his death.
31.MLC of deceased Ex.PW5/A mentions that on 14.01.2006,
he was unfit for statement. Similar endorsement is made
on 17.01.2006, where it is mentioned that patient was not
fit for statement. On the MLC at point X an endorsement
dated 19.01.2006 mentions that patient was fit for
statement and his statement was recorded on that day.
However, it is not clear as to who made this endorsement
on MLC. Prosecution has neither mentioned the name of
the person who made this endorsement nor any witness has
been cited by the prosecution in this regard.
32.SI Vipin Kumar (PW13) who recorded the statement
during his cross-examination deposed as under:
“I reached Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital on
19.1.2006 at about 10-11.00 AM. The doctor
gave the opinion regarding fitness of the
victim for giving statement on MLC itslefJudgment Page 14 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
and I did not move any separate application
in this regard. Doctor did not make any
attestation on the statement of the victim nor
I asked him to make any attestation. I did not
send any information to the SDM of the area
regarding victim Jitender @ Ladi, Vol. There
was no requirement. I did not ask the doctor
to stay in the room of the victim while his
statement was being recorded. At the time
when I recorded the statement of the witness
he was not on ventilator nor was being
provided liquid diet through artificial food
pipes. I am not sure about the floor but I
think he was housed on the second or the
third floor in the main building. I cannot tell
whether he was in the ICU or in a General
Ward/Private Ward. The relatives of the
victims were also present in the hospital but
when I recorded the statement, they were not
inside the room. I took the opinion of the
doctor at about 12.00 Noon or 1.00 Noon,
exact time I do not remember. I cannot tell
without seeing the MLC if the doctor had put
the time of opinion or not. It is wrong to
suggest that the endorsement at point X on
the MLC already Ex.PW2/A is in my hand
writing. Vol. It is not in my handwriting. I
returned from the hospital on 19.01.2006 at
about 3.00PM. I do not remember whether
any DD entry was lodged regarding my
return from the hospital. Vol. I mentioned
about the same in the case diary. It is wrong
to suggest that I never recorded any statement
of render @ Ladi on 19.01.2006 which is
Ex.PW13/0 and that the same had been
recorded by me of my own at the instance of
family members of the deceased. It is wrong
to suggest that the deceased never regained
consciousness and was in Coma from
14.01.2008 till his death on 04.02.2008 and
during this period was on ventilation and life
saving equipments. It is wrong to suggest that
the thumb impression on Ex.PW13/D at point
mark A does not belong to the deceased. It is
also wrong to suggest that the above thumb
impression had been taken after the victimJudgment Page 15 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
had expired, at the instance of his relatives. I
cannot tell if the deceased Jitender @ Ladi
was educated and used to put his signatures
and not his thumb impression.”
33. PW7 HC Kamal Singh, in his cross-examination in
respect of recording of statement of Jitender has deposed as
under:
At the hospital we met the doctor but I do not
remember the name or description.
Investigating Officer had made a written
Application to the doctor. IO did not take any
step to ensure the present of SDM or any
other Gazetted. Officer in the hospital to
record the statement of injured. I do not
remember the floor of the room number in
which victim Jitender @ Ladi was admitted.
We had gone to the building in which the
Emergency Wing exists. I do not know if
Emergency Wing exists in both the buildings
or which building is new or old. I do not
remember if any relations of victim was
present at the hospital. Jitender @ Ladi was
the only patient in the room where his
statement was recorded. I do not remember
the size of the room. I had not stated to the
`Investigating Officer in my statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW7/DA) that
Jitender @ Ladi affixed his LTI on the
statement recorded by SI Vipin Kumar.
Confronted with the statement where the
word ‘sign’ had been used. I did not sign the
statement as witness and I do not remember if
any doctor was present when the abovesaid
statement was recorded. It took about 45
minutes in recording the statement of Jitender
Ladi. The statement was recorded on
questions being asked by the IO. I cannot say
if it was in the question answer form. I am not
aware of more than one statement of Jitender
@ Ladi, however, only one statement was
recorded in my presence. I was within hearing
range when the statement was recorded. As
far as I remember there were bandages on theJudgment Page 16 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
head of Jitender @ Ladi. I do not remember if
glucose was being administered to him. I do
not remember if he was on any drip. IO spoke
to the doctor only for about 2-4 minutes.
