[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sh Ajay Negi vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 04.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 06.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 860/2017
SH. AJAY SINGH NEGI ......Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Ms. Nikita Paik
and Ms. Deepika, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in SC
No. 6646/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-02,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment
dated 26.07.2017 and the order on sentence dated 10.08.2017 as
per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the
IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2015, at about
8:30 PM, in front of House No. 98, DDA Flats, South Enclave,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi, the accused fired at PW1 with a country-
made pistol causing an injury. The accused did not have a license
to own a fire arm. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the
accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable
under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms
Act, 1959 (the Arms Act).
3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on
10.03.2015, crime no. 237/2015, Ambedkar Nagar Police Station,
i.e., Exhibit PW5/B FIR was registered by PW5, Head Constable.
PW11, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of
the case. PW11 conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging
commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned
sections.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court, vide order dated 01.07.2015, framed a charge under
Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, which was read
over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 14 were
examined and Exhibits PW1/A-G, PW4/A, PW3/A-B, PW5/A-D,
PW6/A, PW8/A-C, PW8/DA, PW11/A-D, PW12/A, PW13/A and
PW14/A-D were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had been falsely
implicated due to a dispute with PW1 relating to a mobile phone.
7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted
in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.
vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker
2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of
Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgement dated 26.07.2017 held the accused
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC. Vide
order on sentence dated 10.08.2017, sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to fine of
₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this
appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the latter has been falsely implicated owing to a
personal dispute arising out of a failed relationship, and the
circumstances brought on record do not disclose any motive,
intention or premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit
an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It was further
contented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
conviction is founded entirely on the sole testimony of PW1,
which is not corroborated by any independent evidence, despite
PW1's own admission that several public persons had gathered at
the spot. It was urged that no independent eyewitness was
examined and the appellant was not apprehended at the spot,
rendering the prosecution's version doubtful.
10.1. The learned counsel contended that the essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC are
not made out, inasmuch as even as per Exhibit PW1/A FIS of
PW1, the bullet merely grazed through the sleeves of the sweater
("sweater ke baaju mein chedh banaate hue nikal gaii") and did
not hit her body. It was submitted that no injury was caused to any
vital part of the body, and the nature of the incident, as narrated in
the Exhibit PW1/A FIS, does not disclose the requisite intention or
knowledge on the part of the appellant to cause death.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relying on
the testimony of PW13, Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL
Rohini, submitted that the country-made pistol recovered in the
present case was found to be in working condition and that test
firing through the said weapon was successfully conducted. It was
submitted that gunshot residue particles had been scientifically
detected on the hole mark present on the left sleeve of PW1's
sweater, which corroborates the prosecution version regarding
firing by the appellant. The learned prosecutor contended that
merely because no conclusive opinion could be given as to
whether the recovered cartridge had been fired from the said pistol,
the prosecution case does not fail, as the presence of gunshot
residue on the sweater and the proof of discharge of a firearm
sufficiently establish the occurrence of the firing incident.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement calling for an interference by this court.
14. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case.
Exhibit PW1/A, the FIS of PW1 reads thus:- She stated that she
was employed at an ICICI Call Centre at Saket, New Delhi, and
that she had been in a friendship for about six years with the
accused, who was earlier residing in Dakshinpuri and was, at the
relevant time, residing in a rented accommodation at Katwaria
Sarai, New Delhi. She stated that there was an intention to marry
the accused. But she later refused to marry the accused after
observing his behavior, due to which the accused had been
annoyed with her. On 10.03.2015, the accused telephoned her and
informed her that he was coming to the street outside her house to
return her mobile SIM card and to meet her. At about 8:30 PM,
after receiving a call from the accused, which he made from her
SIM card, she went outside her house and found the accused
standing in the street carrying a bag and upon asking for the SIM
card, the accused returned the same to her and told her that she had
not done the right thing by refusing to marry him and by
discontinuing communication with him. She further stated that
while talking to her, the accused repeatedly put his hand inside the
bag, which made her suspicious, and she therefore started walking
away. At that moment, the accused took out a pistol from the bag,
uttered words to the effect that if she could not be his, she would
not be anyone else's, ("agar main uski nahi ho saki, toh kisi ki
nahi ho paongi") and fired at her. She attempted to catch hold of
the accused's hand, but he jerked her hand away and fired a shot,
as a result of which the bullet passed through the sleeve of the
sweater she was wearing, creating a hole therein, and did not strike
her body. She further stated that on hearing the sound of the
gunshot, neighbors gathered at the spot, whereupon the accused
dropped the pistol and the bag at the spot and fled from there. PW1
stated further that legal action should be taken against the accused
for attempting to kill her by firing at her.
