Delhi District Court
Virender Alias Kala Badal vs State Of Delhi on 9 July, 2026
DLND010032132026 Page 1 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 111/2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIRENDER @ KALA BADAL @ BITTU @ VICKY
S/o Sh. Prakash Ram,
R/o House No. S-170/189, Village Jharera, Delhi Cantt., Delhi.
(Presently lodged at Central Jail No. 3, Tihar, New Delhi-64)
..... Appellant/Convict
(Represented by Sh. Ravinder Gaur, Ld. LADC)
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
..... Respondent
(Represented by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP)
(Appeal under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of Conviction dated
26.09.2025 and Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr. Case No.
7173/2019, FIR No. 168/2019, PS Crime Branch, Delhi, under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959)
Date of Institution of Appeal : 25.03.2026
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 02.06.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This appeal under Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred by the appellant/convict Virender @
Kala Badal @ Bittu @ Vicky S/o Sh. Prakash Ram, presently lodged in
Page 1 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 2 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
Central Jail No. 3, Tihar, New Delhi, assailing the Judgment of
Conviction dated 26.09.2025 and the consequent Order on Sentence
dated 31.10.2025, passed by Ms. Shriya Agrawal, Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr.
Case No. 7173/2019 arising out of FIR No. 168/2019 registered at PS
Crime Branch, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
1.2. By the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2025, the Ld. Trial Court held
the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, for being found in unauthorised possession of one
country-made pistol (desi katta) and two live cartridges, without any
licence or valid authority therefor. By the Order on Sentence dated
31.10.2025, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of four years, along with a fine of Rs. 200/-,
with a default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one week in the
event of non-payment of the fine, extending to him the benefit of Section
428 Cr.P.C. towards the period of incarceration already undergone by
him in connection with the present case.
1.3. The present appeal has been filed through the Jail Visiting Advocate,
Sh. Manu Bidhuri, DLSA, Central Jail No. 3, Tihar, New Delhi, along
with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and an application under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of regular
bail during the pendency of the present appeal. It is averred that on
Page 2 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 3 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
account of financial constraints, the appellant’s family could not timely
arrange for a private counsel to file the appeal, and that the appellant
thereafter approached the Legal Aid Cell of Central Jail No. 3, Tihar,
pursuant to which the present appeal came to be drafted and filed. It is
averred that the delay so occasioned is neither intentional nor mala fide.
1.4. Notice of the appeal, along with the accompanying applications, was
issued to the Respondent-State. The Trial Court Record was requisitioned
and has been perused. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict Sh. Ravinder
Gaur (Ld. LADC) as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State were heard at
length on the merits of the appeal as also on the accompanying
applications. This Court proceeds to decide the appeal, together with the
pending applications, by way of the present common judgment.
2. PROSECUTION STORY:
2.1. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 17.06.2019 at about 5:00
PM, when HC Rajender Kumar (No. 790/Crime, then posted as Head
Constable at Star-1/Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi) was present
at his office, a secret informer approached him and disclosed that a
person who was roaming about with an illegal firearm, and who was
involved in incidents of theft and robbery in and around the area of Delhi
Cantonment, would arrive at about 7:00 PM in front of Jhareda Village,
Delhi Cantonment, near Peer Baba Mazar, NH-8, to meet his associates
with whom he had allegedly planned a robbery, and that if a timely raid
was conducted, the said person could be apprehended along with the
illegal arms and ammunition in his possession.
Page 3 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 4 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
2.2. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 13 dated 17.06.2019
(Ex. PW1/A) and shared with Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, who apprised the
concerned ACP, from whom directions were received for immediate
action. A raiding party comprising HC Rajender Kumar, Constable Rishi
and Constable Sushil Kumar, in plain clothes, accordingly left the office
at about 5:40 PM in a private Santro car bearing registration No. DL 7CP
1637, along with the secret informer, the I.O. kit and requisite
ammunition, vide DD No. 14 dated 17.06.2019 (Ex. PW1/B).
2.3. The raiding party reached near Jhareda Gaon, Delhi Cantt., opposite
Peer Baba Mazar, NH-8, at about 6:20 PM. The vehicle was concealed
nearby, and 4-5 passersby were requested to join as public witnesses;
however, none agreed, citing personal difficulties, and no written notice
could be served upon any of them on account of the exigency of the
situation. The raiding party thereafter took up positions at the spot.
2.4. At about 7:00 PM, one pedestrian was noticed approaching from the
direction of Gurugram. The secret informer identified him as the person
about whom information had been furnished. On being alerted, the
raiding team approached him. On seeing the police party, the said person
attempted to flee but was overpowered and apprehended with the
assistance of Constable Sushil Kumar and Constable Rishi. On enquiry,
he disclosed his name as Virender @ Kala Badal S/o Prakash Ram.
2.5. On being frisked, one single-shot country-made pistol was recovered
from his possession, which, on being checked, was found loaded with a
live cartridge, which was carefully separated from the barrel. One more
Page 4 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 5 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
live cartridge was recovered from the right-side pocket of the pant worn
by the accused. Both cartridges, along with the pistol, were taken into
police possession.
