Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Sharma on 21 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Sanjay Sharma
S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam Sharma
R/o RZF-328, Gali No.22,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
SHIVALI New Delhi.
BANSAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
2. Amit Sharma @ Monu
S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam Sharma
16:03:26 +0530
R/o RZF-328, Gali No.22,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
3. Ashish Sharma @ Ashu
S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam Sharma
R/o RZF-328, Gali No.22,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
4. Harsh Kumar @ Akshay
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o RZ-58/3, Gali No.6,
Kailashpuri, Sagar Pur,
New Delhi.
.....Accused Persons
Sessions Case No. 148/2019
FIR No. 453/2018
PS Palam Village
CNR No. DLSW01-002657-2019
Charge-sheet filed U/s 307/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 307/34 IPC
Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @
Monu, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 1
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
Harsh Kumar @ Akshay
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 25/27 Arms Act
Sanjay Sharma and Amit Sharma
@ Monu
Date of institution of case 12.02.2019
Date of case received to Sessions 23.02.2019
Court
Date of arguments 19.5.2026
SHIVALI Date of judgment 21.5.2026
BANSAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Decision ACQUITTAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:26 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. All the accused persons are facing trial for commission of the
offence punishable U/ss. 307/34 IPC and accused Sanjay
Sharma and Amit Sharma @ Monu for commission of
offence punishable u/S 25/27 Arms Act also.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on
02.12.2018, upon receipt of DD No. 60A, ASI Shyam Sunder
along with HC Mahesh Pratap reached the spot ie Palam
Chaupar, Palam, New Delhi. The complainant, Mohit Saini,
who is engaged in the private business of import and export,
made a statement to the police. He stated that on 02.12.2018
at about 9:00 P.M., he had gone to attend a function organized
in his neighbourhood on the occasion of the birth of daughter
to Sh. Praveen Sharma. The complainant stated that during
the function, he requested the person operating the DJ to
continue playing music till late night. However, this led to a
dispute between him and the said DJ operator, which initially
started as a scuffle and subsequently escalated into a physical
altercation. It is further stated that the DJ operator called his
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 2
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
owner, namely Amit Sharma @ Monu, who arrived at the
spot along with Sanjay Sharma, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu, and
2-3 other persons. Upon their arrival, they started quarreling
with the complainant. During the course of the quarrel,
Sanjay Sharma fired two rounds in the air from a katta-like
weapon, which caused panic and led to a stampede at the
function. The complainant further stated that, in order to save
SHIVALI
BANSAL himself, he ran away from the place of occurrence and
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
reached Bata Chowk. However, Amit Sharma @ Monu,
16:03:22 +0530
Sanjay Sharma, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu, along with 2-3 other
persons, chased him and reached there as well, where they
threatened to kill him. During the course of the quarrel at that
place, Sanjay Sharma fired shots from his katta-like weapon
at Tushar Bhardwaj and Sanjay Bhardwaj, as a result of which
both of them fell down after sustaining injuries. It is further
stated that Amit Sharma @ Monu also assaulted the
complainant by hitting a danda on his head or with an object
resembling a bottle, due to which the complainant became
unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, the complainant
found himself admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. On the
basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the
present FIR was registered under U/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27/54
Arms Act.
3. During investigation of the case, statement of witnesses were
recorded. On the basis of investigation, four accused persons
were charge-sheeted for offences punishable U/ss. 307/34
IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 3
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
4. Vide order dated 25.09.2019, charge for offences punishable
u/s 307/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons
and separate charge for the offences punishable u/s 25/27
Arms Act was framed against accused Sanjay Sharma and
Amit Sharma @ Monu to which all the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses
SHIVALI
BANSAL whose details are as hereunder:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:27 +0530
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
PW-1 Mohit Saini Complainant/injuredPW-2 Shanky Bhardwaj Injured – Friend of PW1
PW-3 Tushar Bhardwaj Injured- Friend of PW1
PW-4 Naresh Sharma Public witness who
organized the party
PW-5 Monty Bhardwaj Brother of PW2
PW-6 Praveen Sharma Public witness who
organized the party
PW-7 Deepak Sharma Family Member of the Host
who organized the party
PW-8 Anant Jain Family Member of the Host
who organized the party
PW-9 Head Ct. Anil Participated in the
investigation
PW-10 SI Ravinder Kumar Participated in the
investigation
PW-11 Sandeep Kumar Public witness
PW-12 SI Pankaj Conducted the investigation
6. PW1 Mohit Saini deposed that in a birth function organized
in his neighbourhood by Sh. Pradeep Sharma, he along with
his friends Shanky Bhardwaj and Tushar Bhardwaj had
attended the said function. DJ was being played and many
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 4
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
persons were dancing. As per PW1, after the function was
over, he was leaving after having dinner and was on staircase.
In the meantime, a fight took place between some persons on
DJ floor and during the scuffle, he fell on the staircase and
sustained injuries on his head. PW1 further deposed that he
did not know who had pushed him or between whom the
quarrel had taken place. PW1 went to Maharaja Agarsen
SHIVALI
BANSAL Hospital himself where one Police Official from PS Palam
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
Village came and obtained his signatures on some blank
16:03:23 +0530
papers. According to PW1, he was not able to identify
accused persons as he had not seen them in the aforesaid
function.
7. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
However, despite his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
nothing incriminating came out against the accused persons.
Though PW1 admitted his signature on statement u/s 161
Cr.PC (Ex. PW1/PX1) but denied having given any such
statement to the Police. He denied that on 3.12.2018, his
statement was recorded by ASI Shyam Sunder as per his
narration or the same was read over to him or he had admitted
the said statement to be correct. PW1 denied the suggestion
that on 02.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M., he asked the DJ
operator to play DJ till late night on account of which an
altercation took place between him and DJ operator which
escalated into serious quarrel after which DJ operator called
his owner accused Amit Sharma @ Monu who reached the
function with accused Sanjay Sharma, Ashish @ Ashu and 2-
3 other persons. PW1 stated that during the said quarrel, his
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 5
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
friends Tushar Bhardwaj, Sanjay Bhardwaj and Monti
Bhardwaj were also with him. PW1 denied the suggestion
that Sanjay Sharma fired two bullets in air by a countrymade
pistol after which he along with his friends ran towards Bata
Chowk, Palam or he was chased by accused Amit Sharma @
Monu, Sanjay Sharma and Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and 2-3
other persons. PW1 further denied the suggestion that
SHIVALI
BANSAL accused persons again started quarreling with him by stating,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
“tumhe jinda nahi chhodenge” or accused Sanjay Sharma
16:03:27 +0530
fired a shot from countrymade pistol towards Tushar and
Shanky as a result of which they fell down or PW1 was hit a
danda or bottle type object on his head by accused Amit
Sharma @ Monu due to which he became semi unconscious
or when he regained consciousness, he found himself
admitted in Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. This witness also
denied having made statement-Ex.PW1/PX-2 to the Police.
PW1 further denied the suggestion that when accused Amit
Sharma @ Monu, Sanjay Sharma, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu
and Harsh Kumar @ Akshay were fighting with him and with
his friends, then accused Amit Sharma @ Monu, while
carrying a countrymade pistol, hit on his head or accused
Sanjay Bhardwaj fired towards Tushar and Shanky from his
countrymade pistol or that when Monty Bhardwaj tried to
intervene, accused Ashish Sharma @ Ashu hit him with a
danda or that DJ operator namely Harsh @ Akshay was
holding an iron dao. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has
been won over by the accused persons. This witness was not
cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 6
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
granted.
8. PW2 Shanky Bhardwaj corroborated the version of PW1
regarding having gone to attend the function with PW1 and
Tushar. He deposed that when they were on staircase, a
quarrel took place on DJ floor between some persons and
suddenly he received a gun shot injury on his stomach on
right side but he cannot say who had caused said injury to
SHIVALI
BANSAL him. As per PW2, he became unconscious and when regained
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
consciousness, he found himself admitted in Venketeshwar
16:03:25 +0530
Hospital, Dwarka. PW2 stated that he cannot identify accused
persons as he had not seen them in the said function.
9. PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
However, despite his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
nothing incriminating came out against the accused persons.
PW2 denied having made any statement dated 4.12.2018
(Ex.PW2/PX-1) to Police. PW2 further denied that on
4.12.2018, his statement was recorded by SI Pankaj as per his
narration and the same was read over to him or he admitted
the same to be correct. PW2 denied the suggestion that on
2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M., some quarrel took place
between his friend PW1 Mohit Saini and DJ operator on the
issue of playing DJ or that then DJ operator called his owner
accused Amit Sharma @ Monu who reached the function
with a countrymade gun or that accused Sanjay Sharma and
Ashish @ Ashu who were carrying countrymade pistols and
dandas, also reached the spot. PW2 denied the suggestion that
accused Sanjay Sharma fired two bullets in the air or
thereafter PW2 with his friends, ran towards Bata Chowk,
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 7
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
Palam or PW2 was chased by accused persons or that accused
Harsh @ Akshay was carrying an iron dao or that accused
Sanjay Sharma caused gun shot injury to him as well as to
Tushar by countrymade pistol. PW2 also denied the
suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons
or deliberately not identifying accused persons on account of
matter being settled. This witness was not cross-examined by
SHIVALI
BANSAL Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
10. PW3 Tushar Bhardwaj deposed on the lines of testimony as
16:03:28 +0530
that of PW1 Mohit Saini and PW2 Shanky Bhardwaj
regarding having gone to attend the function with them and
also to the fact that when they were on staircase, a quarrel
took place on DJ floor between some persons. PW3 further
deposed that suddenly he received a gun shot injury on left
side of his stomach but he cannot say who had caused said
injury to him. PW3 became unconscious and when he
regained consciousness, he found himself admitted in
Venketeshwar Hospital, Dwarka. PW3 stated that he cannot
identify accused persons as he had not seen them in the said
function.
11. PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
However, despite his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
nothing incriminating came out against the accused persons.
