Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu Singh on 16 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Sonu Singh & Ors. FIR No. 824/15
PS: Patel Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.608/18
2. CNR no. DLWT010081102018
3. Date of Institution 10.08.2018
4. Date of Commission of 02.10.2015 offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Sonu Singh S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Singh R/o T-235A, IIIrd Floor, Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi
2. Chander Thakur S/o Sh. Raghu Nath Thakur R/o E-88, Kunwar Singh Chowk, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi
3. Narayan Singh S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Singh R/o T-235/A-15, IIIrd Floor, Near Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 308/34 IPC POOJA Section 307/34 IPC TALWAR Digitally signed SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 1 of 33 by POOJA TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:32:26 +0530
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 06.12.2025 judgment
9. Final order Accused Sonu Singh and Narayan Singh are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC Accused Chander Thakur is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 308/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC
10. Date of such judgment 16.12.2025.
Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 02.10.2015 DD no.23A was received. Pursuant to which SI Khalid Akhter went to the spot at Baba Ramdev Mandir where beat staff Ct. Vijay Kumar and Ct. Satender Kumar met and informed that injured was taken to Patel hospital and was then referred to Lady Harding Hospital. Thereafter, upon obtaining MLC from Lady Harding hospital, he met injured Hemraj @ Hemi and recorded his statement. He stated that he was working in a Jewellery shop at Karol Bagh. On 02.10.2015 at 6 pm Magru took him to Ramjas Ground Anand Parbat where they consumed alcohol. They had a fight during conversation, due to which Magru beat him up and he left from there. Thereafter injured went to his friend Bunty's house at Anand Parbat. At about 6.30 pm Magru alongwith his brother Sonu and one another boy came there and gave beatings to him. In the meantime Bunty came back. He alongwith Bunty reached the house of Magru and when they climbed stairs, Magru and Sonu hit Bunty on his head with a rod due to which he fell down. Sonu also hit Hemraj with some sharp POOJA TALWAR object, due to which he also fell down. Thereafter someone Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 2 of 33 TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:32:34 +0530 called police. On 03.10.2015 accused Sonu was interrogated who informed that he alongwith his brother Narayan and friend Chander Thakur assaulted Hemraj and Bunty. All the three accused were arrested on 03.10.2015.
2. On the basis of statement of injured, FIR under Section 323/307/308/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
3. Charge Charge was framed against the accused Sonu Singh, Chander Thakur and Narayan Singh under Section 308/34 IPC for causing injury to Bunty and under Section 307/34 IPC for assaulting Hemraj vide order dated 29.11.2018.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined thirteen witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Hemraj deposed in his testimony that:
"In the year 2015 I was doing the work of jewellery at Karol Bagh. On 02.10.2015, I did not go for my work and I was present a my aforesaid house. On that day at about 6:00 PM accused Mangroo (Naryan Singh), who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) met me near Lal Mandir, Baljeet Nagar from where we went to Ramjas Ground. Patel Nagar where we had drunk the liquor. I know accused POOJA Mangroo/Narayan Singh from my childhood, as he was my TALWAR childhood friend. On some point, the fact I do not remember Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 3 of 33 TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:32:54 +0530 today, there was some altercation between me and Mangroo Naryan Singh at the aforesaid Ramjas Ground. Thereafter, accused Mangroo / Naryan Singh went to his house and I went to the house of my another friend Bunty i.e. House No.297, Baba Faridpuri, Anand Parbat, where Bunty was not present. The mother of my friend Bunty met me at her house and I sat on the first floor of the house of my friend Bunty to wait for him. I waited there for about 10-15 minutes. The mother of my friend Bunty is an old age lady, so she remained on the ground floor and I was waiting for my friend Bunty on the first floor. After about the aforesaid 10-15 minutes of my waiting, accused Mangroo/Naryan Singh alongwith his younger brother namely accused Sonu, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) and third accused who is present in the court today, whose name I was not knowing at that time (correctly identified by the witness) reached at the first floor, of the aforesaid house of my friend Bunty and gave beatings to me.
All the aforesaid accused persons gave beatings to me by one table, which was lying on the aforesaid first floor, due to which I sustained injury on my jaw, which got fractured. Thereafter, all the aforesaid accused persons fled away from the above said place/spot. Thereafter, my friend Bunty also reached at his house and I narrated all the aforesaid incident to him.