Doctor had declared Jitender @ Ladi fit for
statement either on the Application moved by
the IO or on the MLC. It is incorrect to
suggest that I am unable to describe the floor,
building, room or the condition of patient as I
did not visit the hospital.
I did not count the number of glass pieces
which were recovered from inside the car.
Same is answer with respect to number of
hairs. The front wind screen of car bearing
registeration No. HR 05Q 1613, had a hole of
the size of bullet. It is incorrect to suggest that
the above said vehicle was brought from the
house of deceased.
34.From above deposition of PW13, it becomes evident that
he took opinion in respect of the fitness of the injured at
the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital but in this respect no
document was prepared rather PW 13 took the opinion on
the MLC of the injured, which was prepared at Sanjay
Gandhi Hospital and not at Agrasen Hospital.
35.Both prosecution witnesses i.e. PW7 and PW13 during
their testimonies admitted that there is no attestation on the
statement of the victim nor he asked the concerned Doctor
to stay in the room of the victim while his statement was
recorded. PW13 was unable to tell whether at the time of
the recording of the statement injured was in the ICU or in
the general ward or in the private ward of the hospital.
PW7 also failed to point out the room or ward where the
statement of Jitender was recorded.
Judgment Page 17 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
36.As stated above the name of the Doctor who gave the
opinion in respect of the fitness of the injured has not been
mentioned nor any such Doctor has been examined by the
prosecution rather death summary of the injured suggests
that injured required medical intervention and was put on
the ventilator support. Both PW7 & 13 failed to pin point
the exact place where the statement of Jitender was
recorded. The said statement was not recorded in presence
of any Doctor or Hospital staff.
37.In “Kanchy Komuramma Vs State of AP Criminal appeal No.
459/1993”, Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
11. THE prosecution for reasons best known
to it did not examine Dr H. Rao who is
alleged to have made the endorsement on Ex.
P-7 that “the patient was in a fit state of mind
to depose”. No other witness was examined to
prove the certificate of the doctor either. The
non-production of Dr H. Rao to prove his
certificate and subject himself to be cross-
examined by the appellants when considered
in the light of the testimony of the mother of
the deceased, Public Witness 1, who
specifically stated that the condition of the
patient was not good and that she was not in a
fit condition, creates a doubt in our minds as
to whether the patient was actually in aproper
mental condition to make a consciously
truthful statement. This infirmity renders it
unsafe to rely on the dying declaration. As a
matter of fact, the failure of the prosecution to
establish that the deceased, before she made
the dying declaration, was in proper mental
condition to make the dying declaration
detracts materially from the reliability of the
dying declaration and it would not be safe to
rely upon it. That the dying declaration has
been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, by
itself is not a proof of truthfulness of the
Judgment Page 18 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
dying declaration, which in order to earn
acceptability has still to pass the test of
scrutiny of the court. There are certain
safeguards which must be observed by a
Magistrate when requested to record a dying
declaration. The Magistrate before recording
the dying declaration must satisfy himself that
the deceased is in a proper mental state to
make the statement. He must record that
satisfaction before recording the dying
declaration. He must also obtain the opinion
of the doctor, if one is available, about the
fitness of the patient to make a statement and
the prosecution must prove that opinion at the
trial in the manner known to law. These
safeguards have not been observed in the
present case. Even Public Witness 8, Dr
Kurthy, the Casualty Officer has not stated
that the deceased was in a fit condition to
speak.
…..
13. SINCE the dying declaration which we
have found to be unsafe to rely on, is the
solitary piece of evidence on which the
prosecution relies to sustain the conviction of
the deceased, we are of the opinion that
conviction of the appellants for the offence
under S. 302/34 Indian Penal Code cannot be
sustained on the basis of the doubtful dying
declaration.
38.In view of above stated authoritative judgment and in
absence of any credible evidence on record that the injured
was fit to give the statement on 19.01.2006 couple with
non-examination of concerned Doctor and the
circumstances in which the the statement Ex.PW13/D was
recorded it cannot be relied upon.
39.Even otherwise also, the record reveals that deceased while
making alleged dying declaration has not disclosed the
Judgment Page 19 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
parentage and address of the assailants but only their
names have been mentioned in the said dying declaration.
The said dying declaration in the absence of parentage or
address nowhere confirms that it was accused Kuldeep @
Sonu who was involved in alleged occurrence as there may
be more than one Kuldeep @ Sonu known to the deceased
or residing in the said vicinity. Since the sole eye-witness
Abdul Sattar has not supported the case of prosecution and
has not identified accused Kuldeep @ Sonu being the
assailant, the said alleged dying declaration in respect of
identity of accused Kuldeep @ Sonu is having no
admissible value.