14.1. PW1, when examined before the trial court, while
broadly supporting the version given by her in Exhibit PW1/A FIS,
made certain additional statements. She deposed that the accused
fired with the intention to kill her. She further stated that after the
firing, she immediately returned to her house, informed her
parents, and called the police, pursuant to which the police reached
the spot. She also stated that she was taken to the hospital for
medical examination and that the accused could not be
apprehended on the same day and was arrested on the following
day.
14.2. PW1, in her cross-examination, stated that the incident
had taken place at a distance of about 8 to 10 paces from her house
and that after the firing she returned home and informed her
parents. She stated that after hearing the gunshot, PW2, a pandit
from a nearby temple, and about 10 to 15 members of the public
reached the spot, but the accused had already fled by then. She
stated that police reached her house thereafter. PW1 further
deposed that about 8 to 10 police officials reached her house and
thereafter she produced her sweater. PW1 further deposed that a
day prior to the incident, the accused had met her at Lajpat Nagar
and had run away after taking her mobile phone following a
quarrel.
14.3. PW1, in her re-examination identified her Samsung
mobile phone produced before the court as Exhibit P4 and stated
that it was the same phone taken away by the accused, the day
prior to the incident. She deposed that when the accused came on
the date of the incident, she had removed her SIM card from the
said phone and that she herself had paid for the mobile phone at
the time of its purchase. She categorically denied that she had
falsely implicated the accused, denied that any quarrel had taken
place on the issue of marriage and denied that she had lodged the
complaint to take revenge.
15. PW2 deposed that he is a priest (pujari) at Har Har
Mahadev Mandir (temple), South Enclave, DDA Flats, and resides
in the temple premises. He deposed that on 10.03.2015, at about
8:30 PM, while he was present in the temple, he heard the sound of
firing. He immediately came out of the temple and saw PW1, who
resides in the same vicinity, standing there frightened. He saw a
country-made pistol and one bag lying near her and that several
persons had also gathered at the spot. He further deposed that one
Rinku also reached there and took PW1 to her house. He deposed
that the police were informed and several police officials reached
the spot. During enquiry, he came to know that some boy had fired
a shot at PW1 and had fled from the spot. He stated that PW1 had
sustained a gunshot injury on her left arm and that the police had
recorded his statement.
15.1. PW2 , in his cross-examination, deposed that when he
came out of the temple, PW1 was present along with another
woman stated to be the wife of Rinku. The police reached the spot
after about 15-20 minutes and that by the time police arrived, PW1
had already gone to her house. He further deposed that he had seen
the pistol lying on the floor and that it had wooden strips and that
the incident had taken place at the corner of the mandir.
16. PW3, deposed that on 10.03.2015, she was posted as
Junior Resident at JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
PW1 was brought with a history of assault. She examined PW1
and noticed multiple abrasions on the left forearm. She deposed
that she had prepared Exhibit PW3/A MLC and stated that after
treatment, the patient was discharged and the discharge summary
is Exhibit PW3/B. She opined that the nature of injuries was
simple.
16.1. PW3, in her cross-examination, deposed that the
injuries on the forearm were fresh and that injuries are considered
fresh if they are within 5 to 6 hours of examination and that there
was no fresh bleeding. But blood clot marks were present.
