Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Daroga on 26 July, 2025
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 09
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
S. C. No. 135/2022
CNR No. DLWT01-002503-2022
FIR No. 579/2020
Police Station Mundka
Under Section 307 IPC & 27 Arms Act
State
Versus
Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
S/o Sh. Inder Singh
R/o H.No. 167-A,
Metro Parking Wali Gali,
Mundka, Delhi. ... Accused
Date of institution 15.03.2022
Judgment reserved on 12.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 26.07.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in this case on the allegations
that he fired upon Pawan Lakra with a pistol and attempted
to commit his murder.
Brief Facts
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on
16.12.2020 ASI Vijay Kumar received a DD No. 91A from
Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar Delhi
regarding admission of patient Pawan Lakra S/o Rajender
Judgment 1 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
Lakra due to gunshot near Mundka Metro. ASI Vijay
Kumar along with Ct. Amit reached Shri Balaji Action
Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar Delhi where injured was
found under treatment on MLC No. 9230/20. MLC was
obtained and injured was found unfit for statement. A
relative of injred namely Arjun met ASI Vijay Kumar/IO.
IO along with the complainant reached the spot.
3. IO recorded the statement of complainant Sh. Arjun
Singh S/o Sh. Surender Singh wherein he stated that the
construction of his Lubricant Manufacturing Factory is
going on at Sampala Berry Road, Ismailla-11-B, Rohtak,
Haryana. When he was returning home from his factory on
16.12.2020, at around 8:30 PM, near Metro Pillar No. 450 in
Mundka, the motorcycle of one of his acquaintance Rajesh
Lakra was parked outside the office of Maternal Uncle
Pawan with the keys. He stopped the car and parked the
motorcycle inside with the help of the Guard and called
Rajesh Lakra, who told him that he has come to meet Sunil
@ Daroga at Mundka. He also went to his house where his
Uncle Pawan and his friends Yudhvir Dahiya @ Pintu,
Rajesh Lakara and were present there. His Uncle Pawan was
demanding the money which he had lent to Sunil @ Daroga.
Sunil @ Daroga was reluctant to give the money. His Uncle
was adamant on taking the money stating that he will take
the money today itself. Thereafter, Sunil Daroga and his
Uncle had an argument. He tried to convince both of them,
but the argument started flaring up between them. He was
Judgment 2 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
making his Uncle Pawan to sit in his car for leaving the
place. Meanwhile, at around 10:10 PM, Sunil @ Daroga
came with a pistol in his hand and started pulling his Uncle
Pawan out of the car. He shot upon his Uncle by stating that
today he will finish him and all accounts will be settled. He
shot his uncle with a pistol in order to kill him. As soon
as his Uncle was shot, he fell down in car of complainant
and he immediately took him to Balaji Hospital, Paschim
Vihar, Delhi and admitted him there.
4. IO called the Crime Team to the place of incident
and got the spot inspected. The car of the Complainant
bearing No. DL9C U2144 Honda City White Colour on
which the blood of the injured was found, was also
inspected and photographs were taken. The Crime Team
handed over the exhibits i.e. bullet lead, blood gauze sample
and a CD of the spot to IO. The Investigating Officer sealed
and seized the exhibits along with CD.
5. On the basis of statement of the complainant, MLC
and the circumstances, IO prepared a Rukka and got the FIR
registered under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act through
Ct. Amit.
6. During the investigation, IO prepared the Site Plan at
the instance of the Complainant. IO checked CCTV footage
and DVR of Ekta Vaas Builders office but could not find the
same. IO along with Ct. Amit and the complainant reached
Judgment 3 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
at the house of accused where he was not found and his son
did not disclose anything about the whereabouts of accused.
Accused was searched in nearby area and he was found
going towards Metro Station while trying to hide himself in
the Lane of Metro Parking. Complainant identified the
accused by pointing out and stated that he is the person who
fired upon his Uncle. Accused was apprehended and
interrogated.
7. Accused Sunil @ Daroga led the police to Cremation
Ground and recovered the weapon of offence i.e. a pistol
with magazine from the bushes near the Main Gate of the
Cremation Ground. One round was found in the said pistol.
Thereafter, accused was arrested. The Pistol, its magazine
with one round and Honda City White Color No. DL-9CU
2144 belonging to the complainant were seized separately.
8. One day PC remand of accused was taken and efforts
for tracing the DVR of CCTV Camera and source of weapon
of offence were made, but in vain. Statement of injured
Pawan Lakra was recorded after permission of the
concerned Doctor at Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi.