40.Deposition of police witnesses: Next in line is the
testimony of PW 15 ASI Ram Phool and PW21 HC
Varinder that they took the injured to the hospital and on
the way they were told by injured that accused persons
fired upon him. Let us examine what both these witnesses
have deposed.
41.PW15 Ram Phool in this respect deposed as under:
“On 13.1.2006 I was posted as ASI in PS
Paschim Vihar. On that day I was on
emergency duty from 8.00pm to 8.00pm. On
that day after receiving DD No. 22A I
alongwith Ct. Virender reached at the spot i.e
opposite Kothi No. 1 B-1 Paschim Vihar,
where I found one Jitender whose came to
know after inquiry in injured condition. He
was having bullet injury on his chest.
Thereafter, I alongwith Ct. Virender took him
in SGM Hospital in TSR. On the way,
Jitender told us that Sonu @ Kuldeep andJudgment Page 20 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Vikas @ Tinku had fired upon me because he
had to take money from Vikas @ Tinku and
he had been called here by Vikas. Jitender
was got admitted in SGM hospital and
thereafter SI Vipin reached there and
conducted the further investigation”.
42.PW21 HC Virender Kumar deposed as under:
“On 13.1.06 I was posted as Constable at PS
Paschim Vihar. On receipt of DD No.22 A, I
along with ASI Ram Phool reached house
No.1, Paschim Vihar, Delhi where we found
one injured whose name later on came to be
known as Ashok Kumar resident of B4/9
Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He was having bullet
injury in his chest. I along with Ram Phool
took the injured to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in
a TSR. The injured was still conscious and he
told us that Sonu @ Kuldeep and Vikas @
Tinku had shot him as he was to take money
from Kuldeep. The injured was got admitted
in SGM hospital vide MLC No.507. During
this period SI Vipin Kr. came to the hospital.
The doctor on duty handed over the clothes
of injured which were worn by him that is
banyan and a shirt duly sealed with the seal
of the hospital in a pulanda. Sample seal of
SGM hospital was also handed over to the IO
/SI Vipin Kumar. During this period the
doctor referred the patient to LNJP hospital,
where he was shifted. I also visited LNJP
hospital along with Vipin where we could not
find the injured but came to know that he had
been admitted at Maha Raja Agersen
Hospital Punjabi Bagh, where doctor Anil
Jindal handed over a sealed pulanda
comprising of bullet/pallet which had been
removed from the body of the injured which
pulanda was sealed with the seal of the
hospital. The pulanda was seized by the IO
/SI Vipin. The seizure memo of the clothes
prepared by SI Vipin at SGM hospital and the
seizure memo of the pallet prepared by Vipin
at Maharaj Agersen Hospital are already
Ex.PW13/A bearing my signature andJudgment Page 21 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Ex.PW13/B, both bearing my signature at
point B. The doctor of Maharaja Agersen
hospital declared the injured for unfit for
statement”
43.PW15 deposed that he received DD No. 22A at about
10.26 PM and thereafter he reached at the spot on his two
wheeler and thereafter it took about 10-15 minutes for him
to arrange an TSR and another 20-25 minutes in reaching
the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
44.Deposition of PW15 stands belied by the deposition of
PW2 Dr Brijesh Singh CMO Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Hospital, who deposed that the injured arrived at the
hospital at about 9:30 PM and the time of examination of
the patient is correctly mentioned as 9.30 PM. MLC
further mentions that injured himself disclosed that he
sustained fire arm injury about two hours back.
45.Thus, going by the MLC of injured, it can be gathered that
injured sustained bullet injury at about 7:30 PM. In such a
scenario, it is hard to believe that injured after sustaining
injury kept lied at the spot till about 10:45 PM when PW15
& PW21 met him and brought to him to the Hospital.
Moreover, as per PW2 injured was brought to the Hospital
at about 9:30 PM, then how it is possible that ASI Ram
Phool who received DD No. 22A at 10:26 PM could have
brought the patient to the hospital.
46.PW21 Virender deposed that the injured had received the
injuries on the left side of the chest and confirmed that the
Judgment Page 22 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
DD No.22A was received at about 10.25 PM. As stated
above, by that time, they injured already been examined by
the Doctor at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. PW21
has incorrectly deposed that injured sustained injuries on
left side as MLC Ex PW5/A shows that gun shot injury
sustained by injured was on right side of his chest.