17. PW4 deposed that on 10.03.2015, on receiving
information of the incident, he along with the fingerprint expert
and PW6, the photographer reached the spot i.e. gali (street) in
front of House No. 104, DDA Flats, South Enclave, Dakshinpuri.
He deposed that he inspected the crime scene, where a country-
made pistol and a bag were lying in the street and that PW6 took
photographs and SI Chetram checked for chance prints. He
deposed that he had prepared Exhibit PW4/A report and handed it
over to PW11.
18. PW5, Duty Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, Police Station
deposed that at about 9:15 PM on the date of incident, he received
information from the control room regarding firing on a girl, which
he recorded vide DD No. 54A and entrusted to PW11, the Sub-
Inspector. At about 10:40 PM, PW9 (PW14) handed over Exhibit
PW1/A FIS sent by PW11 for registration of the FIR, on the basis
of which, he registered the crime.
19. PW6, photographer and member, Mobile Crime Team,
South East District deposed that on receipt of information, he
along with the Crime Team reached the spot, where a country-
made pistol and a bag were lying. He stated that he took
photographs of the scene of crime from different angles on the
directions of the In-charge Crime Team marked as Exhibits
PW6/A (colly) along with the corresponding negatives. PW6 in his
cross-examination, deposed that when he reached the spot, the
injured person was not present there. But the public were present
in the street.
20. PW7, Woman Constable, Ambedkar Nagar Police
Station, deposed that on receiving instructions, she accompanied
PW11 to the house of PW1. PW1 handed over the sweater she had
been wearing at the time of the incident, which was having a hole
on the sleeve. PW7 further deposed that the sweater was seized by
PW11 vide Exhibit PW1/E seizure memo. PW7 in her cross-
examination, stated that she does not remember the exact time
when the sweater was seized. However, the same was seized from
the house of PW1.
21. PW8, Head Constable, Ambedkar Nagar Police Station,
deposed that he was also in the investigation team. At the spot a
country-made pistol and a bag were found lying. He deposed that
PW11 prepared the sketch of the pistol (Exhibit PW1/C)and seized
the pistol vide Exhibit PW1/D seizure memo and bag vide Exhibit
PW9/A seizure memo. He further stated that he accompanied
PW11 during further investigation and that the case property was
deposited in the malkhana. In the cross-examination, PW8 deposed
the pistol was lying in the street. He denied the suggestion that no
recovery had been effected from the spot or that the seizure memos
were prepared later in the police station.
22. PW9, Head Constable, deposed that on receipt of DD
No. 54A, he along with PW11 went to the spot. He also stated that
they found a country-made pistol and a bag lying in the street and
that PW1 had already gone to her house. He stated that thereafter
he went to the house of PW1, where her statement was recorded.
23. PW10, Constable, deposed that on the relevant date he
was posted as MHC(M) at PS Ambedkar Nagar. The case
property, including the country-made pistol, cartridge, sweater and
bag, were deposited in the malkhana by PW11. In his cross-
examination, PW10 stated that the case property remained intact
while in his custody. He denied the suggestion of tampering with
the case property.
24. PW11, Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 10.03.2015 she
was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. On receipt
of DD No. 54A, she reached the spot and thereafter went to the
house of PW1, where she recorded the statement. PW11 stated that
the site plan was prepared at her instance.
25. PW12, the Additional DCP, deposed that the case file
which included the FSL report relating to the arm and ammunition
recovered from the accused along with statements of witnesses,
sketch and seizure memos of arms and ammunition, copy of FIR
and other relevant documents were perused. He further deposed
that as per the FSL report, the recovered pistol was a firearm
within the meaning of the Arms Act. Upon being satisfied that the
firearm had been recovered from the accused without any valid
licence, he accorded Exhibit PW12/A Sanction under Section 39 of
the Arms Act.