Thereafter, I alongwith my friend Bunty reached at the house of accused Mangroo (Narayan Singh) to enquire about the reason of beating me. The house of Mangroo was at Baljeet Nagar near Baba Ramdev Mandir and was situated on the third floor of the building. I and my friend Bunty reached on the second floor of the building and was trying to reach at the third POOJA TALWAR floor of the house of accused Mangroo, I saw both accused Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 4 of 33 Date: 2025.12.16 FIR no. 824/15 14:33:04 +0530 Mangroo and Sonu who were coming from the third floor towards floor of the building. Accused Mangroo was having a rod in his hand and gave one rod blow on the head of my friend Bunty. Accused Sonu was having one pointed object and accused Mangroo said to Sonu that "Aaj isko maar dete hai". Thereafter, on the instigation of accused Mangroo, accused Sonu had given 3-4 blows with the afore-said pointed object on my left side near heart /chest. Thereafter, I alongwith my friend Bunty came down from the said house. My brother namely Ramesh shifted me to Patel Hospital from where I was shifted to Lady Harding Hospital where I was medically examined. My statement was recorded in the hospital which is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. At the time of incident, I was wearing chocolaty colour pant, yellow colour half T-shirt and one black colour belt and these articles were handed over to my brother Ramesh by me in the hospital for further handing over to IO of this case.
I can identify my afore-said clothes and belt, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property from which parcel no.1 bearing the seal of FSLAM.RDELHI and bearing the particulars of this case, is taken out. Seal got broken. Parcel opened. The same is found containing remnants of seal of KA and one cut T-shirt having dark stains, one pant having dark stains and one black colour belt, which are shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same to be his clothes and belt which he was wearing at the time of incident and which he handed over to his brother for further handing over the same to IO. The shirt POOJA TALWAR is Ex.P1, pant is Ex.P-2 and belt is Ex.P-3.Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16
SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 5 of 33 14:33:15 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 On 16.01.2018, my blood was obtained by the doctor at Lady Harding Hospital for sample purpose and on MLC my thumb impressions were also obtained".
(ii) PW2:Bunty deposed in his testimony that:
"I have been residing at the afore-said address for last 19- 20 years. I know Hemraj as he is my friend for the last 8-10 years.
On 02.10.2015, there had been a quarrel between Narayan @ Mangroo and Sonu with Hemraj at some park where I was not present. On that day, I had gone to the house of my friend at Baljit Nagar and there I received a call from Hemraj at about 5 p.m who informed me about his quarrel with Narayan @Mangroo and Sonu and he asked me to come to my house. Thereafter, I reached my house in about 30 to 60 minutes and upon reaching there I saw that Narayan @ Mangroo, Sonu and Chander were coming out of the house and running away and I was not able to apprehend them and upon entering my house, I saw that blood was coming out from the mouth of Hemraj as his jaw (jabra) was broken by the afore-said three persons with table. Hemraj informed me that he was given beatings by the afore-said three persons. I said to him that we will inform the father of Narayan @Mangroo and Sonu about the incident and tell him what his sons have done. Thereafter, we went to the house of Narayan Mangroo and Sonu and when we reached second or third floor of the said house, Narayan @ Mangroo hit me on my head with iron rod because of which I received injury on my POOJA head. (The witness has pointed toward the injury on his head and TALWAR the scar on the left side of the scalp is still visible). Hemraj was Digitally signed behind me at that time and thereafter Sonu stabbed Hemraj just by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:33:22 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 6 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 under his arm in the ribs twice with screw driver (penchkas). Both the said brothers namely Narayan @ Mangroo and Sonu were saying " maar do, maar do". We came down from the said floor and we called at number 100 and then we were taken to Patel hospital by the police. There we were given first aid and thereafter referred to Lady Harding Hospital. We went to Lady Harding Hospital. At Patel Hospital, it was enquired from me as to how I received the said injury and whether firing had also taken place and I had stated to the doctor that no firing had taken place. At Lady Harding Hospital, I was given treatment and bandages were put on my wounds after which I was discharged from the said hospital on the same night. Hemraj was admitted in Lady Harding Hospital and he was discharged after 2-3 days.
