SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
STATE – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH@AKASH@CHINU & ORS. – Respondent
CRL.L.P.-98/2021



$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:20th November,2025 + CRL.L.P. 98/2021 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Insp. Shiv Karan Singh, PS Nabi Karim versus PRAKASH@AKASH@CHINU & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Kaushlender Singh and Mr.

Neeraj Gahlaut, Advocates for R-1 &

R-4 Mr. Avi Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kirti Raj, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Omkar Sharma and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocates for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

J U D G M E N T

1. The present petition1 assails Judgment dated 30.05.20202, whereby respondents herein have been acquitted of all the charges.

2. The accused persons, namely, Prakash (Respondent No. 1), Arjun (Respondent No. 2) and Sheetal (Respondent No. 3 herein) were charge- sheeted for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC3

1 Filed by the State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2 Passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 305/2019 arising out of FIR No. 398/2018,

registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi.

3 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

and their co-accused Kajal (Respondent No. 4 herein) was sent up to face trial for commission of offence under Section 201 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution, as emanating from the record, is that on 26.11.2018, at about 10:00 PM, complainant Prem (PW-5) along with his relatives Varun (PW-12) and Manoj (PW-9) were present at a street situated behind White House Hotel, Nabi Karim. R-1, R-2 and one juvenile offender4 came there. When R-2 blamed complainant of doing mukhbari, Passing on secret informer to police. against him, he was snubbed. R-1 sent CCL who returned, within 15 minutes, with a knife. In the meantime, R-3 (sister of R-1) also came there and handed over a pistol to R-2. Noticing the same, PW-12 Varun fled from the spot. R-3 caught hold of the complainant and exhorted to kill them by uttering “Maaro”, upon which R-1 and CCL gave knife blows to complainant. When complainant attempted to flee away, R-2 fired which resulted in gunshot injury on his left leg. Manoj (PW-9) also sustained gunshot injury in the incident.

4. On receipt of information about the incident, SI Ram Avtar (PW-18) along with Ct. Mahender reached the spot, where they seized bloodstained earth, earth control, and empty cartridges. Upon learning that the injured persons had been shifted to LHMC, Lady Harding Medical College. Hospital, they reached at the hospital where both the injured were declared unfit for statement.

5. Next morning, when the injured persons were declared fit, Investigating Officer, Hereinafter referred to as IO. recorded their statements. FIR was accordingly registered and accused were arrested.

4 Hereinafter referred to as CCL.

6. During interrogation, R-1 disclosed that he had procured weapon and cartridges from one Monu with whom he had conversation and chat through WhatsApp and such mobile was given to R-4 (his Bhabhi/ sister-in-law). She, when contacted, revealed that such mobile device had been destroyed by her. Consequently, she was booked under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.

7. Though the knife could not be recovered, the pistol used in the incident in question was, later on, found in possession of R-2 by the police officials of PS Model Town for which he was separately booked.

8. The seized exhibits were sent to FSL.

9. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

10. R-1, R-2 and R-3 were charged under Section 307/34 IPC and R-4 under Section 201 IPC. They all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

11. It will be important to mention that no FSL report was ever placed on record.

12. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 18 witnesses.

13. All the accused pleaded innocence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

14. Observing that the evidence on record was insufficient against any of the accused, learned Trial Court has acquitted them of all the charges.

15. Such orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top