2.6. A sketch of the recovered pistol and cartridges was prepared on a
plain white sheet (Ex. PW1/C) and measurements were recorded. The
case property was placed in a transparent plastic box, wrapped with a
doctor tape and sealed with the seal of ‘RK’, and seized vide seizure
memo (Ex. PW1/D); the FSL form was filled at the spot. The seal, after
use, was handed over to Constable Sushil Kumar vide seal handing over
memo (Ex. PW1/E). It may be noted that the seal label came to be
mentioned as ‘RS’ instead of ‘RK’ in the seizure memo, though its
correct particulars, ‘RK’, stood recorded in the rukka/tehrir as well as in
the seal handing over memo.
2.7. A detailed rukka/tehrir (Ex. PW1/F) was prepared and handed over to
Constable Sushil Kumar with directions to have the case registered at PS
Crime Branch. Registration of the case and further investigation was,
vide DD No. 16 dated 17.06.2019 (Ex. PW1/G), assigned to ASI Vikrant
Singh. FIR No. 168/2019 came to be registered under Sections 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
2.8. Constable Sushil Kumar thereafter got the FIR registered and returned
to the spot along with ASI Vikrant Singh, carrying the copy of the FIR,
the original rukka, and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act. HC Rajender Kumar narrated the sequence of events to
ASI Vikrant Singh and handed over to him the custody of the accused,
Page 5 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 6 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
the case property and the relevant documents, for further investigation.
ASI Vikrant Singh prepared the site plan (Ex. PW1/H) at the instance of
HC Rajender Kumar, who was thereafter relieved from the spot with
directions to have his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
2.9. ASI Vikrant Singh formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo
(Ex. PW2/A) and conducted his personal search vide personal search
memo (Ex. PW2/B). The disclosure statement of the accused was
recorded vide Ex. PW2/C. The case property was deposited with the
MHC(M) at PS Crime Branch, and the accused, after medical
examination, was produced before the Ld. Court and sent to judicial
custody.
2.10. During further investigation, efforts were made to trace one
“Bahadur”, named by the accused in his disclosure statement as the
person from whom the pistol and cartridges had allegedly been procured
for Rs. 4,000/-, but he could not be traced. The case property was sent to
the FSL for examination, and upon receipt of the FSL report and sanction
under Section 39 of the Arms Act, the original and, thereafter, a
supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED:
3.1. Vide order dated 04.09.2019, Ld. CMM, NDD, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi, framed a charge against the accused Virender @ Kala Badal
S/o Sh. Prakash Ram, R/o S-170/189, Village Jharera, Delhi Cantt.,
Delhi, to the effect that on 17.06.2019, at about 7:00 PM, on the roadPage 6 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 7 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHInear Peer Baba Majaar, NH-8, Jharera Village, Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS Crime Branch, he was found in possession of 01 (one)
country-made pistol and 02 (two) live cartridges, being firearm and
ammunition, as per seizure memo Mark-A, without having any licence or
authority therefor, in contravention of the provisions of the Arms Act,
thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms
Act and within the cognizance of the said Court.
3.2. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.
On being questioned whether he pleaded guilty or claimed trial, the
accused stated “I plead not guilty and claim trial.” The matter was
accordingly put to trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION AND DOCUMENTS
ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED:
4.1. The prosecution cited a total of six witnesses in support of its case, of
whom three were examined before the Ld. Trial Court, namely:
a) PW-1 – ASI Rajender Kumar (No. 468, Special Cell, NDR, Lodhi
Colony, New Delhi) – examined-in-chief on 08.07.2024 and cross-
examined on 25.07.2025 by Ms. Alka Joshi, Ld. LAC for the accused;
b) PW-2 – HC Sushil Kumar (No. 927, Crime, NDR, Crime Branch,
New Delhi) – examined-in-chief on 08.07.2024 and cross-examined
on 25.07.2025; and
c) PW-3 – SI Vikrant Singh (PIS No. 28990517, posted at NDR Special
Cell, Delhi) – examined and cross-examined on 25.07.2025.
4.2. The prosecution thereafter closed its evidence.
Page 7 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 8 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
4.3. During proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C. held on 25.07.2025,
the accused admitted the genuineness of the following documents, which
were exhibited accordingly:
Sl. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. FIR No. 168/2019 dated 17.06.2019, PS Ex. A-1, A-2 &
Crime Branch, Endorsement on Rukka and A-3
Certificate under Section 65-B, Indian
Evidence Act
2. Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, Ex. A-4
1959
3. FSL Report Ex. A-5
4.4. In addition, the prosecution proved and relied upon, inter alia, the
following documents through the depositions of PW-1 to PW-3: DD No.
13 dated 17.06.2019 recording receipt of secret information (Ex.
PW1/A); DD No. 14 dated 17.06.2019 recording departure of the raiding
team (Ex. PW1/B); sketch of the recovered pistol and cartridges (Ex.
PW1/C); seizure memo (Ex. PW1/D); seal handing over memo (Ex.
PW1/E); rukka/tehrir (Ex. PW1/F); DD No. 16 dated 17.06.2019 (Ex.
PW1/G); site plan (Ex. PW1/H); arrest memo (Ex. PW2/A); personal
search memo (Ex. PW2/B); and disclosure statement of the accused (Ex.