When I was discharged from Lady Harding Hospital, the police officials telephonically asked me to directly come to the police station and I went to PS Patel Nagar. Accused Sonu was arrested in my presence and I identified him before the police officials. The police had also seized my clothes that I was wearing at the time of incident vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. My blood test was also conducted twice during the investigation. I was taken to the place of incident on the next day Le. 03.10.2015 by the police and there the police had prepared the site plan of the spot after making enquiries from me which is Ex.PW2/A1 bearing my signature at point A. Arrest memo of accused Sonu is Ex.PW2/B bearing my signature at point A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW2/C POOJA bearing my signature at point A. TALWAR At this stage, witness is shown documents i.e. arrest Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR memos and personal search memos accused Narayan and Date: 2025.12.16 14:34:07 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 7 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 Chander upon which he identifies his signatures at points A on each documents. The said documents are Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. Accused Narayan and Sonu are present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). However, due to lapse of time, I cannot identify Chander, though the third person sitting alongwith Narayan and Sonu in the court may be Chander (while pointing towards accused Chander).
I can identify my clothes which I was wearing on the day incident.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case property from which parcel no.2 bearing the seal of FSLAm.RDELHI and bearing the particulars of this case, is taken out. Seal got broken. Parcel opened. The same is found containing remnants of seal of KA and one T-shirt (half sleeves) having dark stains and one baniyan having brown stains, which are shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same to be his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and which he handed over to the police. The T-shirt is Ex.P4 and baniyan is Ex.P5".
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW3: Dr. Pawan Kumar deposed that he was deputed by the MS to appear on behalf of Dr. Manas Layak and Dr. Sandeep as they had left the services of the hospital and there present whereabouts were not known. He perused the MLC bearing no.53913 dated 02.10.2015 of injured Bunty S/o Phoole Ram aged 30 years and of injured Hem Raj S/o Kewal Kishan vide MLC No. 53912 dated 02.10.2015. As per both the MLCs, both POOJA the injured were examined by Dr. Manas Layak and as per MLC TALWAR of injured Bunty, there was a CLW (Clean Lacerated Wound) of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 8 of 33 Date: 2025.12.16 FIR no. 824/15 14:35:35 +0530 about 1 cm present on frontal area. After giving him first aid, he was referred to Department of Surgery. The MLC of injured Bunty Ex.PW-3/A and as per MLC of injured Hem Raj during examination, one lacerated wound on lateral to left nipple and another lacerated wound over part axillary area at level of axila left side and there was swelling on lip and bleeding was present.
The said injured was referred to Department of Surgery and Department of Dental after giving first aid. The MLC of injured Hem Raj is Ex. PW3/B. He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Manas Layak at point A on the MLCs Ex.PW3/A and PW3/B as he has worked with him and he had seen him writing and signing during the course of duty. As per both the MLCs, on 13.11.2015, Dr. Sandeep, Department of Surgery also opined nature of injuries on both the said MLCs as "simple" with blunt object and his note is mentioned at point B on Ex.PW3/A and at point C on Ex.PW3/B. He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sandeep at point B respectively on both MLCS as he worked with him and he had seen him writing and signing during their course of duty.
(ii) PW12: Amita Raghav Junior Forensic/Chemical Examiner (Biology), FSL Rohini deposed that on 21.02.2018 ten sealed parcels of different seals mentioned in Ex.PW11/A pertaining to case FIR No.824/2015 PS Patel Nagar were received in their office. The aforesaid parcels were assigned to her for their examination. She examined the articles of the aforesaid parcels. She mentioned the description of the articles found in the parcels in her report Ex.PW11/A in detail. Blood was detected on POOJA Exhibits la,1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10. Out of which human TALWAR blood was found on Exhibits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 9 of 33 Date: 2025.12.16 14:36:31 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 Blood could not be detected on Exhibits 6. After the examination, she prepared her report Ex.PW11/A (running into three pages), all pages bear her signatures at point A. Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW4: SI Parmod Kumar deposed that on 18.12.2015, investigation of present case was marked to him. He searched victim Hem raj and thereafter, sent him to Lady Harding along with Ct. Ravinder for his blood sample but the same could not be taken into police possession as the sample was not sealed with the seal of hospital and also it was not having sample seal.