47.PW15 deposed that after Jitender was admitted in the
Hospital, SI Vipin reached there and conducted further
investigation. During his cross-examination, PW15
specifically deposed that he stated all the facts related to
this case to SI Vipin when he reached SGM Hospital.
48.PW21 during his cross-examination deposed that his
statement was recorded at SGM Hospital around 12
midnight, and it was recorded at the first instance when the
injured was still admitted in SGM Hospital and was in the
process for shifting to LNJP Hospital
49.PW 13 SI Vipin Kumar, who prepared rukka and got the
FIR registered deposed that he reached Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital at about 11:30 PM and one ASI and a constable,
met him at the hospital and he talked to them for about 10
minutes and they disclosed him about the facts of this case
at that time. Therefore, it is evident from the testimony of
above witnesses that prior to the registration of FIR, they
brought to the knowledge of PW13 SI Vipin that the
injured had disclosed to them that accused Sonu @
Judgment Page 23 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Kuldeep and Vikas @ Tinku had fired upon him but these
fact does not find any mention in the rukka.
50.If at all SI Vipin Kumar was aware about the names of the
assailants, then it is not explained why he did not mention
those names in the rukka prepared by him. The absence of
these facts in rukka creates further doubt over the
authenticity of the deposition of PW 15 & 21 that injured
had disclosed them about the incident.
51.If we go through the statement Ex.PW13/D of the injured
recorded by SI Vipin Kumar in that statement injured
stated that after receiving the bullet injuries, he ran away
from there and fell down after becoming unconscious and
he does not know what happened afterwards. If injured got
unconscious at the spot itself then how it is possible that he
informed PW 15 & 21 about the incident. Version of PW15
& 21 is also not in consonance with the statement of
injured recorded by SI Vipin Kumar.
52.Claim of PW 15 & 21 is that they received DD no. 22A
near about 10:30 PM after about 30-45 minutes they
brought injured to Hospital after receiving DD whereas as
per MLC EX.PW2/A injured was admitted to the hospital
and was examined by the Doctor at about 9:30 PM.
53.PW15 deposed that he received DD No. 22A at about
10:26 PM and thereafter he went to the spot on his two
wheeler and after 15 minutes he was able arrange a TCR
Judgment Page 24 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
and it took another 20-25 minutes for him to reach at the
hospital along with the injured. That goes to show that as
per PW 15, they reached the hospital with injured at about
11:15 PM, whereas the MLC indicates that the injured was
examined at 9:30 PM and he had received gunshot injury
about 2 hours prior to that that is near about 7:30 PM.
54.It is also noteworthy that PCR form Ex PW17/A mentions
that an information was received at about 11:30 PM that
injured sustained bullet injuries after being fired at by one
Kuldeep and Vikas but as stated above rukka which was
sent by SI Vipin Kumar (PW13) does not find any
mention of this information.
55.All above noted discrepancies in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis medical record and non-
mentioning of crucial fact of involvement of accused in the
commission of offence in the rukka creates enough doubt
as to whether the injured was taken to the hospital by PW
15 & 21 and their testimony that deceased disclosed to
them about involvement of accused in firing the bullet
becomes highly doubtful.
56.Recovery of weapon of offence: As per prosecution case,
on 17.02.2006, Indica car in which accused was traveling,
was intercepted and he was apprehended by the police
team constituting of Inspector Narender Chawla (PW22),
SI Vipin Kumar (PW13), SI Vijay Chandel, SI Tejpal, HC
Inder Singh and HC Somdev. From the search of the
Judgment Page 25 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
accused, a loaded pistol (Ex P-4) was found in his
possession. Pistol was found containing seven live
cartridges. Sketch of the pistol and cartridges was prepared
as Ex.PW13/G and pistol was seized vide memo as
Ex.PW13/H. The Tata Indica car in which accused was
traveling was also seized vide memo Ex.PW13/G.
57.Accused was arrested. His personal search was taken and
his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo as
Ex.PW13/M, L & K respectively. On pointing out of the
accused a pointing out memo Ex.PW13/N of place of
occurrence was prepared.
