Delhi District Court
State vs Magan on 17 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
Sessions case No. 979/18
CNR No. DLSW01-019001-2018
FIR No. 451/2018
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 307 IPC and 27 Arms
Act
Charges framed against accused 307 IPC and 27 Arms
SHIVALI
BANSAL Magan Act
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:41 +0530
State Vs. Magan
S/o Sh. Devender Singh
R/o H. No.2-L, Extension, Part-2,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution of case 23.10.2018
Date of Committal to the Court of 12.11.2018
Sessions
Date of Final Arguments 9.7.2026
Judgment reserved on 9.7.2026
Judgment pronounced on 17.7.2026
Decision CONVICTION
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2018,
upon receipt of Daily Diary Entry No. 11A, Assistant Sub-
Inspector Vinod Kumar, accompanied by Constable
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 1
Jogender Singh, proceeded to the place of occurrence,
namely Joon Properties, H-50, Som Bazar Road, Mohan
Garden, Uttam Nagar. At the spot, certain empty cartridges
bearing the impressions “Fire Pin” and “K.F. 7.65” were
found lying. Marks of firearm shots were also noticed on
the wall as well as on a chair lying inside the room.
Pradeep Joon, the owner of Joon Properties, informed the
police that one person, namely Magan, had fired gunshots
at him as well as at his friened Ajit Malik with the
intention to kill them. The Crime Team was called to the
spot, and the house of accused Magan was searched. The
SHIVALI MLC of injured Ajit Malik was collected from Mata Roop
BANSAL
Digitally signed Rani Maggo Hospital. Since Ajit Malik had been taken to
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530
AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment, his statement was
subsequently recorded by the police at the said centre. In
his statement, Ajit Malik stated that, for the preceding 10-
12 days, he had been residing in the office of his friend
Pradeep Joon situated at H-50, Som Bazar Road, Rama
Park Road, Uttam Nagar. On 27.05.2018, while he was
conversing with Pradeep Joon in the inner room of the said
office, he was seated on a chair with his back towards the
main gate, whereas Pradeep Joon was seated on a sofa
facing the main gate. At about 12:30 a.m., the gate was
suddenly opened and firing commenced. In an attempt to
save himself, Pradeep Joon lay down on the left side of the
sofa and shouted that Magan was firing gunshots. On
turning around, the complainant saw accused Magan
holding a pistol in his hand and running away from the
spot. Pradeep Joon chased him in an attempt to apprehend
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 2
him. Thereafter, the complainant felt pain and realised that
he had sustained a gunshot injury on the left side of his
hip. Upon hearing the sound of the gunshots, neighbours,
namely Amit and Vijay, reached the spot, whereupon the
complainant narrated the incident to them. Amit and Vijay
shifted the complainant to Maggo Hospital, while Vijay
informed the Police Control Room by dialling 100.
Thereafter, the complainant was taken from Maggo
Hospital to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment. On the
basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR No.
451/2018 was registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar for
SHIVALI the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
BANSAL
Digitally signed Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Sections 25 and 27 of the
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:42 +0530
Arms Act.
2. It is the further case of the prosecution that despite efforts,
accused Magan could not be apprehended, whereupon non-
bailable warrants were issued against him by the Court of
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter,
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also initiated
against him. In the meantime, information was received
vide DD Entry No. 17B that accused Magan had been
arrested in FIR No. 189/2018 under Sections 25/54/59 of
the Arms Act. Accordingly, he was formally arrested in the
present case. During interrogation, accused Magan
disclosed that owing to a monetary dispute, he had a
quarrel with complainant Ajit Malik and Pradeep Joon and
had, therefore, decided to fire gunshots at them. He further
disclosed that, in pursuance of the said plan, he, along with
co-accused Manoj @ Annu, had gone to the office of the
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 3
complainant on an Apache motorcycle bearing registration
No. DL9CAW 6270. The motorcycle was parked in a
nearby lane, where Manoj @ Annu remained waiting with
the motorcycle, while accused Magan entered the office
and fired gunshots. At the instance of accused Magan, co-
accused Manoj Kumar @ Annu was also arrested. The
exhibits collected during the course of investigation were
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for
examination. Upon completion of the investigation and
recording of the statements of the witnesses, the charge-
sheet was filed before the Court against accused Magan
SHIVALI and Manoj @ Annu for the offences punishable under
BANSAL
Digitally signed Sections 307/120B of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:44 +0530
Arms Act.
3. Vide order dated 0 1 . 11 . 2 0 1 8 , copies of the charge-
sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to b o t h
the accused persons by the order of Ld. ACMM. On
12.11.2018, the present case was committed to the Court
of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
4. Vide order dated 6.3.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this
Court was pleased to discharge accused Manoj @ Mannu
for commission of offence u/s 307/120B IPC as well as
for offences u/s 25/27 Arms Act. As accused Magan
was already booked for commission of offence u/s 25
Arms Act, it was ordered that charges for commission
of offences punishable u/s 307 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act
are liable to be framed against him. Charges for
commission of the said offences were framed against the
accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 4
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined below mentioned
eighteen witnesses:
Prosecuti Name of witness Description
on
Witness
No.
PW-1 Ajit Malik @ Ajit Complainant as well as injured
Singh
PW-2 Pradeep Joon Eye witness to the incident
PW-3 HC Parivandra Duty Officer
PW-4 Constable Amit Fingerprint Expert
PW-5 Vijay Neighbour of PW1 and shifted
PW1 to hospital
PW-6 ASI Satpal Incharge, Mobile Crime Team
PW-7 ASI Manoj Kumar Proved arrest and personal
search of accused Magan and
SHIVALI participated in investigation
BANSAL
PW-8 Dr. Aman Maggo Proved MLC of PW1
PW-9 ASI Vinod Kumar Reached the spot at first
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17 instance and carried out
15:22:47 +0530
(First IO)
investigation
PW-10 HC Ajay Participated in investigation
PW-11 ASI (retired) Jogender Participated in investigation
along with PW9
Singh
PW-12 SI Anil Kumar Official of PS Crime Branch
pertaining to case FIR
No.189/2018
PW-13 Urmila, Asstt. Ahlmad Produced record of FIR
No.189/18 PS Crime Branch
PW-14 SI Satyawan (second Conducted the investigation
IO)
PW-15 Retired SI Yashpal Official of raiding team which
had apprehended accused at
Singh
Britannia Chowk.