Thereafter, case was transferred from him.
(ii) PW5: SI Ved Parkash deposed that on 02.10.2015, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as HC and was working as duty officer from 4 pm to 12 mid night. On that day, at about 07:05 pm, a PCR call was received regarding quarrel at T-215/A-15, Baba Ram dev Mandir, West Patel Nagar. He informed about it to SI Khalid Akhtar through telephone to take appropriate action. He registered the said call vide DD no.23A. The attested copy of said DD is on the file in his handwriting and Ex.PW5/A. On the same day at about 07:23 pm, other PCR call was received regarding quarrel at emergency ward of Patel hospital, West Patel Nagar. He informed about it to SI Khalid Akhtar through telephone to take appropriate action. He registered the said call vide DD no.24A. The attested copy of said DD is on the file in his handwriting and Ex.PW5/B. POOJA On that day, at about 8:35 pm, another PCR call was TALWAR received regarding the fact that one person who was injured in a Digitally signed quarrel at Patel Nagar and doctor asked them to call police first by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 10 of 33 14:36:38 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 and thereafter he would be treated. He informed about it to SI Khalid Akhtar through telephone to take appropriate action. He registered the said call vide DD no.28A. The attested copy of said DD is on the file in his handwriting and Ex.PW5/C. On that day at about 10:40 pm, Ct. Vijay came to PS and Handed over the rukka of the present case which was sent by SI Khalid Akhtar. He made endorsement on the said rukka Ex.PW5/D and thereafter, he registered FIR on the present case Ex.PW5/E. Certificate u/s 65 B regarding the said FIR is Ex.PW5/F. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to Ct. Vijay to handover the same to SI Khalid Akhtar.
(iii) PW6: Insp. Rupesh Kumar Khatri deposed that on 02.10.2015 at about 11-11:15 pm, he received a call from control room to visit the place of incident of the present case. On receipt of the said call, he along with his staff namely Ct. Yogesh/ photographer, fingerprint proficient HC Hari Kishan and other staff reached at the place of incident. At the spot IO of present case namely SI Khalid Akhtar met him. He inspected the spot and under his directions Ct. Yogesh took the photographs of the spot from different angles. Injured Hemraj was already taken to hospital. Blood was lying at the staircase on the spot and he advised IO to lift blood and earth control from the spot. He prepared his report in this regard Ex.PW6/A.
(iv) PW7: HC Yogesh deposed that on 02.10.2015 Incharge, SI POOJA Rupesh khatri received a call at about 11-11:15 pm and on TALWAR receipt of the said call, he along with SI Rupesh Khatri, fingerprint proficient HC Hari Kishan and other staff reached at Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 11 of 33 14:36:44 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 the place of incident. At the spot IO of present case namely SI Khalid Akhtar met them. He took 11 photographs of the spot from different angles. He handed over the phonographs to IO. He produced the negatives of the said photographs Ex.PX (colly). The photographs were not on the file. He did not develop the photographs from the said negatives and IO also did not ask him for the same.
(v) PW8: HC Parmod Kumar deposed that on 02.10.2015 he under the directions of senior officials, reached at Lady Harding hospital where SI Khalid met him. He collected MLC of injured and also recorded statement of injured Hemraj present in hospital. Ct. Vijay was also present in the hospital. SI Khalid prepared rukka and handed it to Ct. Vijay for registration of FIR. SI Khalid made phone call to Crime Team Officials and asked them to visit place of incident. He along with SI Khalid also reached place of incident i.e. T235/15A, Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Baljit Nagar. Ct. Vijay also came there after registration of FIR and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to SI Khalid. Blood was lying at the spot. SI Khalid took into possession the blood stained earth after breaking the same from spot and also earth control and one blood stained piece of towel from the spot and sealed them with seal of KA after keeping them separately in a plastic box vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, they came back to PS. When they reached at PS, Ct. Satender was present in PS along with accused Sonu and at the same time, injured Bunty came to PS and he on seeing the same, identified accused Sonu as the person who assaulted Hem raj with pointed POOJA TALWAR weapon. Injured Bunty handed over to SI Khalid his blood Digitally signed stained clothes and SI Khalid prepared its pullinda with seal KA by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:36:56 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 12 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 on it and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. One person namely Ramesh also came in PS and he handed over SI Khalid the blood stained clothes and belt of injured Hemraj and SI Khalid sealed with the seal KA on it and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. SI Khalid made inquiries from accused Sonu and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and he was personally searched vide Ex.PW2/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW8/C. Thereafter, accused Sonu took them to the place of incident and they searched for weapon used in the offence but it was not found. Site plan was prepared at the instance of witness Bunty. Thereafter, they came back to PS. During investigation, namely Chander Thakur was brought to PS for inquiry and injured Bunty identified Chander Thakur as the person who assaulted Hem Raj on his face with some weapon. Other staff of their PS also produced Narayan Singh to PS and Bunty on seeing him, identified as the person who assaulted him with iron rod on his head. Both Chander and Narayan were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E and were personally searched vide Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G, disclosure statement of both the accused persons were recorded vide Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E. Witness correctly identified the accused persons. His statement was recorded.