PW2/C). The case property, comprising the recovered country-made
pistol and one tested cartridge, was exhibited as Ex. P-1 (Colly.) and duly
identified by the witnesses.
Page 8 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 9 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
4.5. In addition, the prosecution proved and relied upon, inter alia, the
following documents through the depositions of PW-1 to PW-3: DD No.
13 dated 17.06.2019 recording receipt of secret information (Ex.
PW1/A); DD No. 14 dated 17.06.2019 recording departure of the raiding
team (Ex. PW1/B); sketch of the recovered pistol and cartridges (Ex.
PW1/C); seizure memo (Ex. PW1/D); seal handing over memo (Ex.
PW1/E); rukka/tehrir (Ex. PW1/F); DD No. 16 dated 17.06.2019 (Ex.
PW1/G); site plan (Ex. PW1/H); arrest memo (Ex. PW2/A); personal
search memo (Ex. PW2/B); and disclosure statement of the accused (Ex.
PW2/C). The case property, comprising the recovered country-made
pistol and one tested cartridge, was exhibited as Ex. P-1 (Colly.) and duly
identified by the witnesses.
4.6. During cross-examination, PW-1 (ASI Rajender Kumar) admitted,
inter alia, that no public witness was present at the time of the
incident/arrest, that no written notice could be served upon the passersby
requested to join the investigation, and that no CCTV footage was
recorded during the arrest. Similar admissions were made by PW-2 (HC
Sushil Kumar). Both witnesses, however, categorically denied the
suggestions that no such incident had taken place, that the accused had
been falsely implicated, that the case property had been falsely planted
upon him, or that they were deposing falsely.
4.7. PW-3 (SI Vikrant Singh), during cross-examination, similarly stated
that he did not remember the name of the Duty Officer, that he had
reached the spot alone in his own vehicle, and that no CCTV footage was
Page 9 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 10 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
recorded at the spot; he, however, denied the suggestions, that no
recovery was effected from the accused, that the illegal weapon had been
falsely planted upon him, or that he was deposing falsely.
5. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.:
5.1. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
accused was recorded on 30.07.2025. The accused was confronted with
the entire incriminating evidence appearing against him, which he denied
in toto, stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the
police in the present case and that the case property has been planted
upon him. The accused stated that he did not wish to lead any evidence in
his defence.
5.2. Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the Ld. Trial Court and the
record was perused carefully before the matter was reserved for
judgment.
6. JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT:
6.1. Vide Judgment dated 26.09.2025, the Ld. Trial Court, after
considering the rival submissions and appreciating the evidence on
record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The relevant reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court,
contained in paragraphs 19 to 26 of the said Judgment, is reproduced
verbatim hereinbelow:
“19. Upon considering the rival submissions of both sides and the totality
of evidence led by Prosecution and the record, it is observed that there is
no material inconsistency or contradiction in the testimonies of thePage 10 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 11 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIwitnesses noticed, particularly in the depositions of witnesses PW1 and
PW2, nor has the same been put to the witnesses during their cross
examination by way of any suggestion.
20. The next argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel is that the recovery of
the fire arm and cartridges and the arrest of the Accused in the present
case was neither video-graphed nor photographed. This contention is
clearly not indicative of any weighty lapse in investigation, considering
the background facts and the events that led to interception, apprehension
and recovery of illegal fire arm and ammunitions from the Accused. There
is neither any inconsistency highlighted in the testimonies of the witnesses
examined as to how the information was received, how the raiding team
was formed and eventually the raid was conducted leading to seizure of
fire-arm and ammunitions, nor has the defence led any evidence to render
the recovery and seizure doubtful. There is no claim of absence of the
Accused from the concerned spot on the date and time as alleged either,
during any of the testimonies recorded by way of cross examination of the
witnesses, who have deposed for the Prosecution. The Accused has only
claimed in his version recorded in response to the incriminating evidence
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the case property was planted upon him.
21.There is no evidence led by the Accused to substantiate the said plea.
The Accused was arrested on 18.6.2019 at around 12:25 AM from the
place of apprehension by the team with fire arm and ammunitions
recovered and seized from his custody, which sequence of events finds
corroboration from the GD Entries (Ex PW 1/A, Ex PW1/B and Ex
PW1/G), all duly proved in evidence, not disputed by the Accused.
22. In the present case, the Accused has at no stage during the trial offered
any such explanation for possession of weapon and ammunitions, simply
vaguely disowning the evidence. There is nothing on record either during
the cross examination or by any direct evidence by the Accused, as canPage 11 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 12 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIeven indicate that the possession was not of the Accused or of it not being
a ‘conscious possession’. The claim of planting has also remained a vague
and an unsubstantiated plea, with there being no evidence offered either by
way of cross examination or by leading defence evidence. This omission
itself affords strength to the case of the Prosecution.
23. Similarly, as regards the assertion that no public witnesses were made
to join the investigation by the IO, at the place of initial apprehension, it is
settled law as held in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1956
SC 217) in the above context that, the principle that a person acts honestly
applies equally in the case of a police officer, unless the contrary is shown
and it should not be the judicial approach to assess his testimony with
suspicion or distrust, without a good ground shown to do so. It was
similarly also held in Tahir v State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that “no infirmity attaches to the
testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police
force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that
conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if
found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence”.