9. On 19.12.2020, IO called Mobile Crime Team from
FSL and got the seized car of the Complainant inspected at
Police Station. After the inspection, FSL Crime Team
handed over blood stained piece of seat cover from left side
Judgment 4 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
of driver seat and blood stained piece of back seat cover of
car No. DL-9C U-2144 is written, which were taken into
possession by the IO after sealing the same.
10. The Investigating Officer submitted the MLC of the
injured in Shri Balaji Action Hospital whereon Doctor
opined the nature of injury as Grievous. IO obtained three
live cartridges from OPL Kot and the said three live
cartridges and pistol along with one live cartridge which
were recovered from accused, were deposited in FSL for
examination. IO collected PCR Form. Offence under Section
25/54/59 Arms Act was added in the case. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for
307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
Charge
11. On 08.04.2022, charge for the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act was
framed against accused by Ld. Predecessor. The charge was
read over and explained to the accused but he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
12. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined
eight witnesses i.e. PW-1 Pawan Lakra (Injured), PW-2
Arjun Singh, PW-3 ASI Devender Kumar, PW-4 Ct. Yogesh,
PW-5 HC Amit, PW-6 SI (Retired) Jagbir Singh, PW-7 Sh.
Jitender, Assistant Chemical Examiner and PW-8 ASI Vijay
Kumar.
Judgment 5 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
13. PW-1 Pawan Lakra is the injured in this case. He
deposed that on 16.12.2020 at about 02.00/03.00 p.m., he
made a phone call to accused Sunil, who told him to reach
at his house in the evening for drinking session. In the same
evening, he along with his friend namely Arjun Thakur,
Yudhvir Dahiya, Rajesh Lakra and nephew Arjun went to
the house of the accused by a vehicle at about 08.30 PM. He
was having money transactions with the accused and to talk
in this regard, they went to his house. They remained in the
house of accused till 10.00 PM and by that time, they
consumed lot of liquor. His friends had also arranged by that
time another vehicle.
14. PW-1 further deposed that after having drink
session, they left the house of accused to go towards their
respective vehicles which had been parked outside the street
at the distance of 100 Meters away from the house of
accused. The street of the house of the accused was narrow.
His friends had already approached towards their vehicle.
His nephew Arjun was moving ahead of him and when he
was passing through the street, 2-3 persons came there on a
motorcycle and he was slightly hit with the said motorcycle.
Due to which, the riders on the motorcycle started
quarreling with him and out of those 2-3 persons, one
person fired gun shot upon him. As a resulta of the same, he
received injuries on his left arm and on the left portion of
his chest under the arm. By the time of incident, his nephew
Arjun had reached towards vehicle. When he received gun
Judgment 6 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
shot injury, he raised alarm and on hearing his screaming,
his nephew Arjun rushed towards him. Thereafter, he
became unconscious. He does not know as to whether the
above-mentioned assailant remained in the street or not
when Arjun rushed towards him. Later on, he regained
consciousness and found himself in the hospital.
15. PW-1 also deposed that on the next day in the
morning, police officials came to the Hospital. The police
officials made inquiries from him about the incident and he
narrated about the above-mentioned incident.
16. PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the case of
the Prosecution, hence, he was cross-examined by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State. In his cross-examination by Ld.
Addl. PP, he admitted that in the year 2016, he lent the cash
of Rs.23,40,000/- to the accused. He voluntarily stated that
sometimes he also used to borrow money from the accused
as they were having money transactions with each other. He
further admitted that the office of the accused was situated
adjacent to his house and on 16.12.2020 when they went to
the office of the accused, his elder brother Anil was also
found sitting there and accused reached there after about 10-
15 minutes. His friends Yudhvir Dahiya, Rajesh Lakra and
Arjun Thakur did not consume liquor. When his friends
went away by their vehicle, then his nephew Arjun reached t
outside the office of the accused and asked him to go to the
house. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
Judgment 7 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
17. PW-2 Arjun Singh is the complainant of the case. He
deposed that on on 16.12.2020 at about 09.30/09.45 p.m., he
was going towards his house from his factory at Ismila,
Sampla, Rohtak, Haryana by his Honda City Car bearing no.
DL-9CU-2144. On the way, when he reached near Metro
Pillar No. 450, he saw that motorcycle of Rajesh Lakra was
parked outside of the office of his Maternal Uncle Pawan
Lakra. On seeing the said motorcycle, he parked his car
outside the office of maternal Uncle Pawan Lakra. When he
stepped down from his car, he saw that the key of the
motorcycle of Rajesh Lakra was in the lock of the said
motorcycle. He knocked the door of the office of his
Maternal Uncle Pawan Lakra, however, nobody respond to
the same.