PW3 denied having made any statement dated 4.12.2018
(Ex.PW3/PX-1) to Police. PW3 further denied that on
4.12.2018, his statement was recorded by SI Pankaj as per his
narration or the same was read over to him or he admitted the
same to be correct. PW3 denied the suggestion that on
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 8
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M., a quarrel took place between
his friend PW1 Mohit Saini and DJ operator (accused Harsh
Kumar @ Akshay) on the issue of playing DJ or that in the
meantime accused Amit Sharma @ Monu reached the
function with a countrymade gun or that accused Sanjay
Sharma and Ashish @ Ashu were carrying countrymade
pistol and dandas also came there. PW3 further denied the
SHIVALI
BANSAL suggestion that accused Sanjay Sharma fired two bullets in
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
air or thereafter PW3 along with his friends, ran towards Bata
16:03:25 +0530
Chowk, Palam or that accused persons also came there or that
accused Harsh @ Akshay was carrying an iron dao or that
accused Sanjay Sharma caused gun shot injury to him and his
brother Shanky Bhardwaj by countrymade pistol. PW3 also
denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the
accused persons or deliberately not identifying accused
persons on account of matter being settled. This witness was
not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite
opportunity granted.
12. PW4 Naresh Sharma deposed that on 2.12.2018 he had
organized a party at Palam Chaupal, to celebrate birthday of
his grand-daughter in which he had invited Shanky Bhardwaj
and Tushar Bhardwaj. According to PW4, after the function
was over, a fight took place between some guests on DJ floor.
During the scuffle, Tushar fell on the stairs and sustained
injuries on his head. PW4 deposed that he did not know what
was the cause of fight or who pushed Tushar as he was busy
in attending his guests. This witness admitted that accused
persons namely Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @ Monu,
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 9
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay were present
in the function and also correctly identified them.
13. PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as
witness had not supported the case of the prosecution on
material aspects. However, despite his cross-examination by
Ld. Addl. PP, nothing incriminating came out against the
accused persons. PW4 denied having made any statement
SHIVALI
BANSAL dated 3.12.2018 (Mark PX-4) to Police. PW4 denied that on
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M., Tushar Bhardwaj, Sanjay
16:03:26 +0530
Bhardwaj and Monti Bhardwaj were arguing with DJ
operator or that the said argument converted into quarrel or
that DJ operator called his owner namely accused Amit
Sharma @ Monu, who reached the function along with his
associates namely accused Sanjay Sharma, Ashish @ Ashu
and 2-3 other persons. PW4 denied the suggestion that
accused Sanjay Sharma had fired two bullets in the air by
countrymade pistol or that during the fight, accused Sanjay
Sharma took out a countrymade type weapon or that he fired
a bullet towards Tushar Bhardwaj and Shanky Bhardwaj as a
result of which they fell down. He further denied the
suggestion that accused Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @
Monu, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay had
beaten Mohit, Tushar and Shanky. PW4 further denied the
suggestion that accused Sanjay fired bullets on Tushar and
Shanky with a countrymade pistol. Lastly, PW4 denied the
suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons
on account of matter being settled. This witness was not
cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 10
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
granted.
14. PW5 Monty Bhardwaj deposed on the same lines as PW1,
PW2 and PW3 qua having gone to attend the function, along
with PW1 and PW2 and a quarrel having taken place between
some persons on DJ floor when they were leaving the
function for going to home. He further stated that he cannot
identify accused persons as he had not seen them in the said
SHIVALI
BANSAL function.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
15. PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
16:03:25 +0530
However, despite his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
nothing incriminating came out against the accused persons.
PW5 denied having made any statement dated 02.12.2018
(Mark-PX-5) to Police. PW5 denied the suggestion that on
2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M., a quarrel took place between
PW1 Mohit Saini and DJ operator (accused Harsh @ Akshay)
on the issue of playing DJ or that in the meantime accused
Amit Sharma @ Monu reached the function with a
countrymade gun or that accused Sanjay Sharma and Ashish
@ Ashu who were carrying countrymade pistol and dandas,
also came there. PW5 denied the suggestion that accused
Sanjay Sharma fired two bullets in the air or that accused
Harsh @ Akshay was carrying an iron dao or that accused
Sanjay Sharma caused gun shot injury to Mohit and Shanky
Bhardwaj with countrymade pistol. PW5 denied the
suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons
or deliberately not identifying accused persons on account of
matter being settled. This witness was not cross-examined by
Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted.
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 11
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
16. PW6 Praveen Sharma deposed that on 2.12.2018 he had
organized a party at Palam Chaupal, to celebrate birthday of
his daughter in which he invited Shanky Bhardwaj and
Tushar Bhardwaj. After the function was over, a fight took
place between some guests on DJ floor. During the scuffle,
Tushar fell on the stairs and sustained injuries on his head.
PW6 deposed that he did not know what was the cause of
SHIVALI
BANSAL fight or who pushed Tushar as he was busy in attending his
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
guests. This witness admitted that accused persons namely
16:03:23 +0530
Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @ Monu, Ashish Sharma @
Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay were present in the function and
also correctly identified them.