PW-16 Avinash Srivastav Asstt. Director, FSL
PW-17 ASI Shivanand Deposited exhibits in FSL and
returned acknowledgment to
MHC (M)
PW-18 ASI Suresh Photographer of the Mobile
Crime Team
6. PW-1 is the complainant Ajit Malik @ Ajit Singh who
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 5
deposed that he and his friend Pradeep Joon are property
dealers. One year ago at about 12.30 A.M. (midnight), he
along with Pradeep Joon were discussing about their
business in the office of Joon Properties at Som Bazar
Road, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. PW1 was
sitting on a chair facing the wall and door of the office was
at his back. Pradeep Joon was sitting in front of him and
his face was towards the door of the office. Suddenly, he
heard a sound like firing and Pradeep stated, “Magan goli
chala raha hai”. PW1 saw at his back and found that
Magan was firing shot. PW1 sustained gunshot injury on
SHIVALI his left side under the waist and above the thigh and blood
BANSAL
Digitally signed started oozing out from the wound. His neighbours namely
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:42 +0530
Amit and Vijay shifted PW1 to Maggo Hospital and then
to AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW1 further deposed that
Pradeep Joon did not sustain any injury and he chased
Magan. PW1 proved his statement as Ex.PW1/A recorded
by the Police in Maggo Hospital. This witness correctly
identified accused Magan in the court. PW1 also proved
his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident.
He proved track pant, having small hole caused by bullet,
near the waist as Ex.P-1 and blue short as Ex.P-2.
7. During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW1 stated he knew Pradeep Joon for the last 7-8
years. At the time of incident, he had gone to the office of
Pradeep Joon to settle the account. The name of real
brother of Pradeep Joon is Pramod, who is employed as
Constable in Delhi Police, is also his friend. PW1 was
having mobile phone at the time of incident but had not
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 6
called the Police on the day of incident. Some photographs
bearing Ex.PW2/D-2, Ex.PW2/D-3 and Ex.PW2/D-4 were
shown to PW1 in which he identified himself, Ashok,
Sumit and Sonu along with three private security personnel
with firearms. As per PW1, he did not possess any firearm
nor he had any Arm licence. PW1 deposed that Police had
made enquiries from him in Maggo Hospital but his
statement was recorded at AIIMS Hospital. None of his
brother reached at Maggo Hospital. PW1 knew accused
Magan for the last 2-3 years through his Mausi Krishna
Sharma. He further deposed that Krishna Sharma had
SHIVALI taken loan from his brother Sonu on interest @ 24% per
BANSAL
Digitally signed annum. PW1 and Sonu were doing finance business. PW1
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
was not sure whether Pradeep was also doing finance
business or not. PW1 denied the suggestion that Pradeep
and Sonu had a dispute with Krishna Sharma on the issue
of levying huge rate of interest. PW1 admitted that Krishna
Sharma had mortgaged her Hero Honda motorcycle with
them which was still in their possession. PW1 admitted
that he was not having any dispute with accused Magan
and he could not tell the reason as to why he had fired on
him. PW1 voluntarily added that there was no dispute with
Krishna Sharma as she had returned the entire loan
amount. According to PW1, 4-5 bullets were shot on the
day of incident and assailant had run from the spot with the
revolver. PW1 did not notice any blood either on the floor
or on the chair on which he was sitting. Pradeep Joon was
staying on the first floor of his office and PW1 stayed there
off and on and once he had stayed there for about 20 days.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 7
Family of Pradeep was staying on the first floor from few
months prior to the incident. At the time of incident, PW1
had been residing with Pradeep for last 2-3 days in the
office. As per PW1, CCTV cameras might be installed in
the office. He again stated that at the time of incident, there
was no CCTV cameras installed in the office. PW1 did not
remember in which vehicle he was taken to Maggo
Hospital or whether the said vehicle got smeared with
blood or not. When PW1 was being taken and when he
reached Maggo Hospital, he was conscious. PW1 did not
tell the doctor at Maggo Hospital that accused Magan had
SHIVALI fired upon him. PW1 remained at Maggo Hospital for
BANSAL
Digitally signed about 30 minutes. This witness admitted that police did not
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
enquire from him about the place of occurrence nor he
showed the Police the office of Pradeep and their positions
when the incident of firing had taken place. PW1 denied
the suggestion that he is associated with anti-social
elements and had enmity with several persons. PW1
further denied that he along with Pradeep had illegal
pistols with them from which they were firing in the air
and one of the bullet hit him accidentally after striking
with the chair. PW1 further denied that Pradeep went away
from his office just to hide those illegal weapons or that he
along with Pradeep had concocted story to implicate
accused Magan in the present false case due to enmity or
to save himself and Pradeep for possessing illegal
weapons. PW1 further denied the suggestion that as
accused Magan had not caused any injury to him that is
why he had told the Doctor that some unknown assailant
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 8
had caused the bullet injury to him.
8. PW2 Pradeep Joon deposed that on 27.05.2018 at about
12.30 midnight, he was sitting in the inner room of his
office along with his friend Ajit Malik and were discussing
about the properties. In the meantime, accused Magan
(correctly identified by PW2 in the court), entered the
office and started firing on him. PW2 bent down on the left
side in order to save him and escaped unhurt. PW2 raised
alarm stating to Ajit Malik, “Magan goli chala raha hai”.
PW2 chased accused Magan outside his office and saw
that accused sat on a Hitachi bike and fled away. The said
SHIVALI bike was already standing in start mode and one person
BANSAL
Digitally signed was sitting on it wearing a helmet. As soon as accused
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:42 +0530
Magan sat on the bike, the motorcyclist drove the bike.
PW2 further deposed that when he returned to his office,
he came to know that Ajit Malik sustained gunshot injuries
and had been taken away to the hospital by Amit and Vijay.
Police was present in his office and four empty cartridges
were found. PW2 led the Police officials at the house of
accused Magan from where liquor and cold drink bottles
were found lying at the terrace of his house however,
accused Magan was not found at his house. Police
prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of PW2.
9. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW2 deposed that on 27.5.2018, he was
maintaining mobile number xxxx27580. As per PW2,
Police had obtained his signatures on handwritten
statement and he had gone through the said statement
before signing the same. However, when PW2 was shown
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 9
judicial file, no statement signed by him was found on
record. PW2 was confronted with his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC (Ex.PW2/D1) with regard to the fact that they were
sitting in the room adjacent to the office or that he along
with Ajit Malik were discussing the properties or that
accused Magan entered the office by opening the door of
his office and he started firing on him or that PW2 shouted
that “Magan Goli Chala Rai”, where the said facts were
not found recorded. PW2 admitted that he had no
document to show that he was running Joon Properties. He
admitted that he worked as financier also and used to give
SHIVALI money @ 5% interest per month. PW2 used to collect the
BANSAL
Digitally signed payments from his customers on monthly basis. At the
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
time of incident, he was having about 30-40 customers.