(vi) PW9: HC Vijay Singh deposed that on 02.10.2015 SI Khalid received DD no.23A and on receipt of which, he along with him reached at the place of incident was Baba Ramdev Mandir, Baljeet Nagar where beat staff Ct. Satyender met them. They came to know that injured has gone to Patel hospital. He along POOJA TALWAR with SI Khalid reached at Patel hospital where they came to Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 13 of 33 TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:37:07 +0530 know that injured was referred to Lady Harding Hospital. They reached at Lady Harding where injured Hemraj was found. SI Khalid recorded his statement and prepared rukka and handed it over to him for registration of FIR. At the same time, HC Parmod came to Lady Harding Hospital. He got FIR registered and came back to spot i.e. near Baba Ramdev Mandir. At the spot, crime team officials also came. Crime team official lifted blood stained floor after breaking the same from the spot, earth control and one blood stained pink colour piece of cloth and one blue colour piece of cloth which SI Khalid kept in a plastic box and sealed the same with seal of KA and taken into police possession. Thereafter, they came back to PS. Ct. Satyender had already brought one of accused Sonu to PS. One injured of present case Bunty came to PS and identified Sonu as the person who inflicted injuries to Hem raj with pointed weapon. The said Bunty handed over his blood stained clothes to SI Khalid. SI Khalid took the same into police possession. One person namely Ramesh came to PS with the said Bunty and he handed over to Sl Khalid the blood stained clothes and belt of injured Hem raj and sealed the same with seal of KA and took the same into police possession. SI Khalid made inquires from Sonu and arrested him in the present case. They searched for weapon of offence but it was not found. SI Khalid prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of Bunty. Police staff of PS Patel Nagar brought one accused Magru in the PS and Bunty identified as one of the assailants. One another accused Chander Thakur was brought to PS by staff of PS and injured Hem raj identified him as one of the assailant and he assaulted him on his face with some object. The said Chander POOJA Thakur and Magru were arrested by IO in his presence. Identity TALWAR of case property was not disputed by ld defense counsel as it has Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 14 of 33 14:37:18 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. Witness correctly identified the accused persons.
(vii) PW10: ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 16.01.2018 he under the directions of SI Kishore Kumar took complainant Hemraj and Bunty to Lady Harding Hospital and got conducted their medical examination. After examination, Dr. handed over to him the sealed exhibits of injured Hemraj and Bunty with sample seal of hospital which he handed over to SI Kishore Kumar who took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. On 20.02.2018, he again joined the investigation of the case and under the directions of SI Kishore Kumar, He took 10 sealed pullinda of the present case from MHC(M) vide RC 23/21/18 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. He went to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there and collected the acknowledgment and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M). The copy of RC is Ex.PW10/B and copy of Ex.PW10/C.
(viii) PW11: Insp. Kishore Kumar deposed that on 16.12.2017 investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He received the case file from the MHC(R). He had gone through the case file. After discussion with SHO, on 16.01.2018 he got collected the blood sample in vial and blood sample in gauze of complainant Hemraj and another injured Bunty in LHMC Hospital through HC Suresh. HC Suresh handed over four sealed POOJA parcels with the seal of the hospital with sample seal to him. He TALWAR seized the aforesaid parcels vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He Digitally signed by POOJA recorded the statement of HC Suresh. TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:37:24 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 15 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 On 21.02.2018 he sent the ten sealed parcels including aforesaid four sealed parcels to FSL, Rohini through HC Suresh vide RC No.23/21/18. HC Suresh returned from the FSL and handed over an acknowledgment issued by the FSL, Rohini and copy of the road certificate No.23/21/18. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it in court through SHO concerned.