17. PW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as
witness had not supported the case of the prosecution on
material aspects. However, despite his cross-examination by
Ld. Addl. PP, nothing incriminating came out against the
accused persons. PW6 denied having made any statement
dated 3.12.2018 (Mark PX-6) to Police. PW6 denied that on
2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M. Tushar Bhardwaj, Sanjay
Bhardwaj and Monti Bhardwaj were arguing with DJ
operator or said argument converted into quarrel or that DJ
operator called his owner namely accused Amit Sharma @
Monu, who reached there along with his associates namely
accused Sanjay Sharma, Ashish @ Ashu and 2-3 other
persons. PW6 denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay
Sharma had fired two bullets in the air by countrymade pistol
or that during the fight, accused Sanjay Sharma took out a
countrymade type firearm and he fired a bullet towards
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 12
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
Tushar Bhardwaj and Shanky Bhardwaj as a result of which
they fell down. He further denied the suggestion that accused
Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @ Monu, Ashish Sharma @
Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay had beaten Mohit, Tushar and
Shanky. PW6 further denied the suggestion that accused
Sanjay fired bullet on Tushar and Shanky with a countrymade
pistol. PW6 also denied the suggestion that he has been won
SHIVALI
BANSAL over by the accused persons on account of matter being
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
settled. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
16:03:24 +0530
Counsel despite opportunity granted.
18. PW7 Deepak Sharma is the son of PW4 Naresh Sharma who
deposed that on 2.12.2018 there was a family function on
account of birthday of his niece in which Shanky Bhardwaj
and Tushar Bhardwaj were invited. After the function was
over, a fight took place between some guests on DJ floor.
During the scuffle, Tushar fell on the stairs and sustained
injuries on his head. PW7 deposed that he did not know what
was the cause of fight or who pushed Tushar as he was busy
in attending his guests. This witness admitted that accused
persons namely Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @ Monu,
Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay were present
in the function and also correctly identified them.
19. PW-7 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as this
witness had not supported the case of the prosecution on
material aspects. However, despite his cross-examination by
Ld. Addl.P.P., nothing incriminating came out against the
accused persons. PW7 denied having made any statement
dated 3.12.2018 (Mark PX-7) to Police. PW7 denied the
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 13
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
suggestion that on 2.12.2018 at about 10.00 P.M. Tushar
Bhardwaj, Sanjay Bhardwaj and Monti Bhardwaj were
arguing with DJ operator or said argument converted into
quarrel or that DJ operator called his owner namely accused
Amit Sharma @ Monu, who reached the spot along with his
associates namely accused Sanjay Sharma, Ashish @ Ashu
and 2-3 other persons. PW7 denied the suggestion that
SHIVALI
BANSAL accused Sanjay Sharma had fired two bullets in the air by
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
countrymade pistol or that during the fight, accused Sanjay
16:03:27 +0530
Sharma took out a countrymade type firearm and he fired
bullet towards Tushar Bhardwaj and Shanky Bhardwaj as a
result of which they fell down. This witness further denied
the suggestion that accused Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @
Monu, Ashish Sharma @ Ashu and Harsh @ Akshay had
beaten Mohit, Tushar and Shanky. PW7 further denied the
suggestion that accused Sanjay fired bullet on Tushar and
Shanky with a countrymade pistol. PW7 denied the
suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons
on account of matter being settled. This witness was not
cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity
granted.
20. PW8 Anant Jain deposed that on 2.12.2018, he had gone to
attend a function at his daughter’s place in Dwarka. When he
returned, some police officials came to his house and
informed him that in the function organized by family of
Naresh Sharma, an incident of firing of bullet had taken
place. PW-8 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as
he did not support the case of the prosecution on material
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 14
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
aspects. However, despite her cross-examination by Ld.
Addl. PP, nothing incriminating came out against the accused
persons. PW8 denied having made any statement dated
4.12.2018 (Mark PX-8) to Police. PW8 denied the suggestion
that in the gunshot firing, one bullet stuck in wall of his house
or that accused Sanjay Sharma had fired bullets in the air in
the function. PW8 further denied the suggestion that he is
SHIVALI
BANSAL intentionally not telling true facts of the incident being won
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
over by the accused persons. This witness was not cross-
16:03:26 +0530
examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity
granted.
21. PW9 HC Anil deposed that while being posted as
photographer in the Crime Team, he clicked 18 photographs
of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A-1 to
Ex.PW9/A-18 and certificate u/s 65B of IEA as Ex.PW9/B.
22. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel
for accused persons, PW9 stated that IO had recorded his
statement on the day of inspection of spot and after use,
camera remained in his possession. This witness denied the
suggestion that he had not joined investigation of the present
case or no photographs were clicked by him.
23. PW10 SI Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 8.1.2019,
investigation of the present case was marked to him during
which he collected MLC result of the injured persons along
with blood sample from Venketeshwar Hospital and exhibits
were also got deposited in FSL. Exhibit of Firearm was not
accepted by the FSL for want of live cartridge for test fire.
PW10 had filed chargesheet in the court.
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 15
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
24. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel,
PW10 stated that he did not remember the name of the
Constable who was sent to FSL for depositing exhibits.