PW2 did not pay any income tax. This witness did not
possess any weapon. PW2 denied the suggestion that he
was having illegal weapon at the time of incident. PW2
admitted that CCTV cameras were installed in his office at
the time of incident. The Police had not conducted any
proceedings in his presence or at his instance except that
he led the Police to the house of accused Magan. As per
PW2, he knew accused Magan long prior to the incident.
No employee had been engaged by him for his office at the
time of incident. The CCTV cameras were installed on the
approach road near which office of PW2 was situated.
PW1 Ajit Malk is also in property business and having his
office on the same road but PW2 could not tell its exact
address. PW2 chased the offender after the incident for
about 100-200 meters from his office after the incident at
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 10
the approach road but when accused disappeared, PW2
returned to his office after 20 minutes where he found
large crowd gathered along with Police. Police shifted
PW1 Ajit Malik to hospital. PW2 also accompanied the
injured to hospital. The motorcycle was parked at a
distance of about 20 meters away from his office. As per
PW2, he was having no enmity with the accused at any
point of time. No quarrel or hot altercation had ever taken
place between him and the accused. There was street lights
in front of his office on the approach road till main
Najafgarh Road. There was no blood stain on the chair or
SHIVALI in the office due to the alleged incident. PW2 deposed that
BANSAL
Digitally signed he had not called Police by dialling 100 number on the day
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
of incident and also could not tell any reason for the same.
PW2 was confronted with the statement-Ex.PW2/D1
recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC qua the fact that
accused sat on a Hitachi bike in order to flee away and that
the said bike was already in start mode and that one person
wearing helmet was already sitting on it and after Magan
sat on it, the motorcycle was driven away; however these
facts were not found recorded in the said statement. Police
collected empty shells from his office in his presence and
thereafter, went to the house of accused Magan. Police also
seized one chair having bullet mark from the spot.
According to PW2, Maggo Hospital was expensive and
demanded Rs.1.50 lakhs for treatment of PW1 and due to
that reason on the advice of Police, PW1 Ajit Malik was
taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre where PW2 reached at
about 4.30 A.M. PW2 did not know whether PW1 Ajit was
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 11
having any arm licence or not. PW2 denied that accused
Magan did not fire upon PW1. As per PW2, he had chased
the accused persons by borrowing a scooty from a local
resident Nigerian but still accused persons managed to
escape. According to PW2, four bullets were fired upon
him by the accused. PW2 admitted that his brother was in
Delhi Police as Constable and had also remained posted in
PS Uttam Nagar. PW2 denied the suggestion that Krishna
Sharma, Mausi of accused Magan, had taken loan from
him and there was a dispute regarding levying huge
interest over the said loan amount and due to said issue,
SHIVALI Krishna Sharma was not repaying the interest along with
BANSAL
Digitally signed principal amount and, therefore, PW2 had falsely
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:41 +0530
implicated accused Magan to recover his said loan amount.
PW2 denied the suggestion that they were having illegal
pistols with them from which they were firing in the air
and one of the bullet accidently hit against PW1 Ajit after
striking with the chair. PW2 further denied that he had
gone away from his office just to hide those illegal
weapons. PW2 denied that there was no bike on the road
or no such alleged incident had taken place and that is why
he had not handed over CCTV footage of his office to the
Police. PW2 further denied that as accused Magan had not
caused any injury that is why PW1 Ajit had told the doctor
that some unknown assailant had caused the bullet injury
to him.
10.PW3 HC Parivandra proved the FIR No. 451/18 as
Ex.PW3/A; endorsement on Tehrir as Ex.PW3/B; and
certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 12
Ex.PW3/C. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld.
Defence Counsel.
11.PW4 Constable Amit, Fingerprint Expert deposed that on
27.5.2018, on receipt of PCR call vide DD No.11A in
respect of firing incident, he along with ASI Satpal,
Incharge, Crime Team and HC Suresh, Photographer
reached the spot. He noticed 4 empty cartridges in the
inner room and a led near the wall of the room. There was
a bullet mark on the wall also. Crime Scene was inspected
and photographs were clicked but no chance prints were
found. On the terrace of the house of accused, one liquor
SHIVALI bottle and a half liquor bottle were found from which
BANSAL
Digitally signed chance prints were lifted and this witness proved his report
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:40 +0530
as Ex.PW4/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld.
Defence Counsel.
12. PW5 Vijay, deposed that he was a property dealer and
running his business at H-51, Som Bazar Road, Rama
Park, New Delhi. On 27.5.2018 at about 12:00/1:00 A.M.,
when he was in his office with his friend Amit, they heard
the noise of bullet firing. They immediately went out and
saw that bullet firing had taken place in the office of Joon
Properties. Ajit Malik was found with a bullet wound to
his left hip. PW5 immediately called at 100 number and he
along with Amit, shifted Ajit Malik to Mata Roop Rani
Maggo Hospital. As said hospital demanded huge money,
they further took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Police
arrived at the Trauma Centre and recorded statement of the
injured Ajit. Thereafter, they returned to their home.
13. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 13
Counsel, PW5 deposed that he and Amit used to sleep in
their office. Police reached Maggo Hospital after about 15-
20 minutes. Two Police officials accompanied them to
AIIMS. Police did not record statement of the injured or
any other witness in his presence. They had taken the
injured to Maggo Hospital in his Maruti Ritz car. As per
PW5, his clothes did not get stained with blood; however,
the back seat of his car was smeared with blood. PW5 did
not remember whether the police had seized the blood-
stained portion of the seat of his car.
14.PW6 ASI Satpal, In charge of Mobile Crime Team deposed
SHIVALI that along with photographer HC Suresh and Fingerprint
BANSAL
Digitally signed Proficient had gone to place of incident and the spot was
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:42 +0530
inspected and photographs were clicked. No fingerprints
were found at the spot. However, four empty cartridges,
two bullet led and one plastic chair having bullet hole were
suggested to be seized by the IO. Thereafter, he along with
his team reached at the house of accused from where one
empty liquor bottle, one half filled bottle, one empty cold
drink bottle, two plastic glass and some food were
suggested to be seized by the IO. PW6 proved his report as
Ex.PW21/A.
15.PW7 ASI Manoj Kumar deposed that while being posted at
PS Uttam Nagar, on 31.7.2018 he joined investigation with
IO SI Satyawan and proved arrest memo of accused as
Ex.PW7/A and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW7/B. Two
days PC remand of accused was granted during which
accused Magan led the Police at many places including
house of co-accused but he could not be apprehended. This
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 14
witness was not cross-examined by accused despite
opportunity granted.