58.On the basis of recovery of pistol and cartridges (Ex P-5),
sanction Ex PW16/X was granted under Section 39 Arms
Act to prosecute accused Kuldeep @ Sonu under penal
provisions of Arms Act. As per FSL report as Ex.PW16/B
pistol was found in working order. Cartridges were found
live Bullet (Ex P-6) extracted from body of deceased
corresponded to the bullet of 9 mm cartridge and
individual characteristics on bullet fired from pistol and
recovered cartridge from dead body were found identical.
59.On the basis of physical examination, microscopic
examination and gun shot residue analysis it was
concluded that the hole on the baniyan which deceased
was wearing at the time of incident was caused by bullet
discharged through recovered pistol. Recovered fire
Judgment Page 26 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
arm/ammunition were arms & ammunition as defined in
the Arms Act 1959.
60. Prosecution has argued that the recovery of the pistol from
which the bullet fired upon the injured from the possession
of accused Kuldeep @ Sonu establishes that accused
Kuldeep fired upon the bullet upon deceased from the
pistol recovered from his possession. It is contended that
the recovery conclusively proves that accused Kuldeep @
Sonu fired upon deceased Jitender which resulted into his
unfortunate death, and hence, case of prosecution stands
proved against the accused Kuldeep.
61.Recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of
accused Kuldeep has been questioned by the defence by
contending that the accused Kuldeep @ Sonu was not
arrested on 17.02.2006 as stated by the prosecution
witnesses rather the accused was apprehended by the
police on 13.02.2006 and thereafter weapon of offence was
planted upon him.
62.It is contended that by the defence though the prosecution
witnesses, including Investigating Officer claims that
accused Kuldeep was arrested on 17.02.2006 but PW11
ASI Dev Singh who was posted as Malkhana In-charge at
relevant time deposed that on 13.02.2006, Investigating
Officer Inspector Narinder Chawla deposited contents of
accused Kuldeep with the Malkhana. The deposit of the
Judgment Page 27 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
case property in the Malkhana is proved vide entries in the
Malkhana register as Ex. PW11/A.
63.Now, let us examine the contentions raised by the defence
in the light of the deposition of recovery witnesses and of
PW11 ASI Dev Singh, who was working as MHCM in the
police station at the relevant time.
64.It is the case of the prosecution that the police team
intercepted the car of the accused Kuldeep on 17.02.2006
and thereafter he was apprehended and the recovery of the
pistol and cartridges was effected from his possession,
however, PW11 ASI Dev Singh in his examination in chief
recorded on 02.04.2009 deposed that on 13.02.2006
Inspector Narinder Chawla deposited contents of accused
Kuldeep with the Malkhana.
65.Upon the application of prosecution, PW11 ASI Devi
Singh was recalled for his further examination and in his
deposition PW 11 clarified that he received a personal
search memo of accused Kuldeep from Investigating
Officer IO inspector Narinder Chawla on 17.02.2006. In
respect of which an entry number 3325 was made.
66.A clarification question was put to this witness on behalf
of State that if he received the case property on
17.02.2006, then how the entry came to be made in the
register vide serial number 3325 with date 13.01.2006 and
Judgment Page 28 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
that too in between the entries dated 14.02.2006 and
15.02.2006.
67.In this regard, the deposition of PW11 ASI Devi Singh
reads as under:
Question 2:
If the memo was received by you on
17.2.2006 then how its entry came to be
made at Sl. No. 3325 with the date
13.1.2006 and that too in between the
entries dated 14.2.2006 and 15.2.2006?
Ans. In the personal search memo the copy
of which was received by me from the IO,
there was no date below the signatures of
the IO and thus, inadvertently the said
memo was entered as per the date of the FIR
which was mentioned at the top of the
memo i.e 13.1.2006.
As regards the fact that the said memo came
to be entered in between the memos dated
14.2.206 and 15.2.2006, I submit that due to
pressure of work, the memos dated
14.2.2006, 15.2.2006 and 16.2.2006 were
not yet entered in the register by me on the
said dates and later on when I received the
memos dated 17.2.2006 I filled up the
register by entering all the memos which
were already pending with me for entry and
in that process I mixed up the personal
search memo of accused Kuldeep and
entered it at Sl. No. 3325 against the date of
FIR i.e 13.1.2006. It was an inadvertent
error as the entry No. 3324 dated 14.2.2006
was already filled up by me and when I
started making entries of the pending
memos, then I thinking it to be of the earlier
date i.e. of 13.1.2006, so I first of all entered
it at Sl. No. 3325 and the other memos were
entered thereafter.
