$~20 & 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1118/2024 RANVEER@NIKKA .....Appellant Through:

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.

Atiq Ur. Rehman, Advs.

21 + CRL.A. 1120/2024 SH. RAVINDER @ SABI .....Appellant Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Mr. Brajraj Sharma, Mr. Robin, Advs.

versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.

Atiq Ur. Rehman, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026 CRL.M.(BAIL) 2013/2024 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 2015/2024

1. The present applications have been filed by the appellants Ranveer @ Nikka and Ravinder @ Sabi, under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section

528 of the BNSS, seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellants on bail during the pendency of the present appeals.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30^th May 2016, at about 7:30 p.m., in front of the shop of Anil Jain at A-73, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, the appellants Ravinder @ Sabi and Ranveer @ Nikka arrived on a motorcycle and in furtherance of their common intention, fired a gunshot at Rahul Mittal (since deceased) from a country-made pistol and thereafter fled from the spot, after throwing the weapon at the spot. The injured was taken to Satyabhama Hospital by a nearby shopkeeper Rahul Jindal (PW-1) and from there, he was referred to Maharaja Agrasain Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries, the same day. FIR was registered on the statement Rahul Jindal (PW-1), that the deceased on his way to Satyabhama Hospital, had told him that the appellants had shot him.

3. During investigation, a loaded desi katta with a live cartridge and the Scooty of the deceased were recovered from the spot. Statements of the brother and the father of the deceased were recorded, the former stating that on enquiry at Satyabhama Hospital, the deceased informed him that the appellants had fired at him and thereafter fled away on a bike and while his brother was being taken to the ambulance for going to Maharaja Agrasain Hospital, his father asked his brother as to who had attacked him and since he was unable to speak due to oxygen mask, he told his father that his brother had already told him that Sabi and Nikka had attacked him and Sabi had inflicted bullet injury upon him and while he was telling so, his brother Rahul Mittal nodded his head to show that whatever he was saying was correct.

4. Appellants were apprehended from Alwar, Rajasthan in case FIR No. 170/2016, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. They disclosed about their involvement in the present case. They were accordingly arrested in the present case.

5. Both the appellants have been convicted by the learned trial court under section 302/195-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 15,000/- each for the offence under section 302/34. For the offence under section 195A/34, they have been sentenced to undergo one year of imprisonment.

6. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, as the conviction rests on conjectures, surmises and suspicion rather than legal proof. It is argued that the prosecution case is founded primarily on the dying declarations of the deceased to PW- 1 and PW-7, but their testimonies suffer from serious infirmities regarding the very existence, voluntariness and mental fitness of the deceased at the time of the alleged dying declaration.

7. It is submitted that learned trial court failed to appreciate that deceased Rahul was not fit for making any statement or any dying declaration, as is evident from the cross examination of Dr. Gopal Sharma (PW-3), who stated that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, he was semi-conscious and drowsy and was