He did not remember the date, however, in the month of May or June, 2018, he received the FSL report Ex.PW11/A. He filed the said report in the court through supplementary chargesheet.
(ix) PW13: Insp. Khalid Hussain deposed that on 02.10.2015 he received a DD no.23 A Ex.PW5/A regarding the quarrel and on receipt of which he reached at the place of incident near Baba Ramdev Mandir where beat staff Ct. Vijay Kumar and Ct. Satender met him. He came to know that injured was already taken to the hospital. He left Ct. Satender at the spot to take care of the spot and alongwith Ct. Vijay Kumar reached at Patel Hospital where he came to know that injured was referred to Lady Harding Hospital. He reached Lady Harding hospital where the injured namely Hemraj and Bunty were found. He collected their MLC. He recorded statement of Hemraj and prepared rukka which is exhibited as Ex. PW13/A and handed it over to Ct. Vijay for registration of FIR. He also directed crime team official to visit the place of incident. On 02.10.2015 injured Bunty came to PS and handed over to him his blood stained clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident ie. one half sleeves blue colur POOJA T-shirt and one Sando Baniyan. He took the same in the police TALWAR possession after preparing its pullinda and sealed with the seal of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 16 of 33 14:37:32 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 KA vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. Ramesh also handed over to him the blood stained clothes of injured Ramesh i.e. Half sleeves yellow colour T-shirt and one pant and one belt in Lady Harding hospital which he took the same in the police possession after preparing its pullinda and sealed with the seal of KA vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. He reached at the place of incident and on 03.10.2015 he prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of Bunty as Ex.PW2/A1. Crime team officials prepared their report and he collected the same. In-charge crime team whose name he did not remember lifted from the spot blood stained earth control, earth control and one blood stained pink colour piece of towel and one blue colour piece of cloth. He kept the same in a separate plastic box and sealed the same with the seal of KA and took the same in the police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. On the same day i.e. 03.10.2015 he arrested accused Sonu Singh, Chander and Narayan @ Manu in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively. He also prepared their personal search memo Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G respectively. He recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E respectively. He deposited the MLC in the hospital to collect the opinion of nature of injury and collected the opinion.
Thereafter, he was transferred and case file was handed over to MHCR. Thereafter, he never joined the investigation in the present case. Identity of above stated clothes is not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel as the same were Ex.Pl to P5 in testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. POOJA TALWAR Accused persons admitted the MLC no.67248/18 Digitally signed dt.16.01.2018 and MLC no.67249/18 dt.16.01.2018 vide which by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 17 of 33 14:37:41 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 blood sample in vial and gauge of injured Hem raj and injured Banti were taken and prepared by SR. Dr. Rahul. The said MLCs are Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2.
5. Statement of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 CrP.C where they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and injury sustained by the victims was due to fall on the floor and not inflicted by them.
Arguments on behalf of the State
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the two eye witnesses/victims deposed against the accused persons. Though the accused persons succeeded in winning over the star witnesses when called again in court, however, there is ample evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the offence. Accused persons deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
7. Ld. counsel for accused persons, per contra argued that the the accused persons have been falsely implicated. They have been named in the FIR due to previous enmity. Accused Chander Thakur was not even present at the time of incident. The victims were both in inebriated state and the injuries caused to them were because of the fall as has also been clarified by Dr. Pawan Kumar PW3 that the injuries mentioned in the MLC were possible due to fall on the ground. No incriminating evidence has POOJA TALWAR come on record against the accused persons. Hence they deserve Digitally signed to be acquitted. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:37:47 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 18 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 Analysis of Law:
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such 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 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
8. The essential ingredients to prove offence under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) are: (1) An act done with intention or knowledge to cause death and (2) This act must be performed under such circumstances that if it resulted in death, it would constitute murder.