18. He further deposed that thereafter, he made phone
call to Rajesh Lakra and informed him that the ignition key
was inside the lock of his motorcycle. In reply to the same,
Rajesh Lakra informed him that his Maternal uncle Pawan
Lakra was present in the office of Sunil @ Daroga and he
was outside the said office with other friends. Rajesh Lakra
also informed him about the directions of office of Sunil @
Daroga. Thereafter, he went towards the office of Sunil @
Daroga. When he reached outside the street of the office of
accused Sunil @ Daroga, Rajesh Lakra met him with his
other friends Yudhvir and Arjun. Rajesh Lakra pointed out
the office of Sunil @ Dargoa and stated that ” Hum Abhi
Aatey Hai”.
Judgment 8 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
19. PW-2 further deposed that on reaching at the office
of accused Sunil @ Daroga, he saw that his Maternal Uncle
Pawan Lakra was having drink session with him. By the
time when he reached at the office of accused, his Maternal
Uncle Pawan Lakra and accused had consumed lot of liquor
and therefore, he asked his Maternal Uncle to leave the
place for going to the house. His Maternal Uncle told him to
wait for him in his car and he will join him shortly after
finishing his liquor glass/peg. Thereafter, he left the office
of the accused and moved towards his car. He was inclined
to bring his car near to the office of the accused as his
Maternal Uncle was under the influence of liquor.
20. He further deposed that when he was reversing his
car, he heard a loud sound. He immediately get down from
his car and rushed towards the back side of his car and saw
that his Maternal Uncle was lying on the road at some
distance from the back side of his car. He noticed that
approximately 2-3 persons were running away on their
motorcycle from the opposite side of the car. He was unable
to identify the said 2-3 persons because it was dark and one
of them was wearing some cap whereas, the face of other
persons were not towards him. Therefore, he had no
opportunity to saw them. He noticed that a pistol was lying
on the road near the office of accused Sunil @ Daroga. He
gave a call to him for stopping the said bike riders. He tried
to stop them but unable to do so because of considerable
distance between him and them. Accused was helping his
Judgment 9 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
Maternal Uncle when he gave a call to him for stopping the
aforesaid bike riders. He reached to his maternal uncle and
noticed that the blood was dripping from his fingers. His
Maternal Uncle was complaining about immobility of his
left hand stating that he is unable to move it. He took him to
Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar.
21. PW-2 also deposed that accused did not accompany
him to the hospital and helped him in shifting his Maternal
Uncle to his car. No communication took place between him
and accused at the time of shifting his maternal uncle from
the road to his car and he took him to the hospital on his
own without waiting for any response from the accused.
22. PW-2 further deposed that the doctors concerned
admitted Maternal Uncle in the Hospital. The Doctor had
also made call to the police and thereafter, police officials
reached there. At that time, the statement of his Maternal
Uncle was not recorded as he was in inebriated condition
and was also yelling in pain. From the hospital, he went to
the office of the accused. His car was taken into possession
by the police and he was also taken to PS Mundka. He does
not know if his statement was recorded in the PS or not.
PW-2 identified seven photographs of his car in Ex. P-1
(Colly). This witness also turned hostile and did not support
the case of the Prosecution.
Judgment 10 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
23. PW-3 ASI Devender is the Incharge, Crime Team
and he proved Crime Team Report Ex.PW3/A in respect of
inspection of scene of crime and car having registration No.
DL-9CU 2144 – Honda City of white colour.
24. PW-4 Ct. Yogesh is the Photographer of Crime Team
who proved 21 photographs Ex.PW4/B-1 to Ex.PW4/B-21
of scene of crime, CD Ex.PW4/C along with certificate
Ex.PW4/A under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
25. PW-6 SI (Retired) Jagbir Singh took one day PC
remand of the accused and handed over his custody to the
IO. He proved application Ex.PW6/A for obtaining PC
remand of accused.
26. PW-7 Sh. Jitender, Assistant Chemical Examiner
inspected the Honda City car having registration No.
DL-9CU-2144 and prepared his Report Ex.PW7/A in this
regard.
27. PW-8 ASI Vijay Kumar is the Investigating Officer.
He unfolded the sequence of investigation carried out by
him. He proved DD No. 91-A Ex.PW8/A, statement
Ex.PW8/B of the complainant, Rukka Ex.PW8/C and Site
Plan Ex.PW8/D prepared at the instance of the complainant.
He proved Arrest Memo Ex.PW8/E and Personal Search
Memo Ex.PW8/F of the accused. He also proved
Disclosure Statement Ex.PW8/G and Supplementary
Judgment 11 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
Disclosure Statement Ex.PW8/G-1 of the accused. PW-8
further proved the Sketch Ex.PW8/H of the pistol along
with magazine and its Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/I-1. He
further proved Site Plan of recovery of pistol and round
Ex.PW8/I-2. He also proved Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/I-3 of
White colour Honda City car No. DL9C U-2144 with its
key.
