Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal Kumar @ Sonu on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 479/2018)
FIR No. 10/2017
Police Station Subzi Mandi
Charge-sheet filed under Section 323/325/341/34 IPC
Charge framed against accused Sec. 308 read with Sec.
persons under Section. 34 IPC & Sec. 323 read
with Sec. 34 IPC.
State Versus 1. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu,
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o H. No. 4192, Aryapura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
2. Sunita
S/o Sh. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu,
R/o H. No. 4192, Aryapura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 09.07.2018
Date of Arguments 12.01.2026 & previous dates
Judgment reserved on 12.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on 17.01.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Kamal Kumar @ Sonu and Sunita are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 308 FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 1 of 31 read with Sec. 34 IPC & Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on 08.01.2017 at about 10:30 pm, at H.No. 4192, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, both the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the head of Sh. Karan Sharma by repeated blows of club (lathi) with such intention and under such circumstances that if by the said injuries they had caused the death of said Karan Sharma, both of them would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place both the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple injuries on the hand of complainant Smt. Khushi Nagpal by use of tongs (Chimta).
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 08.01.2017, on receiving DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A, regarding beating by husband, PW-13 SI Mahendra Koli along with Ct. Suresh went to the spot of incident i.e. H. No. 4192, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, where it was revealed that injured persons had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter, PW-13 SI Mahendra Koli went to the hospital and collected MLCs of injured persons namely Ms. Khushi Nagpal and Sh. Karan Sharma and as per MLC, injured Ms. Khushi Nagpal was found to be fit for statement. Thereafter, PW-13 SI Mahendra Koli recorded statement of injured Ms. Khushi Nagpal, Ex. PW-3/A wherein she narrated about incident dated 08.01.2017 happened at about 10:30 pm at H. No. 4192, FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 2 of 31 Aryapura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Thereafter on the basis of statement of complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal, Ex. PW-3/A, PW-13 SI Mahendra Koli prepared rukka, Ex. PW-13/A and got the present FIR registered at PS Subzi Mandi. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan at instance of complainant. During investigation, PW-13/IO SI Mahendra Koli arrested accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement vide memos Ex. PW-3/B, Ex. PW-3/C & Ex. PW-13/B. During investigation, IO also obtained opinion about nature of injuries on MLCs of injured person by concerned doctors, which was opined as 'simple' on the MLC of complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal and as 'grievous' on the MLC of injured Karan Sharma. Thereafter IO, added Sec. 325 IPC in the case diary. During investigation, IO also formally arrested co- accused Sunita in the present case and got conducted her personal search through W/Ct. Suman and released her on bail. IO also made efforts to trace weapon of offence but same could not be traced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the court through SHO.
3. Vide order dated 17.05.2018, copy of the charge-sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to both the accused persons by the court of Ld. MM and vide order dated 04.07.2018, the Ld. MM observed that the case squarely falls within the ambit of Sec. 308 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 3 of 31
4. Vide order dated 05.02.2019 the Ld. Predecessor was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 308 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC & Sec. 323 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki, Casualty Medical Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 08.01.2017, at about 11:40 pm, one Karan Sharma was brought to the hospital with alleged history of assault. He further deposed that he examined the patient vide MLC No. 129/17, Ex. PW-1/A and patient was referred to Surgery, Orthopedics & Medicine Departments. He also deposed that on 09.01.2017 at about 03:25 am, one Kamal @ Sonu was brought to the hospital for his medical examination and he examined the said patient vide MLC No. 136/17, Ex. PW-1/B and the patient was referred to Medicines Department. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
7. PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma was one of the injured in the present case. He deposed that in the year 2017, he was residing at H. No. 4192, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi along with his daughter Khushi Nagpal. He further deposed that accused Sunita and her husband Kamal @ Sonu were residing in the same building in which he was residing. He further deposed that the FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 4 of 31 way to second floor passed through the portion of the house in which accused persons were residing and that was a common passage. He further deposed that there was a door on the balcony and they used to bolt the same from their side. He further deposed that he did not remember the date of incident, however, at about 09:30-10:30 pm, he was on the ground floor and his daughter Khushi along with her children were present on the upper floor of the house. He further deposed that an altercation had taken place between the accused persons and his daughter Khushi on the point of opening the door of the house. He also deposed that he did not see the incident as he was present on the ground floor and he had consumed liquor and therefore he was not in his full senses. He further deposed that a quarrel took place and his daughter sustained injuries and he had intervened in the quarrel and he also sustained injuries on his head. He also deposed that his daughter called police by dialing 100 number and PCR van came and they were taken to the hospital. This witness turned hostile and was cross-examined at lenght by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but nothing incriminating could be brought on record against accused persons. This witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC by Police, Mark-PW-2/1 at various points. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
8. PW-3 Ms. Khushi Nagpal, was the complainant as well as one of the injured in the present case. She deposed that in the FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 5 of 31 year 2017, she was residing at H. No. 4192, Arya Pura, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. She further deposed that in the other portion of the abovesaid house, her sister-in-law Sunita and her husband Kamal @ Sonu were residing along with their family. She further deposed that there was a common passage in the house to reach to second floor and this passage was between her portion and the second floor. She further deposed that a door was installed on the balcony and they used keep the door bolted from their side. She further deposed that on 08.01.2017, at about 10:30 pm, accused Kamal @ Sonu bolted the said door from the other side and due to the said reason, they were not able to go on the other side of the road. She further deposed that she asked accused Kamal @ Sonu to open the door and not to bolt the door from that side. She further deposed that a quarrel took place between them and accused persons on that issue and accused Sunita gave a blow of tongs (Chimta) on her left hand. She further deposed that her father Mr. Karan Sharma was also present at that time and accused Kamal @ Sonu gave a blow of club (laathi) on the head of her father and when he tried to come downstairs, accused Kamal @ Sonu stopped him on the way and gave another blow of club on his head. She further deposed that she made a call on 100 number and after some time, PCR van came and they were taken to hospital. She proved her complaint given to the Police as Ex. PW-3/A. She further deposed that accused Kamal @ Sonu also came to the hospital and he was arrested in the hospital at her instance. She proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Kamal @ Sonu as Ex. PW-3/B & Ex. PW-3/C. She FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 6 of 31 also deposed that police officials tried to trace the weapon of offence but the same was not recovered. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons during her deposition before the court. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had lodged present complaint due to property dispute between accused Sunita and her brother namely Jitender Nagpal. She admitted that the incident took place due to quarrel on common passage. She admitted that accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu had received threats from the gangsters but she did not know whether the gate was installed due to said threats or not as same was not conveyed to them. She denied the suggestion that her father was not present at the place of incident on the date of incident. She denied the suggestion that she had made call at 100 number by saying that '4192, Arya Pura, Pati mar pit kar raha hai'. She denied the suggestion that police officials had obtained her signatures on blank papers. She also denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place on the date of incident with the accused persons. She also denied the suggestion that accused persons had not caused the injuries upon her and Karan Sharma.
9. PW-4 Dr. Abhishek Uday, Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Hindu Rao Hospital deposed that on 09.01.2017, he had conducted x-ray of patient namely Khushi Nagpal, aged about 30 years, who was examined vide MLC No. 132/17. He proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that on that day, he also conducted x-ray of patient namely Karan Sharma, aged about 53 years, who was FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 7 of 31 examined vide MLC No. 129/17. He further deposed that after x- ray, he found that there was fracture of proximal phalanx of fifth finger and middle phalanx of third finger. He proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW-4/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the injuries sustained in the fingers of patient Karan Sharm could be possible, if struck on wall or any surface. He also deposed that the patient had not disclosed him as to how he had sustained the injuries.
10. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Prajapati, Senior Resident, Hindu Rao Hospital proved the MLCs of injured Karan Sharma and Khushi Nagpal, prepared by Dr. Rameez as Ex. PW-1/A & Ex. PW-5/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had never worked with Dr. Rameez and he could not identify his handwriting and signature. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his department/office.