26. PW13, Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL, Rohini,
New Delhi, deposed that on 22.05.2015, three sealed parcels
received in the FSL were assigned to him for examination. The
sealed parcels were found to contain one country-made pistol of
.315 bore marked as F1, one cartridge of .315 marked as EC1,
which was found stuck inside the pistol, one full-sleeve sweater
marked as C1 having a hole on the lower portion of the left sleeve,
marked as H1, and three 8 mm/.315 cartridges for test firing. On
examination, the country-made pistol as well as the stuck cartridge
were found to be firearm and ammunition within the meaning of
the Arms Act. The pistol was in working order. Test firing was
conducted successfully and the two test-fired cartridges were
marked as TC1 and TC2. He further deposed that the individual
characteristics of the marks present on the evidence cartridge EC1
and on TC1 and TC2 were examined under a comparison
microscope, but were found insufficient. Hence, no opinion could
be given whether the cartridge EC1 had been fired through the
country-made pistol or not. He further deposed that the swab taken
from around the hole marked H1 on the left sleeve of the sweater
along with control was examined in an atomic absorption
spectrophotometer, and gunshot residue particles were detected on
the hole mark H1 on the sweater marked Exhibit C1. He deposed
that he prepared Exhibit PW13/A report after examining all the
parcels in detail.
26.1. PW13, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not
take residue from the barrel of Exhibit-F1 country-made pistol as
no such request had been made by PW11. So, a comparison of
residue from the pistol barrel with residue taken from the sweater
was therefore not possible. He denied the suggestion that cartridge
EC1 was not fired from Exhibit-F1 country-made pistol and denied
that he was deposing falsely.
27. PW14, Head Constable, Ambedkar Nagar Police
Station brought the malkhana register No. 19 containing the record
of deposit of case property in Crime No. 237/2015. PW14 deposed
that as per the record, on 10.03.2015, PW11 deposited three sealed
parcels stated to be containing a country-made pistol, a bag and a
black-coloured sweater bearing particulars of the present case, for
which entry was made at Serial No. 2451. The pulanda of the
pistol and sweater were in a sealed condition, whereas the bag was
unsealed and contained some clothes. He further stated that on
13.03.2015, PW11 deposited one sealed pulanda containing a
Samsung mobile phone, for which entry was made at Serial No.
2461. He further stated that on 21.05.2015, PW11 deposited three
live cartridges in sealed condition with the seal of PS, for which
entry was made at Serial No. 2639. He further deposed that on
22.05.2015, all the sealed parcels, including the sealed parcel of
the sweater and cartridges, were sent to FSL through PW10 vide
Road Certificate No. 109/21, and the same were deposited there
against acknowledgment. He further stated that on 25.10.2016,
three sealed parcels along with the FSL report were received back
and the FSL report was handed over to the Investigating Officer.
The photocopies of the relevant malkhana register entries were
marked as Exhibits PW14/A, PW14/B and PW14/C, and the
photocopy of the road certificate as Exhibit PW14/D. In his cross-
examination, PW14 admitted that he was not posted at the
Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, when the time, case property was
deposited and sent to the FSL.
28. The appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC, that is, attempt to commit
murder. To prove an offence under Section 307 IPC, the
prosecution must establish that the act was done with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death
had been caused, the act would amount to murder. The intention or
knowledge of the accused has to be gathered from the nature of the
weapon used, the manner of its use, the part of the body aimed at
and the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct and
words spoken by the accused at the time of the occurrence. In the
present case, the prosecution rests primarily on the testimony of
PW1, who is the injured witness. It is well settled that the
testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value. A
conviction can be solely based on the testimony of an injured
witness, provided the same inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy. PW1's testimony, when read as a whole, does not
suffer from any inherent improbability or material inconsistency.
29. On perusal of Exhibit PW1/A FIS, as well as the
testimony of PW1 before the trial court, it is apparent that her
version regarding the occurrence has remained substantially
consistent. PW1 has consistently stated that the appellant called
her to the street near her house, took out a country-made pistol and
fired at her. PW1 deposed that immediately prior to firing, the
appellant said "agar main uski nahi ho saki, toh kisi ki nahi ho
paongi". The said utterance, made contemporaneously with the act
of firing, clearly reflects the state of mind of the appellant and
assumes significance in determining the requisite intention under
Section 307 IPC. The defence has not been able to elicit any
material contradiction or inconsistency in her testimony so as to
render it unreliable.