25. PW11 Sandeep Kumar deposed that before lockdown of
Covid-19, during a Kuan Pujan ceremony in his
neighbourhood, he heard some noise when he was in his
home. After coming out of his house, he came to know that
SHIVALI
BANSAL some quarrel had taken place. He did not know anything else
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
about the present case.
16:03:26 +0530
26. PW-11 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
However, despite his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP,
nothing incriminating came out against the accused persons.
In his cross-examination, PW11 admitted that incident had
taken place on 2.12.2018 at about 10.30 PM at Bata Chowk,
Palam. This witness stated that he could not say that accused
Amit Sharma along with his brother Sanjay Sharma had come
at the spot or that accused Sanjay Sharma was having desi
pistol in his hand or that he fired in the air. PW11 further
stated that he could not say that some quarrel had taken place
amongst Amit, Sanjay, Mohit, Shanky and Tushar. PW11
denied having made statement u/s 161 Cr.PC to Police (Mark
PW11/A). PW11 denied the suggestion that he has been won
over by the accused persons.
27. PW12 SI Pankaj deposed that on 3.12.2018, the investigation
of the present case was assigned to him and he had arrested
all the accused persons as well as conducted their personal
search. PW 12 has proved the following documents:
S. Description of Document Exhibit
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 16
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
No. Number
1. Arrest memo of accused Ashish Sharma Ex.PW12/A
2. Personal Search Memo of accused Ashish Ex.PW12/B
Sharma
3. Disclosure statement of accused Ashish Sharma Ex.PW12/C
4. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of of Ex.PW12/D
accused Ashish Sharma
5. Seizure memo of Danda recovered at the instance Ex.PW12/E
of accused Ashish Sharma
6. Mobile Phone recovered from possession of Ex.PW12/F
SHIVALI accused Ashish Sharma
BANSAL 7. Sketch of danda Ex.PW12/F1
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL 8. Arrest memo of accused Amit Sharma Ex.PW12/G
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:23 +0530
9. Personal Search Memo of accused Amit Sharma Ex.PW12/H
10. Disclosure statement of accused Amit Sharma Ex.PW12/I
11. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of of Ex.PW12/J
accused Amit Sharma
12. Seizure memo of countrymade gun recovered at Ex.PW12/K
the instance of accused Amit Sharma
13. Sketch of gun Ex.P12/K1
14. Arrest memo of accused Harsh Kumar Ex.P12/L
15. Personal Search Memo of accused Harsh Kumar Ex.P12/M
16. Disclosure statement of accused Harsh Kumar Ex.P12/N
17. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of of Ex.P12/O
accused Harsh Kumar
18. Seizure memo of iron dav recovered at the Ex.P12/P
instance of accused Harsh Kumar
19. Sketch of Iron dav Ex.P12/P1
20. Arrest memo of accused Sanjay Sharma Ex.P12/Q
21. Personal Search Memo of accused Sanjay Ex.P12/R
Sharma
22 Disclosure statements of accused Sanjay Sharma Ex.P12/S &
Ex.PW12/S1
23 Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of of Ex.P12/T
accused Sanjay Sharma
24. Seizure memo of countrymade pistol recovered at Ex.PW12/U
the instance of accused
25. Sketch of countrymade pistol Ex.PW12/V
26 Sketch of live cartridge Ex.PW12/V1
27. Site plan of place of recovery of iron dav Ex.PW12/W
28. Site plan of place of recovery of danda Ex.PW12/W1
29. Site plan of place of recovery of countrymade Ex.PW12/W2
pistol
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 17
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
30. Site plan of place of incident Ex.PW12/W3
31 Site plan of place of recovery of countrymade Ex.PW12/W4
pistol and live round
32 Seizure memo of empty cartridge Ex.PW12/X
33 Sealed pullandas of injured Shanky Bhardwaj and Ex.PW12/X1
Tushar along with two sample seal
34 Seizure memo of motorcycle – DL9SBJ5846 Ex.PW12/Y
28. In their statements recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C.,
SHIVALI accused Amit Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Ashish Sharma and
BANSAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
Harsh Kumar admitted following documents:
16:03:27 +0530
Document Description of Document
Ex.PX1 FIR No.453/18
Ex.PX2 Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PX3 DD No.60A dated 2.12.2018
Ex.PX4 DD No.5A dated 3.12.2018
,Ex.PX5 DD No.2A dated 3.12.2018
Ex.PX6 DD No.3A dated 3.12.2018
Ex.PX7 Scene of Crime report
Ex.PX8 FSL Result (Bio) No. SFSL
(colly.) DLH/3333/Bio/790/19 dated 29.4.2019 with
Allelic Data
Ex.PX9 & MLC No. 1298/18 and 1299/18, both dated
Ex.PX10 2.12.2018 of Venketeshwar Hospital
Ex.PX11 MLC No. 621/18 dated 2.12.2018 of Maharaj
Agarsen Hospital
Ex.PX12 Treatment documents of victim Tushar and
Shanky Bhardwaj
Ex.PX13 Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act
Ex.PX14 FSL Result (Ballistic) dated 31.5.2019
29. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons Amit Sharma,
Sanjay Sharma, Ashish Sharma and Harsh Kumar were
recorded wherein they were briefed all the incriminating
ocular and documentary evidence to which accused persons
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 18
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in this case.