11. PW-6 SI Tej Singh was the In-charge of PCR Van. He deposed that on 08.01.2017 at about 10:45 pm, a PCR call was received regarding quarrel and thereafter he went to the spot i.e. H. No. 4191, Arya Pura, Delhi. He further deposed that from there, two injured were taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital in emergency. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not forwarded the call to anyone. He also deposed that he received information regarding quarrel between husband and wife and he could not tell, who had made the call.
12. PW-7 Retd. SI Vijay Pal, was the Duty Officer at PS Subzi Mandi. He proved his endorsement on rukka, copy of present FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 8 of 31 FIR and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it took one hour in registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that FIR and DD were ante-dated and ante-timed. He also denied the suggestion that IO/SI Mahendra Koli did not come to the PS with rukka or that rukka was not handed over to him.
13. PW-8 W/Ct. Suman, deposed that on 16.07.2017, she along with SI Devender went to Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and from there, accused Sunita was arrested. She further deposed that personal search of accused Sunita was conducted by her. She proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sunita as Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
14. PW-9 Retd. SI Ravinder, was duty officer at PS Subzi Mandi. He proved copy of DD No. 32A regarding a call from Control Room regarding beating the caller by her husband at H. No. 4192, Aryapura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi from mobile no. 9999828392 as Ex. PW-9/A. This witness was also not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
15. PW-10 HC Suresh Kumar, deposed that on 08.01.2017, he along with IO/SI Mahendra Koli went to spot at Aryapura, Subzi Mandi where it was revealed that the injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. He further deposed that they FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 9 of 31 also went to Hindu Rao Hospital where two injured persons namely Ms. Khushi Nagpal and Sh. Karan met them. He further deposed that IO recorded their statement and proceeded to Police Station and he was directed to remain at the hospital. He further deposed that accused Kamal @ Sonu also came to the hospital with his PSO and IO returned hospital after getting the case registered. He further deposed that accused Kamal @ Sonu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/B on identification of injured Khushi. He further deposed that accused led the police party to the spot for recovery of danda but no danda could be recovered. In his cross-examination, he deposed that some public persons were also found present at the spot and IO made inquiry from those public persons and then it was revealed that injured had been removed to the hospital and he had not recorded the names or addresses of those public persons and he had also not served any notice to those public persons. He also deposed that they again visited the spot but IO had not requested any public person, even at that time. He also deposed that he did not know if injured Karan was intoxicated in hospital or not. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to spot or to the hospital with IO or that accused Kamal @ sonu was not arrested in the manner or that no effort was made to join public person or to recover danda.
16. PW-11 Dr. Vikramjeet Kapil, deposed that in January, 2017, he was posted as CMO in Hindu Rao Hospital. He further deposed that on 08.01.2017, one lady Khushi Nagpal, aged about 30 years was brought to the hospital by police with alleged FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 10 of 31 history of physical assault, who was examined by him vide MLC, Ex. PW-5/A. He further deposed that on local examination, clean lacerated wound on index finger of right hand was found. He further deposed that he referred the patient to SR Surgery and Ortho Department for further treatment and management. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no name of assailant was mentioned in MLC.
17. PW-12 ASI Devender Kumar, deposed that on 05.06.2017, accused Sunita was arrested in the present case and her personal search was also conducted by W/Ct. Suman. He proved arrest memo and personal search of accused Sunita as Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to information mentioned in DD No. 32A. He also deposed that he had not made any inquiry from injured persons. He denied the suggestion that he had not carried out proper investigation.