16.PW8 Dr. Aman Maggo deposed that on 27.5.2018, patient
Ajit Malik was brought to his hospital by one Amit. He
proved his MLC as Ex.PW8/A. This witness was not
cross-examined by accused despite opportunity granted.
17.PW9 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 27.5.2018, on
receipt of DD No.11A, he along with ASI Joginder reached
the spot. He proved sketch of empty cartridges as
Ex.PW9/A; seizure memo of four empty cartridges and
two live cartridges as Ex.PW9/B. A chair with a bullet hole
SHIVALI was also found at the spot. Pradeep Joon met them at the
BANSAL
Digitally signed spot who informed that Magan had fired upon him and his
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
friend in the office. PW9 also reached the house of accused
Magan from where certain liquor bottles along with other
articles were found. PW9 proved seizure memos of liquor
and cold drink bottles, two plastic glasses as Ex.PW9/C.
Crime Team had lifted chance prints from the articles.
PW9 further deposed that on receiving the information, he
reached Maggo Hospital and obtained MLC-Ex.PW8/A of
injured Ajit. PW9 recorded statement (already Ex.PW1/A)
of injured Ajit Malik in AIIMS Trauma Centre. This
witness proved two pullandas, one containing clothes of
injured and other containing empty cartridge extracted
from the body of injured as Ex.PW9/D. The endorsement
on the statement of injured was proved as Ex.PW9/E after
which FIR was registered in the present case u/s 307 IPC
and u/s 25/27 Arms Act. PW9 proved four empty cartridge
shells as Ex.P-3 (colly.); two bullet leads as Ex.P-4
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 15
(colly.); black colour chair as Ex.P-5; two plastic glass as
Ex.P-6 (colly.); empty liquor bottle as Ex.P-7; half liquor
bottle as Ex.P-8; and Coca-Cola bottle as Ex.P-9. As per
PW9, thereafter further investigation of the present case
was entrusted to SI Satyawan.
18.In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW9 deposed that accused Magan as well as Ajit
Malik were not found at the spot and except Pradeep Joon,
no other public person was present there.
19.PW-10 HC Ajay deposed that on 1.8.2018, he along with
IO joined the investigation and accused Magan led them in
SHIVALI search of co-accused Manoj @ Annu but he could not be
BANSAL
Digitally signed found in Dwarka Mor area. Then they went to Rama Park
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
Road where one Constable Hari Om was also joined and at
the instance of accused Magan, Manoj was arrested. This
witness proved his arrest memo as Ex.PW10/A; personal
search memo as Ex.PW10/B and his disclosure statement
as Ex.PW10/C. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld.
Defence Counsel, PW10 denied that accused Magan had
not led them anywhere nor accused Manoj was arrested at
his instance.
20.PW11 retired ASI Jogender Singh deposed that while
being posted as ASI in PS Uttam Nagar, on 27.5.2018, on
receipt of DD No.11A he along with PW9-ASI Vinod
reached the spot ie Joon Properties, Mohan Garden, Uttam
Nagar. This witness has corroborated the testimony of
PW9 ASI Vinod regarding investigation and proceedings
conducted by the Police at the spot as well as at the house
of accused Magan and also with regard to identification of
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 16
case properties. This witness relied upon seizure memo of
chair (Mark 11/1).
21.In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW11 stated that they reached the spot in the
evening time and remained there for about 3-4 hours. He
did not know whether any CCTV camera was installed
near the spot or not. As per PW11, the spot was surrounded
with residential houses and public persons had gathered at
the spot. ASI Vinod did not give notice to any public
person who had refused to join the investigation. PW11
could not tell about the floors built up in the building of
SHIVALI Joon Property office as well as the distance between said
BANSAL
Digitally signed office and the house of accused Magan. As per PW11,
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530
blood stains marks were noticed on the wall. PW11 could
not tell whether any person was found at the house of
accused or whether the said house was found locked or
not.
22.PW12 SI Anil Kumar deposed that on 27.7.2018, while he
was posted as ASI at SOS-1st, Crime Branch, HC Anil
handed over him copy of FIR No.189/18 of PS Crime
Branch along with original rukka and certain other
documents. Accordingly, he arrested accused Magan and
recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, information
was given at concerned PS and, thereafter, IO of the
present case reached at PS Crime Branch and then he
handed over related documents to him. This witness
correctly identified accused Magan in the court.
23. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW12 deposed that IO of the present case had
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 17
approached him on 28.7.2018. PW12 had not signed any
document regarding handing over documents of the case to
the IO. PW12 could not tell the numbering or paging of the
documents handed over by him to the IO of the present
case. Further, no DD entry was made to this effect. PW12
further stated that he was not member of the raiding team
which had arrested accused Magan in case FIR No.189/18.
24. PW13 Ms. Urmila, Asstt. Ahlmad produced the original
judicial file of case FIR No.189/2018, PS Crime Branch.
During testimony of PW13, following documents were
proved:
SHIVALI Proved Description of Document Exhibit
BANSAL
by/attes Number
ted by
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:44 +0530 PW13 FIR No.189/2018 Ex.PW13/A
PW13 Seizure memo of pistol and kartoos Ex.PW13/B
PW13 Seizure memo of Apache motorcycle Ex.PW13/C
No. DL9SAW6270
PW13 Sketch of pistol and kartoos Ex.PW13/D
PW13 Road Certificate Ex.PW13/E
PW13 Acknowledgment Ex.PW13/FThis witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
Counsel despite opportunity granted.
25. PW14 SI Satyawan deposed that further investigation of
the present case was assigned to him during which he had
prepared site plan (already Ex.PW2/D/5) at the instance of
Pradeep Joon. On 28.7.2018, information vide DD No.17B
was received in PS from ASI Anil, Crime Branch
regarding arrest of accused Magan. He proved seizure
memo of blood sample of complainant as Ex.PW14/A. On
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 18
31.7.2018, accused was arrested; his personal search was
conducted; and his disclosure statement was recorded.
Exhibits were sent to FSL and statements of witnesses u/s
161 Cr.PC were recorded by him. After completion of
investigation, PW14 filed chargesheet in the court.
26. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW14 admitted that he had not obtained the
signature of complainant or concerned person on the site
plan at whose instance the same was prepared. PW14
further admitted that he had smart mobile phone with him
but he did not capture any picture or shot any video of the
SHIVALI spot of the incident. PW14 admitted that there were CCTV
BANSAL
Digitally signed cameras installed in the vicinity of spot of the incident as it
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530
is a residential area but he again stated that there were no
CCTV cameras installed in the said area. PW14 had not
collected any CDR/CAF/Cell ID chart either of the
complainant or of Pradeep Joon or of accused in order to
show their presence at the spot at the time of alleged
offence.
27. PW-15 Retired SI Yashpal Singh deposed that on
27.7.2018, while being posted at SOS Office Crime
Branch, he was communicated secret information
regarding arrival of accused at Britannia Chowk, Near
Punjabi Bagh. Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted
and at about 6.15 PM, accused Magan, driving motorcycle
No.DL9SAW6270, was apprehended. His personal search
was carried out and one countrymade pistol loaded with
two live cartridges was recovered from left side dub of his
pant. Before and after apprehension of accused, public
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 19
persons were asked to join the investigation but none
agreed. Case property was seized. FIR u/s 25 Arms Act
against the accused was registered. PW15 proved the
countrymade pistol with two empty cartridges as
Ex.PW15/P1 (colly.); and Apache motorcycle No.
DL9SAW6270 as Ex.PW15/P2 and also correctly
identified the accused.
28. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW15 stated that there was no public person
present at the spot when they reached there. He admitted
that he was carrying smart phone on 27.7.2018 but had not
SHIVALI clicked any photograph or made any video at that time. He
BANSAL
Digitally signed further admitted that there was no specific mark on the
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:44 +0530
weapon allegedly recovered in the present case and that he
could not identify the recovered weapon if it is mixed with
the similar make and kind of weapons. PW15 further
admitted that no chance print was taken by the IO from the
recovered weapon. Seal after use was handed over to
Constable Parvesh. This witness further admitted that
engine number and chassis number of the bike are not
visible in photograph-Ex.PW15/P-2. PW15 could not tell
as to who was the owner of the bike or whether the bike
was deposited in the Malkhana or not.
29. PW16 Avinash Srivastav, Asstt. Director, Ballistics, FSL
proved his report as Ex.PW16/A (colly.). In his cross-
examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW16
admitted that as per report-Ex.PW16/A, cartridge cases
were not fired from the recovered firearm.
30. PW17 ASI Shivanand, MHC (M) deposed that exhibits
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 20
were deposited with him by ASI Vinod Kumar and the
same were sent to FSL and acknowledgments were
received. During testimony of PW17, following
documents/entries in register No.19 were proved:
Proved Description of Document Exhibit
by/attes Number
ted by
PW17 Entry No.5017/18 Ex.PW17/A
PW17 Entry No.5164/18 Ex.PW17/B
PW17 Entry No.5190 Ex.PW17/C
PW17 Entry No.5230 Ex.PW17/D
PW17 Entry No.5326 Ex.PW17/E
SHIVALI PW17 RC No.94/21/19 dated 22.3.2019 Ex.PW17/F
BANSAL
Digitally signed
PW17 Copy of acknowledgment Ex.PW17/G
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
31. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW17 admitted that nothing is mentioned about
the objection raised by the FSL on 8.10.2018. On
22.3.2019, they had sent the same pullandas to the FSL
and then the same were accepted for examination.
32. PW18 ASI Suresh deposed that while being posted at PS
Uttam Nagar as HC, on 27.5.2018, on receipt of call, he
along with Crime Team Incahrge, ASI Satpal and Ct. Amit
had gone to Joon Property situated at House No.50, Mohan
Garden, Uttam Nagar where they met ASI Vinod who
showed the spot and informed that incident of firing had
taken place at the spot. Four empty cartridges were found
lying on the gate of the office and two leads were lying
near the gate and inside the office. One chair having bullet
hole was also lying inside the office. PW18 further
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 21
deposed that thereafter, IO had taken them at terrace of
house No.2 belonging to Nisha wife of Devender and they
were informed that accused had done a party there. Chance
prints were lifted from the articles vis two plates, four
plastic glass, 4 spoons, plastic water bottle, one full size
empty bottle of wine and one empty half liquor bottle etc.
PW18 had clicked 33 photographs apart from chance print
photographs and proved the same as Ex.PW18/A (colly.).
33. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence
Counsel, PW18 stated that he reached the spot at about
2.30 p.m and remained there for about 1½ hours. PW18
SHIVALI did not notice any CCTV camera at the spot. He also did
BANSAL
Digitally signed not issue any certificate u/s 65B IEA with regard to
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
photographs clicked by him. PW18 could not say whether
any lady owner was present or not in the said house from
where the liquor bottles etc were recovered.
34. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Magan was recorded
wherein he was briefed all the incriminating ocular and
documentary evidence to which accused denied and further
deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case. Accused has not led any evidence in support
of his defence.
35. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the
prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story
and have corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate
her submissions, she stated that PW1 Ajit Malik
(complainant/injured) and PW2 Pankaj Joon (eye-witness)
have completely supported the prosecution story. It is
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 22
further contended that from the MLC of PW1 it is crystal
clear that he had sustained gunshot injury in his left hip;
four empty cartridges were recovered from the spot and a
plastic chair with hole caused by bullet has also been
recovered. Even the short and pant have been found with
hole caused by the bullet and bullet shell was also
extracted from his body. Thus, the accused is liable to be
convicted for commission of offences punishable U/s 307
IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.
36. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused
SHIVALI beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he
BANSAL
Digitally signed argued that there are material contradictions in the
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
testimonies of PW1 and PW2. It is also argued that there are
lapses in the investigation carried out by the IO, as the IO
had not recovered the CCTV footages which were available
at the office of the PW2 and outside the office/approach
road of PW2. It is stated that such CCTV footages would
have proved the innocence of accused. It is also argued that
there were no blood stains on the chair or in the office
where the incident had taken place. It is further argued that
the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case
as PW1 Ajit Malik and PW2 Pradeep Joon are possessing
illegal weapons. It is also argued that prosecution has not
examined material witness i.e. Sh. Amit, who had
accompanied the injured PW1 Ajit Malik to the hospital.
This casts doubt upon the veracity of the case of the
prosecution. It is also argued that the Ballistic Report i.e
Ex.PW16/A given by PW16 Avinash Shrivastav does not
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 23
support the case of the prosecution as the alleged recovered
pistol was not used to commit the offence u/s 307 IPC. It is
accordingly prayed that accused should be acquitted of the
offences with which he is charged with.
37. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the
evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the
relevant provisions of law.
38. In the present case, charges under Section 307 IPC and u/s
27 Arms Act have been framed against the accused. Section
307 IPC is elaborated as under: –
SHIVALI
BANSAL “307. Attempt to murder.