9. The prosecution must prove the mens rea (guilty mind) and the actus reus (guilty act). Proof of injury is not mandatory, but the act itself must be of a nature that shows the intention or knowledge to cause death.
10. Now in order to prove Intention or Knowledge to cause death, prosecution must prove that the Act must be performed with the specific intent to cause death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
11. In the five prime point to complete the offence are POOJA enumerated below: TALWAR
1. The Act: The accused must have performed an act that shows Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR a clear intention or knowledge to commit murder. Date: 2025.12.16 14:37:55 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 19 of 33 FIR no. 824/15
2. Circumstances: The circumstances surrounding the act must be such that if the act had resulted in death, it would have been considered murder.
3. Risk of Death: The act must be so dangerous and imminently threatening that it carries a high probability of causing death or severe bodily injury, and the accused has no excuse for incurring this risk.
Important Considerations- Proof of Injury is Not Required:
Unlike murder, causing an actual injury is not a necessary element to prove an attempt to murder under Section 307. The focus is on the act and the intention or knowledge behind it.
4. Failed Attempt: A Section 307 offense is, by definition, a failed attempt to commit murder, where the death is not ultimately caused.
5. Severity of the Act: The severity of the offense is determined by the potential risk involved and the circumstances, not merely the eventual outcome.
12. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of POOJA Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This TALWAR section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 20 of 33 Date:
2025.12.16 FIR no. 824/15 14:38:01 +0530 substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfill the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
13. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court:
15. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the statement of injured PW1/A of Hemraj, where he stated that he alongwith Narayan went to Anand Parbat on 02.10.2015 and consumed liquor. They picked up a quarrel on some issue and later went away. From there he went to house of his friend Bunty where Narayan, his brother Sonu and one other boy reached there and assaulted him with the table. Later he alongwith Bunty went to house of Naryan to confront him. When they reached the house on the second floor, they both were assaulted with an iron rod and screw driver by the accused Narayan and Sonu. They sustained injuries and were shifted to the hospital. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 21 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:38:25 +0530
16. On the basis of aforesaid complaint charge under Section 308/34 and 307/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons.
17. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined two star witnesses PW1 Hemraj and PW2 Bunty. PW1 Hemraj reiterated the contents of his complaint Ex.PW1/A and PW2 Bunty corroborated his testimony in all material particulars.
18. Besides these two witnesses prosecution also examined the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by them. Crime Team Incharge and Photographer inspected the site.
19. Testimony of all the witnesses read together point towards the guilt of the accused persons. It is alleged by the two star witnesses of the prosecution that they were physically assaulted by accused Narayan and Sonu. However the defence taken by the accused persons is that the injuries sustained by the victims was owing to the fall on the ground. This fact was got verified by them from Dr. Pawan Kumar, PW3.
20. As per the prosecution story the process of investigation was initiated on receipt of DD no.23A, Ex.PW5/A. As per which an information was received from the caller that a quarrel had taken place at Baba Ramdev Mandir, West Patel Nagar. The said address is the residential address of accused Narayan and Sonu.
21. PW1 Hemraj when stepped into the witness box POOJA categorically deposed that he was assaulted firstly while he was TALWAR Digitally signed by SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 22 of 33 POOJA TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:38:37 +0530 at the residence of Bunty by all the three accused persons and thereafter when he reached the house of accused Naryan and Sonu, he alongwith Bunty were physically assaulted by both the brothers.
22. His testimony is corroborated with the testimony of PW2 Bunty who too deposed on same lines as PW1 Hemraj to prove on record that both of them were assaulted by accused Narayan and Sonu. Their testimonies back then dated 22.05.2019 could not be discredited despite extensive cross-examination.
23. It would be pertinent to mention here that both these witnesses were re-summoned on request of accused Chander Thakur and were again brought in the witness box on 29.11.2025 and 31.10.2025 respectively. When these two witnesses appeared again after 6 years deposed that no injury was inflicted by the accused persons. PW1 Hemraj further deposed that he was told by father of Bunty to depose accordingly.
24. PW2 Bunty stated that accused Chander Thakur was not present at the place incident and he did not give any beatings to him.