24. In the facts and circumstances of the case, testimonies of witnesses
examined by the Prosecution are clear and consistent. Further, the witness
PW1 during his cross examination has explained about the attempt to
make public witnesses join the probe, but there was a reluctance shown
and none actually joined the investigation.
25. The argument that the no chance prints were lifted or that the seal was
not handed over to an independent person, does not aid the case of the
defence either, considering the recovery was effected from the Accused
himself. Upon search and recovery, and at the time of checking, as indeed
at the time of the sketch being prepared, they were bound to be handled by
the police officials. It is a case of unlawful possession in which regard
Page 12 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 13 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
ocular testimony is available. No useful purpose would have been served
by lifting of finger prints from the recovered firearm. The Ld. Counsel for
the Accused had argued that the likelihood of the case property getting
tampered cannot be ruled out due to the discrepancy in mention of the
details of seal on the case property and the record of the seizure memo, as
also owing to the fact that there were two live cartridges which were sent
to the FSL, but during recording of evidence, only one (that had been test
fired) was produced, leaving again room for ‘reasonable doubt’ in the case
of the Prosecution as to the exact extent of recovery. Having regard to the
record, it is observed that the witnesses examined (particularly PW1 and
PW2) have duly explained during their respective depositions that the seal
label ‘RS’, as opposed to the correct particulars ‘RK’ has been wrongly
mentioned as a typographical error and that there is no discrepancy in the
record. The seizure memo makes a mention of the label as ‘RS’, whereas
the seal handing over memo and the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 clarify
it to be ‘RK’. Moreover, the FSL Report dated 13.8.2019 also confirms the
seal to be ‘RK’. It also confirms receipt of one desi katta and two live
cartridges by the Lab for analysis. It further notes, that one of the two live
cartridges deposited was test-fired. Accordingly, nothing turns on the
argument of non-production of the second live cartridge, as the lapse may
be at the part of the concerned Lab or in the eventual production of both
the cartridges during trial and the fact that the chain of recovery and
seizure and deposit of both the cartridges with the FSL is un-assailed and
has been duly established by the Prosecution, no benefit of subsequent
lapses in production could accrue for the Accused.
It is trite law as laid down in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2009) 16
SCC 487] that while the Prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts, the defence of the Accused has to be tested on the
touchstone of ‘probability’. Although the burden of proof lies on the
Page 13 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 14 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
Prosecution in all criminal trials, the evidence has to be appreciated to find
out whether the defence set up by the Accused is probable and true. In the
present case, there is no clear defence set up by the Accused, but for vague
dismissal of the allegations in toto. The Accused has only sought to
highlight what could be at best considered as irregularities/omissions
during the investigation, but clearly not material lapses as would render
the recovery and seizure of the arm and ammunitions in such quantity
from the custody of the Accused itself doubtful. There is neither any
established claim of alibi nor any evidence to substantiate the claim of
recovered case property having been planted on the person, in order to
falsely frame him. Thus, clearly, there is no cogent defence raised at all,
leave alone a probable one.”
6.2. In light of the aforesaid reasoning, the Ld. Trial Court, vide paragraph
27 of the Judgment dated 26.09.2025, held that the prosecution had been
able to bring home the allegations against the accused on the basis of
credible, cogent and uncontroverted evidence, and that the case stood
proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused was
accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, and the matter was posted for hearing on sentence.
6.3. Vide Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025, upon hearing arguments on
the point of sentence, the Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs.
200/- (default SI one week), extending to him the benefit of Section 428
Cr.P.C. The relevant reasoning contained in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said
Order on Sentence is reproduced verbatim hereinbelow:
Page 14 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 15 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI“5. This Court had called for the previous conviction report of the
Convict, which has been perused. The same mentions multiple cases of
previous convictions, including ones involving offences punishable under
Section 380 IPC, Section 307 IPC as also the offence punishable under
Section 25 of the Arms Act.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and the record available, it is
observed that it is a matter of record that the Accused was arrested in the
present case on 18.6.2019 and was subsequently granted bail vide Order
dated 18.7.2019 (conditions modified vide Order dated 25.7.2019), with
he having been eventually released on acceptance of personal bond on
04.09.2019 in the present case.
7. Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act prescribes punishment of simple
imprisonment not less than two years but which may extend to five years
along with fine. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case,
and the previous involvements, including involvement similar to the case
at hand, as also for more heinous offences, no case for invocation of
proviso to the provision for sentence lesser than two years is made out and
this Court deems apposite and reasonable to impose a sentence of four
years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 200/- (default SI 1
week) upon the Convict. The Convict is accorded benefit of the Section
428 Cr.P.C. for the period of incarceration already undergone in this case.
Ordered accordingly.”