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:42 +0530
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or
to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for
life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
39. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the
evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the
relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the
judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as
well as Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
40. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/injured
Ajit Malik was attacked by the accused Magan when he was
sitting in the office of PW2 Pradeep Joon. At 12.30 A.M,
accused Magan had entered the room adjoining the officeSC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 24
and had fired five rounds. Since PW1 Ajeet Malik was
sitting facing towards the wall, such that the door of the
office was at his back, he received gunshot injury on the left
side under the waist and above his thigh. Thereafter, PW2
Pradeep Joon followed the accused Magan, however, he
returned back unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the neighbourers
PW5 Vijay and Amit had taken PW1 Ajit Malik to the Mata
Roop Rani Maggo Hospital, from where he was taken to
AIIMS Trauma Centre. During investigation, the police
officials had recorded the statements of injured PW1 Ajit
Malik and an eye witness-PW2 Pradeep Joon. The Police
SHIVALI had recovered four empty cartridges having marks “DK
BANSAL
Digitally signed 7.65”, two live cartridges and one chair with a bullet hole
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:41 +0530
along with other articles from the office of PW2 Pradeep
Joon. The police had also recovered an arm from accused
Magan in FIR No.189/2018 PS Crime Branch, Delhi
registered u/s 25 Arms Act in matter titled as ‘State vs.
Magan‘.
41. PW1 and PW2 have duly corroborated with each other on
the material aspects. It is a trite law that the testimony of an
injured witness cannot be brushed aside lightly. Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing
with the evidentiary value of injured witness has observed
as under: –
“28.Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He
had been examined by the Doctor. His testimony could
not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of
the incident as he was present at the time when the
assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa
Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held
that the deposition of injured witness should be reliedSC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 25
upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the
scene stands established in case it is proved that he
suffered the injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand, a similar view has
been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped
witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that
the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence, lends supports to its testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness
is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing
can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be
relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana).”
42. In the instant case, the complainant/injured PW1 Ajit Malik
has given his testimony against the accused Magan. He has
SHIVALI
BANSAL duly identified the accused before this court. The testimony
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI of PW1 Ajit Malik is corroborated with the testimony of
BANSAL
PW2 Pradeep Joon. PW1 Ajit Malik in his examination in
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
chief has categorically stated as under:
“I heard a loud sound such as firing, Pradeep said that
“Magan goli chala raha hai”. I looked back and saw Magan
was firing shot. I found injury on my left side under the
waist, above the thigh.”
43. PW1 Ajit Malik has withstood cross-examination by the Ld.
Counsel for accused Magan. It is also deposed by him that
accused Magan was known to him from past two to three
years through his Mausi Krishna Sharma. It was also
deposed that PW1 Ajit Malik was not having any dispute or
difference with accused Magan and he cannot even tell what
was the reason that accused Magan had fired on him. PW1
Ajit Malik had given a vivid description of the incident that
had taken place. He categorically deposed that 4-5 bullets
were shot and after firing accused Magan had left from the
spot with the revolver. PW1 Ajit Malik had also given
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 26
explanation to the effect that the alleged medical history
“that some unknown person has fired bullet on me” was not
given by him but some police official might have told about
the same. This fact is also corroborated by PW1 Ajit Malik
who categorically stated that he was taken to AIIMS Trauma
Centre by his friends Amit and Vijay and one Police Official
had also accompanied them. He further deposed that
“Doctor at AIIMS Hospital did not ask me about the mode
and manner how I sustained bullet injury”. All the
suggestions given by the Ld. Defence Counsel have been
denied by PW1 Ajit Malik. He has categorically denied as
SHIVALI under:
BANSAL
Digitally signed “15. It is incorrect to suggest that I alongwith Pradeep were
by SHIVALI
BANSAL having illegal pistols with us and from which we were firing
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530 in the air and one of the bullet hit against me accidentally
after hitting the chair. It is incorrect to suggest that Pradeep
went away from his office just to hide those illegal weapons.
It is incorrect to suggest that I alongwith Pradeep concocted
story to implicate accused Magan in this false case due to
aforesaid enmity. It is incorrect to suggest that Magan has
neither opened the fire upon me nor he caused any injury or
that I have falsely implicated him in this case. It is incorrect to
suggest that I falsely implicated accused Magan in this case to
save myself and Pradeep for possessing illegal weapons. It is
incorrect to suggest that due to the said reason, I did not call
the police at any point of time. It is incorrect to suggest that I
manipulated the police with the help of brother of Pradeep,
who is serving in police. It is incorrect to suggest that as
accused Magan has not caused any injury that is why I told
the Doctor that some unknown assailant had caused the bullet
injury to him. It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed
falsely.”
44. Similarly, PW2 Pradeep Joon in his testimony, as an eye-
witness, has supported the case of the prosecution. He has
deposed as under:
“I was sitting on the sofa facing towards the main door and
my friend PW1 Ajit Malik was sitting on the chair in front
of me and his back to the main gate.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 27
At about 12.30 midnight, we were discussing the
properties, at the same time accused Magan, present in the
court today, correctly identified, entered the office by
opening the door of my office. The door of the room where
we were sitting was opened. Accused started firing on me.
I bent to my left side on the sofa in order to save me. I
escaped unhurt. I shouted, “Magan goli chala raha hai” to
my friend Ajit Malik.
I get up and started chasing accused who fled away from
our office. I came out of my office and chased him……”
45. Thus, PW2 Pradeep Joon has corroborated the testimony of
PW1 Ajit Malik in its entirety. The contention of Ld.
Defence Counsel that there are material contradictions in the
testimonies of PW1 Ajit Malik and PW2 Pradeep Joon does
not stand as injured/eye witnesses cannot be expected to
SHIVALI
BANSAL repeat each and every fact that had happened. In fact, slight
contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 Ajit Malik and
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:45 +0530
PW2 Pradeep Joon reflects upon the fact that they are not
tutored witnesses and are deposing naturally before the
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi have held in a catena of
judgments that material contradictions are those which are
fatal to the case of the prosecution like on central facts like
the crime location or the identity of the perpetrator and the
minor discrepancies are like variances in time/clothing
which are often expected to fade due to human memory
limits. The Court cannot disregard the testimony of the
witnesses on account of minor discrepancies when they
have deposed correctly on the material facts. In the instant
case, PW1 and PW2, both have deposed consistently on the
material facts that is the identity, location, incident etc.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 28
Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC (CRIMINAL) 1461 wherein it
has been held as under:
“19. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful.