30. Accused persons have not led any evidence in support of their
defence.
31. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld.
Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel
for all the accused persons.
SHIVALI
BANSAL 32. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
that the complainant, in his complaint Ex. PW1/PX-1 bearing
16:03:24 +0530
his signatures, had specifically attributed roles to all the
accused persons and alleged that they acted in furtherance of
a criminal conspiracy to attempt his murder. It was argued
that the complainant/PW1, PW2 Shanky Bhardwaj, and PW3
Tushar Bhardwaj have resiled from their statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., apparently on account of having
settled the matter with the accused persons. However, the
MLCs of Shanky Bhardwaj (Ex. PX-9) and Tushar Bhardwaj
(Ex. PX-10) establish that they had sustained gunshot/firearm
injuries at Bata Chowk, Palam, on 02.12.2018 at about 11:00
PM. Further, the MLC of Mohit (Ex. PX-11) also shows that
he had sustained physical assault injuries on 02.12.2018. It
was further submitted that all the aforesaid MLCs have been
admitted by the accused persons. It was further argued that
PW12 has duly proved the recovery of country-made pistols,
a country-made gun, and a danda allegedly used in the
commission of the offence, pursuant to disclosures made by
the accused persons. The prosecution also relied upon the
testimonies of the police witnesses, who are witnesses to the
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 19
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
recovery of the weapons of offence, seizure memos, and other
relevant documents. It was contended that the accused
persons had made disclosure statements regarding their
involvement in the commission of the offence and, therefore,
they are liable to be convicted in the present case.
33. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. To
SHIVALI
BANSAL substantiate his point, he argued that the none of the
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
prosecution witnesses has identified any of the accused
16:03:24 +0530
persons to be involved in the incident. Complainant on whose
statement the FIR was registered in the present case, deposed
that he sustained injury on his head due to fall from staircase
and declined even taking place of incident of firing or beating
to be committed by any of the accused persons. So far as
alleged recovery of weapons of offence from accused persons
is concerned, no independent witness was joined as
mandated under the law, hence, the same is not relevant. Ld.
Counsel has prayed that accused persons are liable to be
acquitted in the present case.
34. 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.
35. In the present case, besides charges S.25/27 Arms Act against
accused Sanjay Sharma and Amit Sharma, charges under Sec.
307/34 IPC have been framed against all the accused persons.
These Sections have been elaborated as under: –
“307. Attempt to murder.–Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under suchFIR No. 453/18 Page No. 20
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
circumstances that, if he by that act caused 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.
SHIVALI 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
BANSAL common intention.–When a criminal act is done by
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
several persons in furtherance of the common intention
16:03:26 +0530
of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
36. In the present case, the complainant Mohit (PW1), PW2
Shanky Bhardwaj, and PW3 Tushar Bhardwaj, who were the
star/injured witnesses and upon whose testimonies the
prosecution case primarily rested, have completely denied
that the accused persons had caused injuries to them either by
physical assault, use of firearms, or by danda. The remaining
public witnesses have also failed to support the case of the
prosecution. Despite being cross-examined at length by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, their
testimonies remained consistent and unchanged.
37. PW1, the complainant/injured Mohit, deposed that statement
Ex. PW1/PX-1, on the basis of which the present FIR was
registered, had not been recorded as per his narration. He
further denied that accused Sanjay Sharma had fired two
shots in the air and also fired at PW2 and PW3, resulting in
injuries to them. He also denied that accused Amit Sharma
had assaulted him with a danda, thereby causing injuries to
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 21
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
him. PW1 further denied that accused Amit Sharma was
carrying a country-made gun and had struck the same on his
head, or that accused Harsh @ Akshay was carrying an iron
dao/chopper.
38.PW2 Shanky Bhardwaj, though admitting that he had
sustained a gunshot injury, stated that he did not know who
had caused the said injury. He also denied having made
SHIVALI
BANSAL statement Ex. PW2/PX-1 to the police and further denied
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:25 +0530 that any quarrel had taken place between PW1 Mohit and
accused Harsh @ Akshay. PW2 also denied that the accused
persons were carrying weapons or had caused injuries either
to him or to PW1 and PW3.
39.PW3 Tushar Bhardwaj, who was also an injured witness,
similarly stated that he did not know who had caused the
gunshot injury sustained by him on the date of the incident.
In line with PW2, he further stated that statement Ex.
PW1/PX-1 had not been recorded as per his narration. In
substance, this witness also exonerated the accused persons
from all allegations.
40.PW4 Naresh Sharma, while admitting the presence of the
accused persons at the birthday function, denied any role of
the accused persons in causing injuries to PW1, PW2, and
PW3. He corroborated the testimony of PW1 by stating that
PW1 Mohit had sustained injuries due to a fall from the
staircase. PW5 Monty Bhardwaj also denied that any
quarrel had taken place between the accused persons on one
side and the complainant along with his friends on the other
side. He further denied that the accused persons were
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 22
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
carrying firearms or danda or had caused injuries to PW1,
PW2, and PW3.