7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
7.1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of Conviction dated 26.09.2025
and Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds, as set out in the
memorandum of appeal:
Page 15 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 16 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
a) That the appellant is in judicial custody since May, 2022, having
earlier been released on bail in the present case on 18.07.2019; that he
was thereafter arrested in May 2022 in a matter relating to a charge
under Section 307 IPC pending before the Sessions Court, Tis Hazari,
and has remained in judicial custody since then.
b) That the present case against the appellant has been falsely made out
inasmuch as no concrete evidence has been filed by the prosecution to
substantiate its case.
c) That the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case by
the prosecution; that the theory of a secret informer is denied and is
stated to have been planted to take personal revenge against the
appellant, it being averred that the police officers who arrested the
appellant had earlier killed the appellant’s brother in custody, in
consequence whereof the appellant and his mother had filed a case
against the said police officers.
d) That the order of conviction is liable to be set aside as there is no
public witness examined or mentioned in the chargesheet who had
witnessed the arrest or the incident of the appellant roaming around
with the desi katta and cartridges as alleged.
e) That the order of conviction is liable to be set aside as being defective
on account of perversity, the conviction being based only upon the
statements of the prosecution witnesses, which, by itself, cannot be
the basis for conviction.
Page 16 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 17 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
f) That the impugned order is liable to be set aside as no CCTV footage
of the alleged incident has been filed by the prosecution to
substantiate its version, and something more concrete ought to have
been filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
g) That during judicial custody, the appellant has reformed himself, has
no complaint against him, and has undertaken volunteer work; that his
further custody may result in negative development in his character.
h) That the Ld. Trial Court has clearly ignored the material evidence
available on record and passed the impugned judgment and order in a
hurried manner, without correctly appreciating the facts of the case.
i) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed
to produce any other eye-witness of the alleged incident, which is fatal
to the case of the prosecution, and the appellant is liable to be
acquitted.
j) That the judgment of conviction and order on sentence are bad in law,
being based on conjectures, surmises and probabilities, and are hence
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
k) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the facts and
evidence on record do not conclusively prove the guilt of the
appellant.
l) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was
falsely implicated and that the prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 17 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 18 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
m) That the Ld. Trial Court erred in wrongly appreciating the facts
of the case, in contravention of law and against the well-established
principles laid down by the Apex Court.
n) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to notice that the Investigating Officer
did not call the crime team for inspection/examination of the alleged
place of incident, which could have eased collection of evidence to
surface the truth.
o) That apart from the contradictions narrated above, there are several
other contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the witnesses.
p) That the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and
has not committed any offence whatsoever.
q) That a person cannot be convicted unless there is strong evidence
establishing the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt.
r) That the impugned judgment is wrong, erroneous and deserves to be
set aside, and the appellant is liable to be acquitted in the interest of
justice.
7.2. It has further been averred that the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the appellant, that he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if
the appeal is not allowed, and that the prosecution has failed to establish
its case beyond reasonable doubt. Along with the appeal, the appellant
also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal which was allowed vide order
dated 05.05.2026.
8. ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED:
Page 18 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 19 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI8.1. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/Convict by Sh. Ravinder
Gaur, Ld. LADC:
a) Ld. LADC Sh. Ravinder Gaur, has reiterated the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal and has argued that the impugned judgment
of conviction is unsustainable in law inasmuch as it rests solely on the
testimonies of interested police officials, without any corroboration
from an independent or public witness. It is argued that despite there
being admitted public presence at the spot at the relevant time, no
public witness was associated with the raid or the subsequent
recovery, and that the alleged reluctance of passersby to join the
investigation has not been established by any cogent material.
b) It is next argued that the recovery and the arrest of the appellant were
neither video-graphed nor photographed, and that in an age where
video-recording of raids and recoveries is the norm, the failure to do
so renders the entire recovery proceedings doubtful and casts serious
doubt on the prosecution version.
c) It is further argued that there exist material discrepancies and
contradictions in the case of the prosecution, namely, (i) the
discrepancy between the label ‘RS’ recorded on the seizure memo and
the particulars ‘RK’ recorded in the rukka and the seal handing over
memo, which, according to the Ld. Counsel, is indicative of tampering
with the case property and not a mere typographical error as explained
by the prosecution witnesses; and (ii) the fact that though two live
cartridges were purportedly recovered from the appellant and sent toPage 19 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 20 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIthe FSL, only one tested cartridge was produced and exhibited at the
time of recording of evidence, leaving the fate of the second cartridge
unexplained and creating reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the
chain of custody of the case property.
d) It is also urged that no fingerprints/chance prints were lifted from the
recovered firearm, and that the seal, after use, was handed over to a
police official (Constable Sushil Kumar) rather than to any
independent person, which further renders the recovery suspect.
e) Ld. LADC has further pressed the ground that the appellant has been
falsely implicated at the instance of the police personnel concerned,
who are stated to harbour personal enmity towards the appellant on
account of the custodial death of the appellant’s brother, in respect of
which the appellant and his mother had lodged a complaint against the
said police officials, and that the theory of a secret informer has been
engineered as a device to falsely rope in the appellant in the present
case.
f) It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in placing reliance solely
on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, more so when the
prosecution failed to examine any independent eye-witness, and that
mere consistency between the testimonies of police officials, who are
all part of the same raiding team, cannot be treated as sufficient
corroboration to sustain a conviction.
g) Without prejudice to the above, and in the alternative, it is submitted
that the sentence of four years’ Rigorous Imprisonment imposed uponPage 20 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 21 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIthe appellant is excessive, harsh and disproportionate, particularly
having regard to the fact that the appellant is the sole bread-earner of
his family, has reformed himself during the period of his
incarceration, has undertaken voluntary work in jail, and has not been
the subject of any disciplinary complaint during custody. It is prayed
that a lenient view be taken and that a more proportionate sentence be
imposed.