In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out
whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some
discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not
enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness
can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only
when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the
credibility of the version of a witness, the court may
reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act
enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the
witness by proof of former inconsistent
statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the
procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his
attention to the part of the previous statement which is to
SHIVALI
BANSAL be used for contradiction. The former statement should
have the effect of discrediting the present statement but
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI merely because the latter statement is at variance to the
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17 former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a
contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects
15:22:44 +0530creditworthiness and trustworthiness of a witness. There
may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not
affecting credibility. The court has to sift the chaff from
the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be
partly rejected or partly accepted. Want of independent
witnesses or unusual behavior of witnesses of a crime is
not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close
relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is
otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual
culprit. The evidence may be closely scrutinized to assess
whether an innocent person is falsely implicated.
Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a ‘partisan’ or
‘interested’ witness may lead to failure of justice. It is
well known that principle “falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus” has no general acceptability. On the same
evidence, some accused persons may be acquitted while
others may be convicted, depending upon the nature of
the offence. The court can differentiate the accused who
is acquitted from those who are convicted. A witness may
be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the
evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies
may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory
due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at
the time of occurrence and as such the normal
discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 29
20. Exaggerated to the rule of benefit of doubt can result
in miscarriage of justice. Letting the guilty escape is not
doing justice. A Judge presides over the trial not only to
ensure that no innocent is punished but also to see that
guilty does not escape.”
46. There is no reason for this court to disbelieve the
testimonies of the complainant/injured PW1 Ajit Singh and
PW2 Pradeep Joon.
47. As regards the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel that
the Police had not collected the CCTV footage from the
office of PW2 Pradeep Joon and from the approach road,
this Court finds that although the police ought to have taken
the CCTV footages from the office of PW2 Pradeep Joon
SHIVALI
BANSAL and the approach road but not collecting the same is not
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is sufficient
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530 evidence on record against accused Magan. There are
reliable testimonies of PW1 and PW2 in support of
prosecution case. Lastly, it is the argument of Ld. Defence
Counsel that the arm recovered from accused Magan in FIR
No.189/2018 PS Crime Branch was not the same from
which the bullets were fired and, therefore, accused Magan
should be acquitted of the offence charged with, is of no
consequence as the arm that has been recovered from the
possession of accused Magan was in a different FIR and it is
not the case of the prosecution that the said firearm was
used in commission of offence u/s 307 IPC. Ld. Defence
Counsel can only argue that the Police was unable to
recover the arm that was used for the commission of offence
in the present case. Be that as it may be, as it is a trite law
that the testimony of an injured witness has to be kept at a
higher pedestal, the non-recovery of arm from accused
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 30
Magan would not automatically lead to a conclusion that
accused Magan is not responsible for firing the bullets upon
PW1 and PW2. Also, the defence has not led any evidence
to substantiate that why PW1 and PW2 will falsely
implicate accused Magan. Both PW1 and PW2 have denied
any animosity with accused Magan. It has been denied by
both PW1 and PW2 that they have falsely implicated
accused Magan for the reason that a loan transaction had
taken place with Mausi of accused Magan.
48. Ld. Defence Counsel has placed on record certain
photographs Ex.PW2/D2 to Ex.PW2/D4 to state that PW1
SHIVALI and PW2 were having firearms in their possession and,
BANSAL
Digitally signed therefore, they have falsely implicated accused Magan. Just
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:47 +0530
because, PW1 and PW2 were possessing firearms, does not
mean that they will use the same to fire upon themselves. In
this scenario, the spot of injury gains relevance as PW1 Ajit
Malik had sustained injury on his left hip and it is highly
unlikely that somebody would fire himself on his hip. In the
sitting set up of PW1 and PW2, as explained by prosecution,
if PW1 would have fired the bullet, the same would have hit
PW2 on his front portion of his body and not on the left hip
as he was sitting on the chair. Moreover, it is highly unlikely
that PW2 would have shot himself on his left hip while
sitting as the chair also has a hole. It can only mean that
there was a third person who had fired the bullet from back
which had hit PW1 Ajit Malik on his left hip. That third
person has been identified by PW1 Ajit Malik and PW2
Pradeep Joon to be accused Magan and they have remained
consistent on this account.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 31
49. Accused has not given any explanation with respect to his
presence at the crime spot either in the cross examination of
prosecution witnesses or in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC and
he has failed to discharge burden placed upon him u/s 106
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
50. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused u/s
313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought
on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him
an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing
against him.
51. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel
SHIVALI Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held
BANSAL
Digitally signed that: –
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:47 +0530
“It was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating
circumstances proved against him while making
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not
furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an
additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain
charges against you.”
52. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR
2014 SC 1256 has held that: –
“If the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the
Court can take adverse intense against you.”
53. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC
1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference
against him with respect to the false answers given by him
u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under: –
“130.This Court has time and again held that where
an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved
facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inferenceSC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 32
qua him and such an inference shall become an
additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the
accused in the present case, the appellant Manu
Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to
question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and
201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.”
54. In the present case, the statement of accused Magan u/s 313
Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions
put to him it is stated either ‘I do not know’ or ‘it is
incorrect’. In answers, it is also stated that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused
Magan has not proved any specific defence either in the
cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in his
SHIVALI
BANSAL statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
the accused are evasive in nature and accused has not
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:44 +0530
explained as to why, he has been falsely implicated in the
present case or as to why the prosecution witnesses have
deposed against him. In these circumstances, applying the
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Neel
Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra) and Sidharth Vashisth
(supra)’, this court is of considered opinion that accused has
not furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence
these circumstances are additional link in the evidence
against him.
55. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity
but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a
court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this
regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have
a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 33
only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent,
trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused,
the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling
quality.
56. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that: –
“22.In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness”
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version
should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering
the version of such witness should be in a position to
accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test
the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness
would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the consistency of the
SHIVALI statement right from the starting point till the end, namely,
BANSAL
at the time when the witness makes the initial statement
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
15:22:41 +0530
There should not be any prevarication in the version of
such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances
should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the
occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence
of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and
every one of other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.
The said version should consistently match with the
version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if
the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as
well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be
held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling
witness’ whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on which the guilty
can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the
said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should
remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects should match the
said version in material particulars in order to enable the
court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 34
the other supporting materials for holding the offender
guilty of the charge alleged.”
57. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that: –
“23.It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape
can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but
that can be done in a case where the court is convinced
about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no
circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her
veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such
quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of
conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the
instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such
quality.”