28. PW-8 also proved application Ex.PW8/J-1 seeking
permission to record the statement of the Complainant. He
further proved Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/J-2 of a bullet lead
and blood in gauze lifted from the spot and Seizure Memo
Ex.PW8/K of Pullandas along with sample seal handed over
by the Doctor. He also proved Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/L of
blood stained piece of seat cover of seat left to driver seat
and blood stained piece of back seat cover of the car. He
further proved Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/N of three live
cartridges obtained from Police Headquarters. The
Investigating Officer also identified Honda City Car as
Ex.P-1 seized by him during the investigation.
Plea of Accused
29. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC,
accused stated that he did not commit any offence and
claimed that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated
in this case.
Arguments
30. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that
the GD 91-A Ex.PW8/A informing about the offence, does
Judgment 12 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
not name any accused. PW-1 and PW-2 have not at all
supported the case of the Prosecution. The State has failed
to elicit anything during cross-examination of the said
witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. It is further
argued that the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. pistol is
shrouded with suspicion as no independent public witness
was joined in the recovery proceedings of weapon of
offence. Recovery has been planted upon the accused. So,
the same cannot be relied upon by the Prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused.
31. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the
accused cannot be extended benefit of doubt because
witnesses have turned hostile. The recovery of weapon of
offence has been proved by the Prosecution and therefore,
accused is not entitled to acquittal.
32. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully
gone through the record.
Section 307 IPC
33. The star witnesses of the Prosecution are PW-1
Pawan Lakra/injured and and his nephew PW-2 Arjun
Singh/complainant who as per the Prosecution case, are the
eye witnesses to the incident. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have
not lent any support to the case of Prosecution in their
testimony.
Judgment 13 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
34. PW-1/Injured Pawan Lakra stated in his deposition
that he was shot by gun by two-three persons who were on
motorcycle after their motorcycle brushed past him and
quarrel ensued. PW-1 admitted that just before the incident,
he was having liquor with the accused in his office.
However, he denied that he has seen the accused firing on
him. He denied the whole version as stated in his statement
recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. dated 18.01.2021 except the
fact that he was having drinking session with the accused in
his office, presence of his friends outside the office of
accused and his nephew reaching the spot after hearing his
scream. PW-1 categorically denied that he was shot by
accused with a pistol on the date of incident.
35. PW-2 Arjun also supported the deposition of his
Uncle/PW-1 and also stated that PW-1 was shot by 2-3
persons whom he had seen fleeing from the spot when he
came running to his Uncle on hearing loud sound. He also
stated that he is not in a position to identify the said 2-3
persons because it was dark at the spot and one of the
assailants has been wearing the cap and faces of the other
assailants were not towards him. Furthermore, he deposed
that accused had in fact helped his Uncle/PW-1 when he
was trying to stop the assailants.
During his cross-examination, Ld. Addl. PP is not
able to elicit anything to connect the accused with the
offence. The other witnesses are only formal witnesses.
Judgment 14 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
36. It is a settled law that the Prosecution has to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. In face of testimony of
PW-1/injured and PW-2/Complainant, the Prosecution has
failed to prove the case projected by the Prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
Section 27 of Arms Act
37. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 70 OF 2025 in the case of Raja Khan v. State of
Chattisgarh has observed as under :-
18. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act
stipulate that confession made to a police officer
is not admissible. However, Section 27 is an
exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a
proviso to both these sections [Delhi
Administration vs. Bal Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4
SCC 659].
19. This Court is of the view that Section 27
lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility
of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of
such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object
of Section 26. As such the statement whether
confessional or not is allowed to be given in
evidence but that portion only which distinctly
relates to discovery of the fact is admissible. A
discovery of a fact includes the object found, the
place from which it is produced and the
knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to its
existence (Udai Bhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1962 SC 1116).
20. The essential ingredients of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act are three-fold :-
(i). The information given by the accused
must led to the discovery of the fact which is the
direct outcome of such information.
(ii). Only such portion of the information
given as is distinctly connected with the said
recovery is admissible against the accused.
Judgment 15 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
(iii). The discovery of the facts must relate to
the commission of such offence.
The question as to whether evidence
relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on
the accused was considered by this Court in
Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein it has been
held as under:-
“18… Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short “Evidence Act“) is by way of
proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement
even by way of confession made in police
custody which distinctly relates to the fact
discovered is admissible in evidence against the
accused. This position was succinctly dealt with
by this Court in Delhi Admn v. Balakrishan
[(1972) 4 SCC 659] and Mohd. Inayatullah v.