18. PW-13 SI Mahendra Koli, was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on receiving DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A, regarding beating by husband, he along with Ct. Suresh went to the spot of incident i.e. H. No. 4192, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, where it was revealed that injured persons had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. He further deposed that he went to the hospital and collected MLCs of injured persons namely Ms. Khushi Nagpal and Sh. Karan Sharma and as per MLC, injured Ms. Khushi Nagpal was found to be fit for statement. He further deposed that he recorded statement of injured Ms. Khushi FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 11 of 31 Nagpal, Ex. PW-3/A and thereafter on the basis of statement of complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal, Ex. PW-3/A, he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-13/A and got the present FIR registered at PS Subzi Mandi. He further deposed that during investigation, he arrested accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu, conducted his personal search and recorded disclosure statement vide memos Ex. PW-3/B, Ex. PW-3/C & Ex. PW-13/B. He further deposed that he also obtained opinion about nature of injuries on MLCs of injured person. He also deposed that thereafter he submitted the case file with MHC(R) since he got transferred. In his cross- examination, he deposed that husband of complainant was not present at spot when they reached at the spot. He admitted that some neighbours had gathered at the spot but none of them was eyewitness. He also deposed that he had not prepared site plan. He also deposed that he did not remember if injured Karan Sharma was intoxicated in the hospital. He also deposed that he recorded statement of complainant during mid night. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation or accused persons had been falsely implicated or that he recorded disclosure statement of accused on his own or that he manipulated the statement of injured persons or that complainant had levelled allegations against her husband but he manipulated the same against accused persons or that he had recorded statement of Karan on his own without his dictation.
19. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 12 of 31 they denied all the charges against them. Accused Kamal @ Sonu claimed that there was property dispute over partition between his wife and his brother-in-law Jitender Nagpal. He further claimed that on the day of incident, PW-3 Ms. Khushi Nagpal made a false complaint against him and his wife to the police with ulterior motive to pressurize him and his wife to compromise the property dispute during the course of the proceedings, several talks over the compromise took place. He also claimed that Khushi Nagpal lodged false case against them to pressurize them to make them compromise the matter. Accused Sunita claimed that there was property dispute over partition between her and her brother. She further claimed that on the day of incident, PW-3 Ms. Khushi Nagpal made a false complaint against her and her husband to the police with ulterior motive to pressurize her and her husband to compromise the property dispute during the course of the proceedings, several talks over the compromise took place. She also claimed that Khushi Nagpal lodged false case against them to pressurize them to make them to compromise the matter.
20. After recording of statement of accused persons under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons examined one witness in their defence. The testimony of sole defence witness has been discussed in brief as under:-
21. DW-1 Sh. Kapil, deposed that on 08.01.2017 at about 10:30 pm, he was at his shop and he had gone upstairs to the first floor in the kitchen of accused Sunita and Sonu for taking water FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 13 of 31 and at that time, he listened a noise of Jitender, Khushi and father-in-law of Jitender as they were fighting with each other.
He further deposed that father-in-law of Jitender @ Jeetu received injury on his head. He further deposed that thereafter Khushi made a telephonic call to police and stated that some altercation took place between her husband and her father. He further deposed that the altercation between Khushi, Jitender and father-in-law of Jitender took place at first floor and the accused persons namely Sunita and Sonu were present along with their children on the second floor. He further deposed that the police came at the spot and took the complainant Khushi, Jitender and father-in-law of Jitender to PS. He also deposed that the accused persons were not taken to PS by Police at that time. He also deposed that the police asked him and he he narrated the entire incident to police and the police said that they will call him at PS as and when required. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that he had no document to show that he was working as Electrician or to the effect that any electric shop was being carried out at 1491-92, Aryapura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi during January, 2017. He denied the suggestion that he was tutored by accused persons to the effect that Jitender, Khushi and father-in-law of Jitender were fighting with each other. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were present there or that they caused injuries to Khushi and her father.
22. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan, FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 14 of 31 Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Anand, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
23. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-3/Complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He further argued that PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma has also explained the alleged incident in his testimony. He further argued that accused persons had caused injuries on the persons of PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal which has been duly proved by PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki, PW-4 Dr. Abhishek Uday, PW-5 Dr. Kailash Prajapati and PW-11 Dr. Vikramjeet Kapil. He further argued that accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu was drunk at the time of incident and same has been mentioned in his MLC. He also argued that all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and the prosecution witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence both accused persons should be convicted under all sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
24. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that DD No. 32A was registered on the call made by PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal in which she had stated that she was being FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 15 of 31 beaten by her husband. He also argued that DW-1 Sh. Kapil has also deposed that quarrel had taken place between PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal, her husband and her father. He further argued that husband of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal namely Sh. Jitender Nagpal was brother of accused Sunita and there was a property dispute between them with respect to the house where the incident took place as same was in name of their father. He further argued that PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma has turned hostile with respect to the alleged incident. He further argued that PSO of accused Kamal @ Sonu was not examined as PW. He further argued that PW-6 SI Tej Singh, who was PCR In-charge deposed that from the spot of incident, he took two injured persons to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital and he has not deposed that accused persons were also present there. He further argued that no independent eyewitness has been examined as PW. He further argued that PW-13 IO/SI Mahender Koli is not clear about the floor where the incident took place. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, accused persons should be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 308/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC.
25. In the present case, charges under Sec. 308/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC have been framed against both the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 16 of 31 under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
26. 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 accused persons.
FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 17 of 31
27. PW-2/Injured Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal are the star witnesses of the prosecution as they had suffered the injuries in the incident and they are the only witnesses of the alleged incident. The testimonies of PW-2/Injured Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal are to be appreciated as per the established principles of law pertaining to appreciation of evidence.
28. The first information regarding the incident was received at PS Subzi Mandi on 08.01.2017 at about 10:45 pm vide DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A. PW-9 Retd. SI Ravinder has proved DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A. He deposed that on 08.01.2017 he was working as Duty Officer at PS Subzi Mandi and on that day, at about 10:45 pm, he received a call from Control Room regarding beating of the caller by her husband at H. No. 4192, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. He further deposed that the mobile number of the caller was 9999828392. He further deposed that he made the entry in this regard in Roznamcha vide DD No. 32A. Thus, as per the case of the prosecution, the call at 100 number was made by the caller regarding beating of caller by her husband and the call was not regarding any attack/assault by some other person. PW-13 IO/SI Mahender Koli deposed that the call was made by the complainant. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal in her cross-examination has admitted that she had made PCR call on the date of incident by using her mobile phone no. 9999828392. However, she denied the suggestion that she had made the call at 100 number by saying that '4192, Arya FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 18 of 31 Pura Pati mar pit kar rha hai'. PW-6 SI Tej Singh who was PCR In-charge and had taken the injured persons to the hospital in his cross-examination deposed that they had received information regarding quarrel between husband and wife. Since the prosecution has proved the contents of DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A, as per which, the caller making the call at 100 number had told that the husband was giving beatings, the version of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal cannot be relied upon in this regard. PW-12/IO SI Devender Kumar in his cross- examination has specifically admitted that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the information mentioned in DD No. 32A. This is a major lacuna in the investigation conducted in the present case. Moreover, DW-1 Sh. Kapil deposed that on 08.01.2017, he listened a noise of Jitender, Khushi and father-in-law of Jitender as they were fighting with each other. He further deposed that the father-in-law of Jitender @ Jeetu received injuries on his head and at that time, Khushi had made a telephone call to the police stating that some altercation took place between her husband and her father. He also deposed that altercation between Khushi, Jitender and father-in-law of Jitender took place at the first floor and accused persons namely Sunita and Sonu were present along with their children on the second floor. Thus, due to material contradictions with respect to the alleged incident in the contents of DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A and the version of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal as well as the version of DW-1 Sh. Kapil with FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 19 of 31 respect to the alleged incident, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution story as well as on the veracity of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal.
29. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal deposed that on 08.01.2017 at about 10:30 pm, accused Kamal @ Sonu bolted the door installed on the balcony from the other side due to which they were not able to go on the other side of the road. PW-2/injured Sh. Karan Sharma deposed that he did not remember the date of incident, however, at about 09:30-10:30 pm, an altercation had taken place between accused persons and his daughter Khushi on the point of opening of the door of the house but he did not see the incident as he was present on the ground floor. Since PW-2/injured Sh. Karan Sharma has deposed that he had not seen the incident, his testimony with respect to the cause of said quarrel/altercation is not reliable. PW-13/IO SI Mahender Koli has not conducted any investigation with respect to the alleged door installed at the balcony and no photographs of the said door showing that it could have been bolted from both sides have been placed on the record by the IO. PW-13/IO SI Mahender Koli in his cross-examination deposed that he cannot tell exactly where incident took place in the building and he had not prepared the site plan. He also deposed that he did not remember the floor where the incident took place. Thus, PW-13/IO SI Mahender Koli in his cross-examination has admitted that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the spot of incident and he had not prepared the site plan as FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 20 of 31 well. This is a major lacuna in the investigation conducted by the PW-13/IO SI Mahender Koli and he has failed to conduct a fair investigation with respect to the incident alleged by PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal.
30. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal deposed that she asked accused Kamal @ Sonu to open the door and not to bolt the door from other side and an quarrel took place between them and accused persons on that issue. She further deposed that accused Sunita gave a blow of tongs (Chimta) on her left hand and at that time her father Mr. Karan Sharma was also present there. She further deposed that accused Kamal @ Sonu gave a blow club (laathi) on head of her father. She further deposed that when her father tried to come down stairs, accused Kamal @ Sonu stopped him on way and gave another blow of club on his head. However, PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma has turned hostile on the abovesaid aspects. PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma specifically deposed that he did not see any incident as he was present on the ground floor. He also deposed that he had consumed liquor and he was not in his full senses. PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki has proved the MLC of PW-2 Karan Sharma, Ex. PW-1/A. On the perusal of MLC of PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma, Ex. PW-1/A, it is revealed that there was smell of alcohol from Sh. Karan Sharma, when he was examined by the doctor. PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma deposed that he had sustained injuries on his head. In his cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that at about 10:30 pm, FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 21 of 31 accused Kamal @ Sonu bolted the door from other side and he asked him to open the door and on this issue, accused Kamal and his wife Sunita started quarreling with them. He also denied the suggestion that accused Sunita hit his daughter on her hand by tongs (Chimta) and accused Kamal @ Sonu hit him with a laathi on his head. Thus, PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma has denied the role of both the accused persons in causing injuries to him and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal. Thus, in these circumstances, where the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of both the eyewitnesses and both the eyewitnesses have given totally contradictory versions, the testimony of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal in absence of any other corroborative independent evidence cannot be relied upon.
31. IO has not collected any CCTV footage of any camera installed at the building where the alleged incident took place or the CCTV footage of any camera installed outside the building from which some evidence could have been collected. IO has also not examined any neighbour, who could have witnessed the alleged incident. This has weakened the case of the prosecution.
32. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu was an eyewitness in double murder case in case FIR No. 303/2014, PS Subzi Mandi and he was provided round the clock security. He argued that even at the time of alleged incident, his PSO, who was a government servent was present with him but he has not been examined as PW to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case.
FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 22 of 31 PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal in her cross-examination admitted that accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu had received threats from gangsters as he was witness in a murder case and she had seen the police official as security to accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu who used to remain present along with him. PW-10 HC Suresh deposed that on the night of incident accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu also came to the hospital with his PSO and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/B. Thus, it has come on record that PSO provided to accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu was present with him at the time of alleged incident also but he has not been examined as PW by the IO, for the reasons best known to him. The said PSO could who was a government servant could have brought the true facts on record. Non- examination of the PSO of accused Kamal @ Sonu is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
33. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal deposed that she was hit on her hand by accused Sunita with tongs (chimta) and her father was hit on his head by accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu with club (laathi). The call at 100 number was made by PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal at about 10:45 pm and the PCR In-charge, PW-6 ASI Tej Singh reached at the spot of incident just after receiving the said call. Accused Kamal Kumar @ Sonu was arrested by IO vide arrest memo, Ex. PW-3/B on the night of incident itself. Even in these circumstances, PW-13/IO SI Mahender Koli has failed to recover the weapons of offence i.e. tongs (chimta) & club (laathi). Accused persons have taken FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 23 of 31 the defence that they had not hit PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal with tongs & club. Non- recovery of the weapons of offence by the IO has weakened the case of the prosecution as the use of said weapons in commission of offence has become doubtful and no further medical opinion with respect to possibility of injuries by the use of the said weapons has been proved by the prosecution.