SHIVALI 58. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
BANSAL
Digitally signed
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17 corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match
15:22:41 +0530
with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should
be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of
doubt upon it.
59. In the instant case, the testimony of the complainant/injured
PW1 and PW2 inspires confidence and is of sterling quality.
The defence has not adduced any evidence to prove his
innocence.
60. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of
offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and u/s 27 Arms
Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
61. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussions, accused
Magan is hereby convicted for offences punishable under
Section 307 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 35
62. A copy of judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost
against acknowledgment.
(SHIVALI BANSAL)
Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS,
Court on 17.7.2026. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
SHIVALI
BANSAL
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 36
FORM ‘A’
(CRIMINAL CASES)
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. PROSECUTION: –
Prosecuti Name of witness Description
on
Witness
No.
PW-1 Ajit Malik @ Ajit Complainant as well as injured
Singh
PW-2 Pradeep Joon Eye witness to the incident
SHIVALI PW-3 HC Parivandra Duty Officer
BANSAL PW-4 Constable Amit Fingerprint Expert
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
PW-5 Vijay Neighbour of PW1 and shifted
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
PW1 to hospital
15:22:44 +0530
PW-6 ASI Satpal Incharge, Mobile Crime Team
PW-7 ASI Manoj Kumar Proved arrest and personal
search of accused Magan and
participated in investigation
PW-8 Dr. Aman Maggo Proved MLC of PW1
PW-9 ASI Vinod Kumar Reached the spot at first
instance and carried out
(First IO)
investigation
PW-10 HC Ajay Participated in investigation
PW-11 ASI (retired) Jogender Participated in investigation
along with PW9
Singh
PW-12 SI Anil Kumar Official of PS Crime Branch
pertaining to case FIR
No.189/2018
PW-13 Urmila, Asstt. Ahlmad Produced record of FIR
No.189/18 PS Crime Branch
PW-14 SI Satyawan (second Conducted the investigation
IO)
PW-15 Retired SI Yashpal Official of raiding team which
had apprehended accused at
Singh
Britannia Chowk.
PW-16 Avinash Srivastav Asstt. Director, FSL
PW-17 ASI Shivanand Deposited exhibits in FSL and
returned acknowledgment to
SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 37
MHC (M)
PW-18 ASI Suresh Photographer of the Mobile
Crime Team
B. DEFENCE WITNESSES, IF ANY: –
DW No. DW Name Description
Nil Nil Nil
C. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY: -
CW No. CW Name Description
Nil Nil Nil
SHIVALI LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT/EXHIBITS
BANSAL
A. PROSECUTION: -
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:43 +0530
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT/EXHIBITS
A. PROSECUTION: –
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved By
Ex. PW1/A Statement/complaint of complainant PW1Ex.P1 Track pant, having small hole caused PW1
by bullet, near the waist as Ex.P-1
Ex.P-2. Blue short PW1
Ex.PW2/ Photographs PW1
D-2,
Ex.PW2/D-3
and
Ex.PW2/D-4
Ex.PW1/D1 Statement u/s 161 CrPC PW2Ex.PW3/A FIR No. 451/18 PW3
Ex.PW3/B Endorsement on Tehrir PW3SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 38
Ex.PW3/C Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian PW3
Evidence Act
Ex.PW4/A Chance Print Report PW4Ex.PW21/A Report PW6
Ex.PW7/A Arrest Memo PW7
Ex.PW7/B Disclosure statement PW7
Ex.PW8/A MLC of injured Ajit Malik PW8
Ex.PW9/A Sketch of empty cartridges PW9
Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of four empty PW9
cartridges and two live cartridges
Ex.PW9/C Seizure memos of liquor and cold PW9
drink bottles, two plastic glasses
SHIVALI
BANSAL Ex.PW9/D Two pullandas, one containing PW9
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI clothes of injured and other
BANSALcontaining empty cartridge extracted
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:46 +0530from the body of injured
Ex.PW9/E Endorsement on the statement of PW9
injured was proved
Ex.P-3 Four empty cartridge shells PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-4 Two bullet leads as PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-5 Black colour chair PW9
Ex.P-6 Two plastic glass PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-7 Empty liquor bottle PW9
Ex.P-8 Half liquor bottle PW9
Ex.P-9 Coca-Cola bottle PW9
Ex.PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Manoj PW10
Ex.PW10/B Personal search memo of accused PW10
ManojSC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 39
Ex.PW10/C Disclosure statement of accused PW10
Manoj
Ex.PW13/A FIR No.189/2018 PW13
Ex.PW13/B Seizure memo of pistol and PW13
kartoos
Ex.PW13/C Seizure memo of Apache PW13
motorcycle No.
DL9SAW6270
Ex.PW13/D Sketch of pistol and kartoos PW13
Ex.PW13/E Road Certificate PW13
Ex.PW13/F Acknowledgment P PW13
1. Site plan PW14
Ex.PW2/D/5)
SHIVALI Ex.PW14/A Seizure memo of blood sample of PW14
BANSAL
Digitally signed complainant
by SHIVALIEx.PW15/ Countrymade pistol with two PW15
BANSAL
Date: 2026.07.17
15:22:41 +0530P1 (colly.); empty cartridges
1. Photograph of Apache motorcycle PW15
E PW15/P2 No. DL9SAW6270
1. Ballistics, FSL proved his report PW16
Ex.PW16/A
(colly.)
Ex.PW17/A Entry No.5017/18 PW17
Ex.PW17/B Entry No.5164/18 PW17
Ex.PW17/C Entry No.5190 PW17
Ex.PW17/D Entry No.5230 PW17
Ex.PW17/E Entry No.5326 PW17
Ex.PW17/F RC No.94/21/19 dated 22.3.2019 PW17
Ex.PW17/G Copy of acknowledgment PW17
Ex.PW18/A 33 photographs PW18
(colly.)SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 40
B. DEFENCE: –
Exhibit Description of Document Proved
No. By
Nil Nil NilC. COURT EXHIBITS: –
Exhibit Description of Document Proved
No. By
Nil Nil Nil
D. ADMITTED DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC: –
SHIVALI Document Description of Document BANSAL Nil Nil Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.07.17 15:22:42 +0530 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS
Material Description of the Object/Exhibit Provided By/
Object Attested By
Number
Ex.P-3 Empty cartridge shells PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-4 Two bullet leads PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-5 Black colour chair PW9
Ex.P-6 Two plastic glass PW9
(colly.)
Ex.P-7 Empty liquor bottle PW9
Ex.P-8 Half liquor bottle PW9
Ex.P-9 Coca-Cola bottle PW9SC No.979/2018 State vs. Magan Page No. 41