41.PW6 Praveen Sharma, PW7 Deepak Sharma, PW8 Anant
Jain, and PW11 Sandeep Kumar also did not attribute any
role to the accused persons in firing gunshots or causing
injuries to PW1, PW2, and PW3.
42.PW9 HC Anil and PW10 SI Ravinder Kumar are formal
SHIVALI
BANSAL police witnesses who conducted proceedings in the present
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:25 +0530 case. PW12 SI Pankaj had arrested all the accused persons,
recovered weapons of offence and also recorded disclosure
statements of these 4 accused persons. No public witness
was joined at the time of alleged recovery of weapons. It is
a well-settled proposition that non-joining of public witness
shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by
police. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty
on an official conducting search to join two respectable
persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present
case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the
investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the
judgment in Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration,
1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
had observed as under: –
“… According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any
public witness in the case while according to
Kalam Singh, no public person was present there.
It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus
stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person
present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there
is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses
to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there
is no impediment in believing the version of the
Police officials but for that the prosecution has toFIR No. 453/18 Page No. 23
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
lay a good foundation. At least one of them should
deposed that they tried to contact the public
witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Here is a case where no effort was
made to join any public witness even though
number of them were present. No plausible
explanation from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the independent
witnesses in a case of serious nature like the
present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the
part of the general public to associate themselves
with the Police raids or the recoveries but that
SHIVALI apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest
BANSAL effort to join the independent witnesses. No
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
attempt in this direction appears to have been made
16:03:24 +0530
and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing
doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife
from the person of the accused.”
43. None of the prosecution witness has stated that any of the
accused persons were carrying countrymade pistols,
countrymade gun, danda and/or iron dav or that it was
accused Sanjay Sharma who had fired gunshot at PW2 and
PW3 or it was accused Amit Sharma who caused injuries to
PW1 Mohit Saini or PW2 or PW3 or it was accused Harsh
who was carrying iron dav during the incident. Hence, the
provisions of S.25/27 Arms Act are not attracted against any
of the accused persons.
44. PW12 further proved the disclosure statements of accused
persons made before the Police, however, as per provisions
of Indian Evidence Act, same are not admissible under the
law.
45. In totality, nothing incriminating has come out against the
accused persons in the evidence of all the public prosecution
witnesses. PW1, PW2 and PW3 who are the injured persons
and could have proved the case of the prosecution, did not
support the story of the prosecution and other public
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 24
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
witnesses have also not attributed any role of the accused
persons in the alleged offence. Despite cross-examination of
all the public witnesses by Ld. Addl. PP for State, nothing
incriminating has come against any of the accused persons.
Remaining prosecution witnesses are mostly formal
witnesses and their testimonies are not sufficient to prove the
guilt of the accused persons. It is certainly discernible that the
SHIVALI
BANSAL prosecution has failed to ascribe any role to the accused,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
whom the complainant had named in the FIR.
16:03:23 +0530
46. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is
always the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence
produced before the Court. Crime is an event in real life and
is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In
arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged
with the commission of a crime, a criminal Court has to
ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond
the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final
analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits.
Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may
result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused persons
and consequential acquittal.
47. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be
accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused
as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt.
48. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 25
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person
should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.
Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on
the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive
liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at
least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants
were the real culprits.”
49. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh
SHIVALI and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon’ble
BANSAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Apex Court has held as follows:
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:27 +0530
“The golden thread which runs through the web of ad-
ministration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.
A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an in-
nocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a
duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the
evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the
purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused
really committed any offence or not.”
50. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 3206 has held as
follows:
“Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic
presumption in the administration of criminal law and
justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged
accused and till the charges are proved beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible
or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicating
or punishing an accused does not arise……”
51. In the present case, due to hostile version of the public
witnesses casts doubts on the prosecution story and two
views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the
same must go to the accused persons.
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 26
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
52. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredi-
ents of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against
accused Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma, Ashish Sharma and
Harsh and ingredients of offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms
Act against accused Sanjay Sharma and Amit Sharma beyond
reasonable doubt.
SHIVALI
BANSAL 53. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
Sanjay Sharma, Amit Sharma @ Monu, Ashish Sharma @
16:03:23 +0530
Ashu and Harsh Kumar @ Akshay are hereby acquitted for
offences punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and accused
Sanjay Sharma and Amit Sharma are also acquitted for
commission of offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
54. Bail bonds of all the accused persons except bail bonds filed
under section 437A Cr.PC stand cancelled. Their sureties
stand discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the
sureties against proper acknowledgment. Case property, if
any, be released to the rightful owners.
55. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SHIVALI BANSAL)
Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS,
Court on 21.5.2026. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI (SA)
Annexures: 1. Chart of witnesses examined.