State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828]. The
words “so much of such information” as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very
important and the whole force of the section
concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the
information admissible must depend on the exact
nature of the fact discovered to which such
information is required to relate. The ban as
imposed by the preceding sections was
presumably inspired by the fear of the
Legislature that a person under police influence
might be induced to confess by the exercise of
undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the
ban be the inclusion in the confession of
information relating to an object subsequently
produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the
persuasive powers of the police will prove equal
to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will
lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e.
Section 27 was to provide for the admission of
evidence which but for the existence of the
section could not in consequence of the
preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. ItJudgment 16 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Darogawould appear that under Section 27 as it stands
in order to render the evidence leading to
discovery of any fact admissible, the information
must come from any accused in custody of the
police. The requirement of police custody is
productive of extremely anomalous results and
may lead to the exclusion of much valuable
evidence in cases where a person, who is
subsequently taken in to custody and becomes an
accused, after committing a crime meets a police
officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police
station and states the circumstances of the crime
which lead to the discovery of the dead body,
weapon or any other material fact, in
consequence of the information thus received
from him. This information which is otherwise
admissible becomes inadmissible under Section
27 if the information did not come from a person
in the custody of a police officer or did come
from a person not in the custody of a police
officer. The statement which is admissible under
Section 27 is the one which is the information
leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible
being the information, the same has to be proved
and not the opinion formed on it by the police
officer. In other words, the exact information
given by the accused while in custody which led
to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is,
therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and prosecution that information given
should be recorded and proved and if not so
recorded, the exact information must be adduced
through evidence. The basic idea embedded in
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine
is founded on the principle that if any fact is
discovered as a search made on the strength of
any information obtained from a prisoner, such a
discovery is a guarantee that the information
supplied by the prisoner is true. The information
might be confessional or non-inculpatory inJudgment 17 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroganature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it
becomes a reliable information. It is now well
settled that recovery of an object is not discovery
of fact envisaged in the section.
Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri
Kotayya v. Emperor [AIR (1947) PC 67], is the
most quoted authority of supporting the
interpretation that the “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place from
which the object was produced, the knowledge
of the accused as to it, but the information given
must relate distinctly to that effect. [See State of
Maharashtra v. Dam Gopinath Shirde and Ors,
(2000) 6 SCC 269]. No doubt, the information
permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined
to that portion of the information which
“distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”.
But the information to get admissibility need not
be so truncated as to make it insensible or
incomprehensible. The extent of information
admitted should be consistent with
understandability. Mere statement that the
accused led the police and the witnesses to the
place where he had concealed the articles is not
indicative of the information given.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. The weapon of offence is a pistol in this case. HC
Amit (PW-5) and ASI Vijay Kumar (PW-8) deposed that
accused led them to Shamshan Ghat, Mundka Village where
accused got recovered a pistol with magazine from the
bushes near Main Gate. Supplementary Disclosure
Statement of the accused was recorded. The Seizure Memo
of the pistol and live cartridge is Ex.PW8/I-1 and the
Supplementary Disclosure Statement is Ex.PW8/G-1.
However, the recovery is not free from suspicion. IO/PW-8
Judgment 18 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
admitted in his cross-examination that photography and
videography of recovery proceedings was done during the
investigation. PW-5 HC Amit has also admitted during his
cross-examination that IO took photographs of the place of
recovery. However, neither any photography nor any video
of recovery has been placed on record by the Prosecution. It
is also borne out from the testimony of PW-5 and PW8 that
accused got recovered the pistol from the bushes. However,
the Site Plan does not show any bushes from the place
where the recovery of pistol was made. The IO also
admitted in his cross-examination that in the site plan he has
not shown the bushes. However, no explanation was given
by the IO for not showing the bushes in the Site Plan. No
independent public witness has also been joined in the
recovery proceedings of weapon of offence. The
Prosecution thus has not been able to prove the recovery of
pistol at the instance of accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
PW-1 and PW-2 also categorically denied the involvement
of accused in the offence and have given him a clean chit.
The other witnesses are formal in nature.
39. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the
Prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt and he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Consequently, accused stands acquitted for the charge of
offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 27
Arms Act. His personal bond is canceled and surety is
discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties.
Judgment 19 of 20
SC No: 135/2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Daroga
In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to
furnish personal & surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
for period of six months.
Announced in the open Court on 26th July, 2025.
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA Date: 2025.07.26
17:45:09 +0530
PRIYA MAHENDRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-09, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Judgment 20 of 20