8.2. Submissions on behalf of the State by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl.
PP:
a) Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Mukul Kumar, has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
and has argued that the same do not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Appellate Court.
b) It is submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the
material witnesses to the recovery, are consistent, trustworthy and
remain unshaken and unrebutted in their cross-examination; that no
material contradiction of any consequence has been elicited from
either of them; and that the mere fact that they belong to the police
force does not, by itself, render their testimony unreliable, in the
absence of any independent material to show enmity or motive to
falsely implicate the appellant.
c) It is argued that the recovery, being a personal search recovery
effected from the person of the appellant himself, did not necessitate
participation of an independent/public witness as a matter of law,Page 21 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 22 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHImore so where efforts were admittedly made to join public witnesses,
but none was willing to join; and that the absence of CCTV footage,
videography or photography of the recovery is not, by itself, fatal to
the prosecution case, particularly since it is a matter of record that the
recovery preceded the introduction/roll-out of the e-Sakshya
application for videographing of raids and recoveries.
d) It is submitted that the discrepancy in the seal particulars (‘RS’ as
against ‘RK’) stands duly explained on record as a typographical
error, more so as the FSL Report independently confirms the seal to
be ‘RK’ and confirms receipt of the desi katta and two live cartridges,
one of which was test-fired; and that non-production of the second
cartridge at the time of recording of evidence does not affect the
otherwise proved and unassailed chain of recovery, seizure, and
deposit with the FSL.
e) It is further submitted that the plea of false implication founded on the
alleged custodial death of the appellant’s brother and consequent
enmity with the police was never put to any of the prosecution
witnesses in their cross-examination in specific terms, no such
suggestion having been made, and the said defence, having been
raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal, without having
formed part of the appellant’s own statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. recorded before the Ld. Trial Court, cannot be permitted to be
raised at the appellate stage and does not warrant interference with the
finding on facts arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court.
Page 22 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 23 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
f) On the question of sentence, it is submitted that the previous
conviction/involvement report of the appellant, called for and perused
by the Ld. Trial Court, discloses that the appellant stands previously
convicted in as many as five cases, including offences under Section
380 IPC, Section 457/380/411 IPC, Section 307 IPC, Section 25/54/59
of the Arms Act, and Section 27 of the NDPS Act, and that, having
regard to the gravity and the repetitive nature of the appellant’s
criminal antecedents, the sentence of four years’ Rigorous
Imprisonment, being above the statutory minimum of two years but
well within the maximum of five years prescribed under Section 25(1-
B) of the Arms Act, calls for no interference. It is prayed that the
appeal, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
9. FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
9.1. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by Ld. LADC for the appellant and Ld. Addl. PP
for the State, and has independently gone through the Trial Court Record,
including the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the documentary
evidence exhibited on record, the statement of the accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order on
Sentence.
9.2. Alleged material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of
the witnesses (Grounds B, H, O, Q, R):
a) It is categorically noted that PW-1, ASI Rajendra Kumar; PW-2, HC
Sushil Kumar; and PW-3, SI Vikrant Singh, have categoricallyPage 23 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 24 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIsupported the story of the prosecution. Upon examination of the said
testimonies at length, this Court concurs with the observation of the
Ld. Trial Court that there are no material inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the two material witnesses, that is, PW-1 and PW-2, on
the core aspects of the raid, the apprehension of the appellant, and the
recovery of the pistol and cartridges from his possession. No such
inconsistency has been put to either witness by way of any specific
suggestion during cross-examination, and Ld. LADC has not been
able to point out, before this Court, any contradiction of a material
nature going to the root of the matter. The grounds urged in this
regard are accordingly found to be devoid of substance.
9.3. Absence of public witness, CCTV footage, videography/photography
of recovery (Grounds D, F, I, N):
a) The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the recovery of
the firearm and cartridges was neither video-graphed nor
photographed does not advance the case of the appellant, for the
reason that not every recovery can be video-graphed or photographed.
The recovery in the present case was effected on 17.06.2019, well
before the launch of the e-Sakshya application. Therefore, merely
because there is no videography or photography of the alleged
recovery, it cannot be said that the recovery had not been effected. For
that, one must turn to the testimony of the police witnesses. Such
testimonies are equally important and trustworthy as those of an
independent witness, unless there be reasons to show enmity of the
Page 24 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 25 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
accused with the police personnel concerned, on account of which he
has been falsely implicated. That not being the case here, and there
being no inconsistency in the testimonies of the recovery witnesses or
in the documents relating to the recovery – save the typographical
error in the seizure memo, which stands duly clarified – this Court is
of the opinion that the absence of a public witness, CCTV footage,
videography, or photography of the recovery does not, by itself,
absolve the appellant of the offence, nor does it render the testimony
of the recovery witnesses unbelievable or unreliable.
b) It is further noted that the relevant documents were duly prepared at
the time of arrest and seizure, and there is no reason for this Court to
doubt those documents, which stand duly proved by the witnesses
who prepared them. It is also relevant that PW-1 has explained, during
his cross-examination, that an attempt was in fact made to associate
public persons with the investigation at the spot, but that none was
willing to join, and no written notice could be served upon them in the
circumstances. This explanation has gone unrebutted.