34. Accused persons have taken the defence that there was a property dispute between accused persons and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal and her husband Jitender Nagpal as the alleged building where they were residing was in name of father of Jitender Nagpal (husband of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal) and accused Sunita. Accused persons in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC have stated that PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal had made false complaint againt them to the police with ulterior motive to pressurize them to compromise the property dispute and during the course of proceedings, several talks had taken place. On the perusal of record, it is revealed that on 04.10.2019, statements of PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal were recorded by the Ld. Predecessor in which they had stated that they had no objection, if their cross-examinations are deferred since the accused persons wished to explore the possibility of settlement. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal in her cross- examination has admitted that accused Sunita was her sister-in- law (Nanad) and her father-in-law namely Nand Lal Nagpal had FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 24 of 31 expired and after her death, the property no. 4192, Arya Pura, Old Subzi Mandi where the alleged incident took place, still existed in the name of her father-in-law. She also deposed that after death of her father-in-law, no partition/compromise took place between the LRs regarding the abovesaid property. PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal also explained about the possession of the portions of the property between accused persons and her husband. Thus, it has come on record that the alleged incident took place due to the passage in the abovesaid property and no partition of said property had taken place despite the death of the owner of the property. Thus, the defence taken by the accused persons that they had been falsely implicated in the present case due to the property dispute only has put a dent on prosecution story.
35. PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki has proved the MLC of injured/PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma, Ex. PW-1/A and PW-11 Dr. Vikramjeet Kapil has proved the MLC of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal, Ex. PW-5/A. PW-5 Dr. Kailash Prajapati has proved his opinion regarding the nature of injuries. PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki has also deposed that the patient was referred to Surgery, Orthopedics & Medicines Department. PW-4 Dr. Abhishek Uday has proved the x-ray reports of PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal and PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma, Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-4/B. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Dr. Abhishek Uday deposed that the injuries sustained in the fingers of patient Karan Sharma could be possible, if it is FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 25 of 31 struck on the wall or any surface. He also deposed that the patient has not disclosed him as to how he sustained injuries. Thus, through the testimonies of PW-1 Dr. Rakesh Solanki, PW-4 Dr. Abhishek Uday, PW-5 Dr. Kailash Prajapati & PW-11 Dr. Vikramjeet Kapil, the prosecution has proved the injuries as well as nature of injuries on the persons of PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma and PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal. Neither PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma nor PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal had named the accused persons in their MLCs. Due to turning of hostile of PW-2 Sh. Karan Sharma, due to not explaining the contents of DD No. 32A, Ex. PW-9/A by PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal and non-recovery of weapons of offence at instance of accused persons, the said injuries cannot be attributed to the accused persons.
36. 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 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.
37. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 26 of 31 "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 statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. 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 FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 27 of 31 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 the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
38. 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 FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 28 of 31 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."
39. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match 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.
40. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-2/injured Sh. Karan Sharma & PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal are not witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are not natural and they have also failed to withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-2/injured Sh. Karan Sharma & PW-3/complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal are not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and same have not been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and other corroborative evidence on record and the circumstances.
41. 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.
FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 29 of 31
42. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of 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."
43. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration 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 innocent. In a case FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 30 of 31 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."
44. In the present case, due to material contradictions in testimonies of PW-2/injured Sh. Karan Sharma & PW-3/ complainant Ms. Khushi Nagpal, not explaining the contents of DD No. 32A, non-joining of independent witness, non-collection of CCTV footage of the spot of incident/area, non-recovery of weapons of offence and the defence taken by the accused persons serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
45. The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 308/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
46. Accordingly, accused persons namely Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Sunita are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 308/34 IPC & Sec. 323/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: on 17th day of January, 2026 2026.01.17 15:42:41 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:17.01.2026 FIR No. 10/2017, PS: Subzi Mandi, State Vs. Kamal Kumar @ Sonu & Anr. Page No. 31 of 31