30. Turning to the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the bullet did not strike the body of PW1 and merely
passed through the sleeve of her sweater does not, in the facts of
the present case, take the act outside the ambit of Section 307 IPC.
The intention of the accused is not to be inferred solely from the
extent or gravity of the injury caused. PW1 has categorically stated
that the appellant aimed the pistol at her and fired. The fact that the
bullet did not hit a vital part of the body appears to be a matter of
chance rather than an indication of absence of mens rea. Exhibit
PW3/A MLC, clearly shows that PW1 sustained injuries on her
left forearm. However, the nature of injury is not determinative of
the offence under Section 307 IPC when the act is accompanied by
a clear intention or knowledge to cause death. Firing a country-
made pistol at a person at close range, after issuing a threat of the
nature noticed above, is an act which, if it had resulted in death,
would have amounted to murder. Therefore, the absence of
grievous or fatal injury does not dilute the culpability of the
appellant. It is thus not necessary that a victim shall have to suffer
an injury dangerous to his life, for attracting Section 307 IPC. [See
Surinder Singh vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh),
2021 SCC OnlineSC 1135]
31. The learned counsel for the appellant laid considerable
emphasis on Exhibit PW13/A FSL report, contending that PW13
was unable to give a conclusive opinion as to whether the
recovered cartridge had been fired from the recovered country-
made pistol. However, the evidence of PW13 cannot be read in
isolation. PW13 has categorically deposed that the country-made
pistol recovered from the spot was in working condition and that
test firing through the said weapon was successfully conducted.
PW13 has further stated that gunshot residue particles were
detected on the hole mark present on the left sleeve of the sweater
worn by PW1 at the time of the incident. The presence of gunshot
residue on the clothing of PW1 lends scientific corroboration to
her ocular testimony that a firearm was discharged during the
incident. The inability to conclusively match the evidence
cartridge with the recovered pistol does not negate the factum of
firing, particularly when the weapon was recovered from the spot
immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, Exhibit PW13/A FSL
report, when read along with the testimony of PW1, supports the
prosecution version. The inconclusive nature of the cartridge
comparison does not create a dent in the prosecution case so as to
discredit the consistent and cogent testimony of the injured
witness, PW1.
32. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended
that the prosecution case is rendered doubtful due to the absence of
independent eye-witnesses. PW1 deposed that several persons
gathered at the spot after hearing the sound of firing. The materials
on record show that the incident occurred suddenly and that people
arrived only after the firing had already taken place. PW2, who
reached the spot on hearing the gunshot, is not an eye-witness to
the act of firing itself. Therefore, there seems to be no person who
had actually witnessed the firing incident. Moreover, it is well
settled that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal
to the prosecution case when the testimony of the injured witness
is found to be reliable and trustworthy (see Guru Dutt Pathak vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnlineSC 363). In the present
case, the presence of PW1 at the place of occurrence is
unquestionable, and her testimony inspires confidence. The
absence of an independent eye-witness to the actual firing does
not, therefore, weaken the prosecution case. The evidence of PW2
to PW11 establishes the sequence of events immediately after the
incident, the recovery of the weapon from the spot, seizure of the
sweater worn by PW1, her medical examination and the
investigation carried out thereafter. No material contradiction or
infirmity has been brought on record which would discredit the
prosecution version or render the investigation doubtful.
33. On a cumulative appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of PW1. The act of the appellant in taking out a firearm,
issuing a threat indicative of his intention and firing at PW1 is
clearly established. The findings recorded by the trial court are
based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from
any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
34. In the result, the appeal sans merit, is dismissed.
35. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(Judge)
FEBRUARY 06, 2026/RN