9.4. Alleged perversity – conviction founded solely on statements of
prosecution witnesses (Ground E):
a) It is significant to note that, in Ground E of the memorandum of
appeal, it has been urged that the order of conviction is liable to be set
aside because it is founded on the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. Having examined the said ground in the appeal, this Court
fails to appreciate how a conviction could otherwise be arrived at, ifPage 25 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 26 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHInot on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is only on the
strength of the testimony of a prosecution witness, found to be
credible, that an accused can be convicted, or, alternatively, on the
basis of a confession. The present not being a case of confession, it
was, and could only have been, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses on which the Ld. Trial Court placed reliance, and rightly so,
in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 25 of the
Arms Act. There is no material contradiction highlighted, even in the
grounds of appeal, in the cross-examination of the witnesses, that
could lead this Court to take a different view. This ground, being self-
contradictory on its own terms, is accordingly rejected.
9.5. Plea of false implication owing to alleged custodial death of
appellant’s brother and consequent enmity with the Police (Ground C):
a) Ground C of the memorandum of appeal avers that the appellant has
been falsely implicated because he and his mother had lodged a
complaint against certain police officers, on account of the custodial
death of the appellant’s brother. Upon a careful perusal of the cross-
examination of PW-1 and PW-2, this Court finds that no such
suggestion was ever put to either of the two witnesses. There is only
one general suggestion put to the witnesses, namely, that no such
incident took place and that the accused has been falsely implicated;
however, there is no mention whatsoever, in the cross-examination, of
any custodial death of the appellant’s brother, nor of any complaint
Page 26 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 27 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
stated to have been made by the appellant and his mother against the
police.
b) Furthermore, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on
30.07.2025, the appellant had the opportunity to state his reasons for
being falsely implicated. Even in the said statement, he merely stated
that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated, without reference
to any prior enmity, custodial death, or complaint against the police.
The plea now sought to be raised in Ground C of the appeal, of pre-
existing enmity between the appellant and the police officials, thus
finds no support whatsoever in the Trial Court record, such a defence
never having been set up at the trial stage. This defence appears on
record for the first time only in the present appeal and, therefore,
cannot form the basis for setting aside the judgment of conviction
passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
9.6. Alleged tampering with case property – discrepancy in seal particulars
and non-production of second cartridge:
a) This Court has also examined the argument regarding the discrepancy
between the seal label ‘RS’ recorded in the seizure memo and the
correct particulars ‘RK’ recorded elsewhere on record. As rightly
found by the Ld. Trial Court, this discrepancy stands duly explained
by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief itself as an inadvertent
typographical error, and no question was put to him in cross-
examination in that regard. The particulars of the seal as ‘RK’ find
corroboration from the rukka/tehrir, the seal handing over memo, and,
Page 27 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 28 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
independently, from the FSL Report, which confirms the seal on the
case property to be ‘RK’. This Court finds no reason to take a
different view on this aspect.
b) Similarly, as regards the non-production of the second live cartridge at
the time of recording of evidence, the FSL Report confirms receipt of
one desi katta and two live cartridges, of which one was test-fired.
The chain of recovery, seizure, and deposit of both cartridges with the
FSL (admitted by accused u/s 267 Cr.PC as Ex.A5) stands duly
established and remains unassailed. Any subsequent lapse in the
production of the untested cartridge at the stage of recording of
evidence, whether attributable to the concerned laboratory or
otherwise, does not, in the facts of this case, enure to the benefit of the
appellant so as to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution version.
9.7. Credibility of testimony of police officials:
a) It is well settled that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police
officials merely because they belong to the police force, and there is
no rule of law which lays down that a conviction cannot be recorded
on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless
corroborated by independent evidence. The principle that a person
acts honestly applies equally to a police officer, unless the contrary is
shown, and it is not the correct judicial approach to view the
testimony of a police witness with suspicion or distrust without good
ground. Applying the said principle to the facts at hand, and finding
the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to be consistent, crediblePage 28 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 29 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIand unshaken on material particulars, this Court finds no reason to
discard the same merely on account of the deponents being police
officials.