68.Though PW 11 ASI Dev Singh deposed that there was an
inadvertent error while making the entry in the register but
Judgment Page 29 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
during the course of his cross examination, PW11 deposed
that the MHC(M) works around the clock and does receive
the case property articles even during the night hours. He
admitted that entries in the Register No. 19 is to be made
immediately by MHC(M) upon receipt of any pullanda or
article in the Malkhana.
69. ASI Dev Singh further admitted during his cross-
examination that there was an overwriting on the date of
deposit of 13.01.2006 as mentioned in Column No. 3
against entry number 3325. He admitted that he has
overwritten figure to as ‘1’ on figure of ‘2’. He admitted that
pages of Register No. 19 produced by him did not have
been assigned any serial number . He further admitted that
against entry number 3325, he has made an endorsement
initially in blue ink and thereafter in red ink with his
signatures as ASI, which is his present rank, making the
endorsement “see next mud no. 3331”. He deposed that
this endorsement was made by him on 11.11.2009 after he
came to know about the said mistake.
70.It is evident that the record relied upon by the prosecution
in respect of the deposit of case property with the
Malkhana that is Register No.19 produced by PW 11 ASI
Dev Singh reflects that an entry no.3325 pertaining to
personal search articles of accused Kuldeep has been
reflected in the said register much prior to the date of arrest
of accused Kuldeep.
Judgment Page 30 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
71.Prosecution claims it to be an inadvertent mistake.
However, deposition of PW11 Dev Singh reflects the
record produced by the MHC(M) in respect of the entries
made in the Malkhana register are manipulated.
72.ASI Dev Singh admits that there is over writing in the
entry in date 13.01.2006 and it has been over written as
figure ‘1’ by overwriting it on figure ‘2’. Nonetheless,
register indicates that against the entry number 3235
MHC(M) mentioned his rank as ASI but on the date when
the said entry was made, he was posted as Head Constable.
73.ASI Dev Singh has admitted that he made such an
endorsement in the register on 11.11.2009. The tempering
of the record in respect of relevant entry of the present case
creates enough doubt over the genuineness of the record
maintained by the Malkhana. Though PW11 Dev Singh
has come up with an explanation that due to work pressure,
the said mistake was committed. However, record reflects
that on relevant dates only a few entries were made in the
register. Thus, the explanation that ASI was overworked
and could not make the entries as and when the case
properties were received is hard to believe. Entry in
respect of deposit of articles of personal search of accused
Kuldeep in the Malkhana register much prior to his date of
arrest creates serious doubt over the claim of prosecution
as to whether accused Kuldeep was arrested on 17.02.2006
as claimed by prosecution or on 13.02.2006 as per his
Judgment Page 31 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
personal search record Ex.PW11/A as reflected in
Malkhana register.
74. In his quest to demonstrate that the recovery of murder
weapon is shrouded in suspicion, Ld. Defence Counsel
vehemently contended that it is highly unbelievable that
the accused would roam on city road along with murder
weapon in his pocket that too after more than one month of
incident so that he could be apprehended along with
murder weapon. He contended that this is against natural
course of human conduct.
75.In Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch v. State of Gujarat, (2009)
11 SCC 625, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
37. Be that as it may, we feel that only
because the recovery of a weapon was made
and the expert opined that the bullet found in
the body of the deceased was fired from one
of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the
sole premise on which a judgment of
conviction under Section 302 could be
recorded. There was no direct evidence. The
accused, as noticed hereinbefore, was
charged not only under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Penal Code but also under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B thereof.
The murder of the deceased was said to have
been committed by all the accused persons
upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has
not been proved.
38. The learned trial Judge himself opined
that the recovery having been made after nine
months, the weapon might have changed in
many hands. In absence of any other
evidence connecting the accused with
commission of crime of murder of the
deceased, in our opinion, it is not possible to
Judgment Page 32 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
hold that the appellant on the basis of such
slander evidence could have been found
guilty for commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
76. In view of above authoritative judgment, the contention
of the defense appears to be appealing specially when
despite having definite information of accused,
Investigating Officer did not made any sincere effort to
join any independent witness in the raiding party. The
manipulation of Malkhana record further creates doubt
over the date, time mode and manner in which accused
Kuldeep was apprehended.
77.In view of above discussions, it is concluded that recovery
of weapon of offence (pistol and cartridges) from
possession of accused is shrouded with suspicion and
stands not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the
allegations for possessing arms and ammunition against
accused Kuldeep also stands not proved.
