Introduction

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by a woman who claimed to have survived 25 gunshot wounds using homeopathic treatment. The case, which has been ongoing since 2009, was previously rejected by both the trial court and the Sessions Court, with judges referring to her claims as a “fairy tale.” The High Court upheld these decisions, finding no coherence in the petitioner’s submissions.

The Woman’s Claims

According to the petitioner, she was sexually assaulted on the road in 2009 by an unidentified individual who allegedly shot her over 25 times. She claimed that four of these bullets struck her head, and others hit her hands. The alleged attacker reportedly used at least three fully loaded revolvers and a fully loaded machine gun. Despite these severe injuries, the woman asserted that she miraculously survived and completely healed herself using homeopathic medicine.

The Legal Proceedings

Trial Court’s Decision

The woman initially filed a complaint case in a trial court, where she presented her claims of miraculous recovery. However, the trial court dismissed the case in 2012, citing the lack of medical evidence and the implausibility of her claims. The court found no logical explanation for how a person could sustain multiple gunshot wounds, particularly to the head, and survive without immediate medical intervention.

Sessions Court’s Verdict

The petitioner then moved the Sessions Court, challenging the trial court’s decision. However, the Sessions Court dismissed her revision petition on October 18, 2012, calling her story a “fairy tale.” The court highlighted that the bullets allegedly lodged in her body could not have exited on their own simply by consuming a few homeopathic tablets. The absence of medical records or forensic evidence further weakened her case.

Delhi High Court’s Ruling

In 2013, the woman approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the dismissal of her case by the lower courts. However, after reviewing the evidence (or lack thereof), Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled against her petition. The court found no substantial reason to interfere with the lower courts’ verdicts and upheld their decisions.

“Regrettably … this court is unable to discern any coherence or cogency in the submissions made by the petitioner, much less has this court found any reason to fault the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.09.2012; and the dismissal of the revision petition by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 18.10.2012. Accordingly, this court finds no reason to interfere with impugned order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Court in CR No. 483/12 or order dated 20.09.2012 made by the learned Magistrate,” the High Court stated in its judgment.

Key Legal Representatives

• The petitioner appeared in person to represent her case.
• Additional Public Prosecutor Digam Singh Dagar represented the State.
• Standing Counsel Nishant Gautam appeared for the Central Government.

Legal and Medical Implications

Medical Impossibility of Surviving 25 Gunshots

From a medical standpoint, it is nearly impossible for an individual to survive 25 gunshot wounds without immediate, intensive medical intervention. Bullets, especially those fired from revolvers and machine guns, cause extensive tissue damage, blood loss, and potential organ failure. Recovery from even a single gunshot wound often requires hospitalization, surgical intervention, and long-term medical care.

Additionally, headshots are often fatal due to brain trauma and hemorrhage. The absence of any medical reports or hospital records to support her claims cast serious doubts on the credibility of her story.

Legal Precedent and Court’s Stand on False Claims

False claims, particularly in legal proceedings, waste judicial resources and may amount to perjury if made under oath. Courts take strict action against frivolous cases to maintain judicial integrity. In this case, the Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforced the importance of presenting substantial evidence and credible claims in court.

Public Reactions and Media Coverage

The case has sparked significant discussion on social media and legal forums. Many users have ridiculed the claim, comparing it to exaggerated movie plots. Others have questioned the legal system’s handling of such cases and the necessity of stricter laws against baseless lawsuits.

Media outlets have also highlighted the absurdity of the woman’s claims, with some legal experts calling for penalties against individuals who misuse the judicial system with frivolous petitions.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the woman’s claim marks the final chapter in this bizarre legal battle. With no medical or forensic evidence to support her allegations, the courts rightfully rejected her petition at every stage. This case serves as a reminder that the legal system operates on facts, not fiction, and emphasizes the importance of evidence-based claims in judicial proceedings.

Moving forward, it is crucial for the judiciary to continue upholding strict scrutiny of implausible claims to prevent the misuse of court resources and to ensure justice is served based on reality rather than fantasy.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4AQ