9.8. Sentence (Grounds A and G):
a) Coming to the order on sentence, it is noted that the Ld. Trial Court
sentenced the appellant to four years’ Rigorous Imprisonment vide the
impugned Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025. The reasons for the
same are recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order, wherein the
previous involvements of the appellant, including convictions for
offences punishable under Section 380 IPC, Section 307 IPC, and
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, have been highlighted.
b) This Court has also perused the previous conviction/involvement
report of the appellant, filed by SI Dipender Singh, NDR/Crime
Branch, dated 28.10.2025, which is on the Trial Court record. The
said report, reproduced below, discloses that the appellant stands
convicted, not in one, but in as many as five previous cases:
Sr. FIR No. U/s P.S. Status Status Date
1. 249/2019 380 IPC Delhi Cantt. Discharge 04.02.2012
2. 225/2010 457/380/411/34 IPC Sarojni Nagar Convicted 29.01.2013
3. 141/2010 457/380 IPC South Acquitted 30.04.2012
Campus
4. 198/2010 307/34 IPC Delhi Cantt. Convicted 07.12.2013
5. 61/2012 457/380/411/34 IPC Delhi Cantt. Convicted 09.08.2012
6. 75/2012 25/54/59 Arms Act Delhi Cantt. Convicted 09.08.2012
7. 311/2018 27/61/85 NDPS Act Delhi Cantt. Convicted 29.03.2022
8. 81/2018 324 IPC Delhi Cantt. Acquitted 04.11.2023
9. 245/2009 380/457/34 IPC Delhi Cantt. Acquitted 25.10.2024
10. 239/2010 380 IPC Sarojni Nagar Discharge 21.11.2011
11. 245/2010 380 IPC Sarojni Nagar Discharge 20.12.2010
12. 241/2010 380/454 IPC Sarojni Nagar Discharge 30.12.2010
13. E FIR000240/2021 379/411 IPC Kishan Garh Pending Trial -----
Page 29 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 30 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
c) Keeping in view that the appellant/convict already stands convicted
for offences under the NDPS Act, the Arms Act, for the offence of
theft, as well as for one of the gravest offences, namely, attempt to
murder punishable under Section 307 IPC, this Court finds no reason
to interfere with, or alter, the sentence passed and awarded by the Ld.
Trial Court. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant
regarding his reformation in custody, his role as the sole bread-earner
of the family, and the hardship faced by his family members, though
noted, do not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the appellant’s
demonstrated propensity towards repeated criminal conduct, including
offences of a grave and violent nature. The sentence of four years’
Rigorous Imprisonment, being above the statutory minimum of two
years prescribed under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, and
well within the prescribed maximum of five years, cannot be said to
be excessive, harsh or disproportionate in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
d) As such, the order on sentence, having regard to the aforesaid
involvement and previous convictions of the appellant, is also hereby
upheld.
9.9. Remaining grounds (J, K, L, M, P):
a) The remaining grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal are, in
substance, a reiteration of the grounds already dealt with hereinabove,Page 30 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 31 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIcouched in general terms alleging perversity, conjecture, and failure to
appreciate the evidence and facts of the case. For the reasons already
recorded above, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or
infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Ld. Trial Court, nor
any failure to consider the material on record. These grounds,
therefore, do not survive for independent consideration and stand
rejected.
10. CONCLUSION:
10.1. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on
record and has rightly convicted the appellant, Virender @ Kala Badal @
Bittu @ Vicky S/o Sh. Prakash Ram, for the offence punishable under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, vide Judgment dated 26.09.2025, and
has rightly sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of four years along with a fine of Rs. 200/- (default SI one week), vide
Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025. None of the grounds urged in the
present appeal, whether pertaining to the conviction or to the quantum of
sentence, are found to have any merit.
10.2. There is no material inconsistency in the testimonies of the material
prosecution witnesses; the absence of a public witness, CCTV footage, or
videography/photography of the recovery, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, does not render the recovery doubtful; the discrepancy in the
seal particulars stands duly explained as a typographical error and is
corroborated by the FSL Report; the non-production of the second livePage 31 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 32 of 33CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHIcartridge does not disturb the otherwise proved chain of custody; and the
plea of false implication founded on an alleged custodial death of the
appellant’s brother and consequent police enmity, never having been put
to the witnesses in cross-examination nor raised in the appellant’s
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be permitted to be raised for
the first time at the appellate stage.
10.3. The sentence of four years’ Rigorous Imprisonment, being
proportionate to the gravity of the offence and consistent with the
appellant’s previous criminal antecedents, including convictions under the
Arms Act, the NDPS Act, and for the offence of attempt to murder under
Section 307 IPC, does not call for any interference.
10.4. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
DISMISSED, and the Judgment of Conviction dated 26.09.2025 and the
Order on Sentence dated 31.10.2025 passed by Ms. Shriya Agrawal, Ld.
CJM, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Cr. Case
No. 7173/2019, FIR No. 168/2019, PS Crime Branch, Delhi, are hereby
UPHELD and AFFIRMED.
10.5. As the accused is already undergoing sentence, let copy of this order
be sent to Jail Superintendent concerned for taking it on record and do
the needful.
10.6. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court, along with the
Trial Court Record, for information and compliance. A copy of this
judgment be also supplied to the Ld. LADC free of cost.
10.7. Copy of judgment be given to the convict / appellant free of cost.
Page 32 of 33
DLND010032132026 Page 33 of 33
CA/111/2026
VIRENDER alias KALA BADAL
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI
10.8. The appeal, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of in
the above terms. File be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliance. SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
Pronounced in open Court on SINGH LALER
Date: 2026.07.09
this the 09th day of July, 2026. LALER 17:06:46 +0530
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER)
ASJ-05/New Delhi District
PHC / New Delhi / 09.07.2026
Page 33 of 33