78.There is one another facet to the matter, MLC prepared at
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital of deceased Jitender as
Ex.PW2/A of the date of incident mentions at point B that
patient’s attendants made a big chaos in the casualty and
patient was immediately transferred to LNJP hospital
within half an hour. On the way to LNJP Hospital, the
ambulance of the hospital was stopped on Gunpoint and
the Driver and Doctor accompanying was forced to take
Ambulance to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. It is mentioned
Judgment Page 33 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
that attendants threatened Doctor and Driver for
threatening consequences.
79.Entire investigation is absolutely silent on the aspect that
who were those persons who had taken the ambulance to
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital at at gun point. Neither any
identity nor any names of those persons who forcibly took
the Ambulance have cropped up during investigation. Why
no effort was made by the investigating officer to find
those persons and make inquiries about the incident is not
explained.
80.Another fact which has been brought on record is that
initial Investigating Officer PW13 SI Vipin Kumar proved
the recovery of two fired cartridges Ex P-7 from the place
of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex PW6/A. During
course of his cross-examination, PW13 was shown the
cartridges Ex P-7 and he testified that though on those
cartridges, the word KF 67 and KF 94 are mentioned, but
seizure memo Ex PW6/A does not mention the words KF
67 and KF 94 as appearing on cartridges Ex P-7.
81.Allegations under Section 482 IPC: Accused Kuldeep @
Sonu is also facing trial on allegations that he along with
his co-accused persons used an Indica Car by
counterfeiting its registration number as PB-02-AG-1987,
whereas the car was having original registration number
DL-9G-7601.
Judgment Page 34 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
82.To prove the above stated allegation, prosecution
examined PW8 Dharamjeet, who deposed that he is the
owner of the Tata Indica car bearing registration number
DL-9CG-7601 (Ex P-3). He deposed that 15 days prior to
the date of incident accused Kuldeep had taken the car
from him and thereafter he did not return the vehicle on
one pretext or the other.
83.During course of his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that
he does not possess any documentary evidence regarding
the ownership of the Indica car and testified that the car
was registered in the name of one Parveen Kumar Lakra.
PW8 testified that he informed the Investigating officer
that the registered owner of the car was Parveen Kumar
Lakra. PW8 further admitted that he moved an application
seeking the release of the car on superdari but the same
was declined as he was not the registered owner of the car.
84.From the deposition of PW8 Dharamjeet, it becomes
evident that he was not owner of the car number
DL-9CG-7601. Prosecution did not examine the owner of
the car despite the fact that PW8 Dharamjeet stated that he
had informed the Investigating Officer that the owner of
the car was Parveen Kumar Lakra. Despite the fact that IO
had particulars of registered owner of the car but even then
said Parveen Kumar Lakra has neither been cited as a
witness nor examined by the prosecution for the reasons,
best known to the Investigating Officer.
Judgment Page 35 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
85.It is evident that Parveen Kumar Lakra was the best
evidence to depose as to whether he ever handed over his
Indica Car to PW8. Only the owner of the car could have
proved the correct sequence of events as to how, the car
Ex.P-3 landed the car in possession of the accused
Kuldeep but Investigating Officer has with-held the best
evidence. In absence of the examination of the owner of
the car, the case of the prosecution that it was used by
accused Kuldeep or its number plate was found different
than to it’s original number stands not proved. Accordingly,
accused Kuldeep is also entitled to be acquitted for the
offence punishable under section 482 IPC.
Conclusion
86.In view of above discussions, it is concluded that
prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of
“may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is
indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge
against accused. Accordingly, accused Kuldeep @ Sonu
is acquitted in the present case for offences punishable
under Section u/s 302/482/34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act
by extending benefit of doubt to him.
In terms of Section 437(A) CrPC accused is directed
to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- which shall be in force for period of six
months.
Judgment Page 36 of 37
S.C. No. 552/2024 State Vs. Sonu @ Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Copy of order be sent to Ld Secretary, DLSA-West, Delhi
with the direction to give adequate compensation to the
LR’s of deceased Jitender.
Announced in open Court on day of 23rd May 2025.
File be consigned to Record Room and be revived as and
when remaining accused persons are arrested. Digitally
signed by
GAUTAM
GAUTAM MANAN
MANAN Date:
2025.05.23
16:45:16
+0530Gautam Manan
Additional Sessions Judge-09, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Judgment Page 37 of 37