2. Chart of exhibited documents.
3. Chart of admitted documents.
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 27
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
APPENDIX
CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
PW-1 Mohit Saini Complainant/injured
PW-2 Shanky Bhardwaj Injured - Friend of PW1
PW-3 Tushar Bhardwaj Injured- Friend of PW1
SHIVALI
BANSAL PW-4 Naresh Sharma Public witness who
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL organized the party
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:25 +0530
PW-5 Monty Bhardwaj Brother of PW2
PW-6 Praveen Sharma Public witness who
organized the party
PW-7 Deepak Sharma Family Member of the Host
who organized the party
PW-8 Anant Jain Family Member of the Host
who organized the party
PW-9 Head Ct. Anil Participated in the
investigation
PW-10 SI Ravinder Kumar Participated in the
investigation
PW-11 Sandeep Kumar Public witness
PW-12 SI Pankaj Conducted the investigation
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 28
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
CHART OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
Proved Description of Document Exhibit
by/attes Number
ted by
PW1 Statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/PX1
PW1 Statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/PX2
PW2 Statement dated 4.12.2018 of PW2 Ex.PW2/PX1
PW3 Statement dated 4.12.2018 of PW2 Ex.PW3/PX1
PW9 Photographs of scene of crime Ex.PW9/A-1 to
SHIVALI
BANSAL Ex.PW9/A-18
Digitally signed by
PW9 Certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex.PW9/B
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:23 +0530
PW12 Arrest memo of accused Ashish Ex.PW12/A
Sharma
PW12 Personal Search Memo of accused Ex.PW12/B
Ashish Sharma
PW12 Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW12/C
Ashish Sharma
PW12 Pointing out memo prepared at the Ex.PW12/D
instance of of accused Ashish Sharma
PW12 Seizure memo of Danda recovered at Ex.PW12/E
the instance of accused Ashish Sharma
PW12 Mobile Phone recovered from Ex.PW12/F
possession of accused Ashish Sharma
PW12 Sketch of danda Ex.PW12/F1
PW12 Arrest memo of accused Amit Sharma Ex.PW12/G
PW12 Personal Search Memo of accused Ex.PW12/H
Amit Sharma
PW12 Disclosure statement of accused Amit Ex.PW12/I
Sharma
PW12 Pointing out memo prepared at the Ex.PW12/J
instance of of accused Amit Sharma
PW12 Seizure memo of countrymade gun Ex.PW12/K
recovered at the instance of accused
Amit Sharma
PW12 Sketch of gun Ex.P12/K1
PW12 Arrest memo of accused Harsh Kumar Ex.P12/L
PW12 Personal Search Memo of accused Ex.P12/M
Harsh Kumar
PW12 Disclosure statement of accused Harsh Ex.P12/N
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 29
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
Kumar
PW12 Pointing out memo prepared at the Ex.P12/O
instance of of accused Harsh Kumar
PW12 Seizure memo of iron dav recovered at Ex.P12/P
the instance of accused Harsh Kumar
PW12 Sketch of Iron dav Ex.P12/P1
PW12 Arrest memo of accused Sanjay Ex.P12/Q
Sharma
PW12 Personal Search Memo of accused Ex.P12/R
Sanjay Sharma
SHIVALI
BANSAL PW12 Disclosure statements of accused Ex.P12/S &
Digitally signed by Sanjay Sharma Ex.PW12/S1
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:24 +0530 PW12 Pointing out memo prepared at the Ex.P12/T
instance of of accused Sanjay Sharma
PW12 Seizure memo of countrymade pistol Ex.PW12/U
recovered at the instance of accused
PW12 Sketch of countrymade pistol Ex.PW12/V
PW12 Sketch of live cartridge Ex.PW12/V1
PW12 Site plan of place of recovery of iron Ex.PW12/W
dav
PW12 Site plan of place of recovery of danda Ex.PW12/W1
PW12 Site plan of place of recovery of Ex.PW12/W2
countrymade pistol
PW12 Site plan of place of incident Ex.PW12/W3
PW12 Site plan of place of recovery of Ex.PW12/W4
countrymade pistol and live round
PW12 Seizure memo of empty cartridge Ex.PW12/X
PW12 Sealed pullandas of injured Shanky Ex.PW12/X1
Bhardwaj and Tushar along with two
sample seal
PW12 Seizure memo of motorcycle – Ex.PW12/Y
DL9SBJ5846
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 30
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
CHART OF ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Document Description of Document
Ex.PX1 FIR No.453/18
Ex.PX2 Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PX3 DD No.60A dated 2.12.2018
Ex.PX4 DD No.5A dated 3.12.2018
,Ex.PX5 DD No.2A dated 3.12.2018
SHIVALI Ex.PX6 DD No.3A dated 3.12.2018
BANSAL
Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
Ex.PX7 Scene of Crime report
Ex.PX8 FSL Result (Bio) No. SFSL
Date: 2026.05.21
16:03:27 +0530
(colly.) DLH/3333/Bio/790/19 dated 29.4.2019 with
Allelic Data
Ex.PX9 & MLC No. 1298/18 and 1299/18, both dated
Ex.PX10 2.12.2018 of Venketeshwar Hospital
Ex.PX11 MLC No. 621/18 dated 2.12.2018 of Maharaj
Agarsen Hospital
Ex.PX12 Treatment documents of victim Tushar and
Shanky Bhardwaj
Ex.PX13 Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act
Ex.PX14 FSL Result (Ballistic) dated 31.5.2019
FIR No. 453/18 Page No. 31
PS Palam Village State Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others.