25. Now the two star witnesses of the prosecution who are also the injured witnesses initially reiterated the story of the prosecution and deposed that the injuries sustained by them were inflicted by accused Narayan and Sonu.
26. Through the MLCs of these two victims it is proved POOJA that the injuries were sustained by them. Though PW1 Hemraj TALWAR Digitally signed SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 23 of 33 by POOJA FIR no. 824/15 TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:38:44 +0530 when came in the witness box after 6 years conceded to the suggestion given by the counsel that no injury was inflicted by the accused persons.
27. It is settled law as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that in case the witness resiles from his previous statement when called upon for cross-examination after a lapse of considerable time his prior testimony has to be scrutinized minutely and not rejected out-rightly when read alongwith his subsequent testimony exonerating the accused persons.
28. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Deepak Vs. State Crl. A. 149/2000 decided on 03.12.2013 that: "Simply because in the cross-examination, the witness turned hostile and did not implicate the accused, the version given in the examination-in-chief recorded on oath on a prior date cannot be disbelieved and discarded. The law is now well settled that merely the witness is declared hostile, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. In Crl.A.No. 432/2010, 'Naresh Kumar vs. State' decided on 04.09.2013, this Court observed:
"18. 1991 Cr.L.J. 2653 (1), Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari V. State of M.P is a direct authority on the point in hand. In that case also, examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded on 16.11.76, when he identified all the assailants by name. His cross- examination commenced on 15.12.76. In that cross-examination, he stated that since the accused had their backs towards him, therefore, he count not see their faces. On the basis of that POOJA statement, it was submitted that evidence regarding identity of TALWAR Digitally signed by SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 24 of 33 POOJA TALWAR FIR no. 824/15 Date: 2025.12.16 14:38:51 +0530 the accused was rendered highly doubtful and it would be hazardous to convict the appellant solely on the basis of identification of such a wavering witness. Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion, which was up held by Hon'ble Apex Court that during one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examination-in-chief, something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. His statement in cross-examination on the question of identification of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief. As such, it was observed that there was no material contradiction to doubt his testimony. It was further observed that evidence of declared hostile is not wholly effaced from record and that part of evidence, which is otherwise acceptable, can be acted upon. Reliance was placed on well settled decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court-Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryans, (1976) 2 SCR 921 : Air 1976 SC 202; Rabinder Kumar Dev v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233: AIR 1977 SC 170 and Sayed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCR 95: AIR 1979 SC 1848-Where it was held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross- examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
19. Substantially, similar view was taken in 2009 (XI) AD SC 125 Alagarsamy& Ors. Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent POOJA TALWAR of Police. In that case also, the witness was declared hostile at Digitally signed the fag end of his cross-examination. The examination-in-chief by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 25 of 33 14:38:59 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 of witness was recorded on 02.04.01 and on the same day he was cross-examined by three defence counsels. Then only later on, on 26.06.01, when he was recalled, he was treated as hostile witness. Hon'ble High Court commented that witness was tried to be won over, after his cross-examination and this comment was approved by Hon'ble Apex Court and it was observed that law is not well settled that merely because witness is declared as hostile witness, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. Reference was made to Syed Akbar Vs. State of Karnatka, 1980 (1) SCC 30, Rabindera Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, 1976 (4) SCC 233 and Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1976 (1) SCC 389."
29. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, if testimony of PW1 Hemraj and PW2 Bunty is discerned it would reveal that both of them corroborated the testimony of each other in all material particulars and categorically stated that they were assaulted by accused Narayan and Sonu when they went to their house at T-235/A-15, Baba Ramdev Mandir.
30. DD Ex.PW5/A when read would show that the call was made with respect to quarrel at Baba Ramdev Mandir. Even PW6 Inspector Rupesh Kumar in his cross-examination mentioned that the spot i.e. the place of incident was a three story building.
31. PW8 HC Pramod Kumar too deposed "I alongwith SI Khalid also reached place of incident i.e. T-235/15A near POOJA TALWAR Baba Ramdev Mandir." No suggestion is given to this witness Digitally signed that no incident took place at T-235/15A (house of the accused by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 26 of 33 14:39:11 +0530 FIR no. 824/15 Narayan and Sonu). Even the other witnesses who joined investigation alongwith IO referred the place of incident as house of the accused Narayan and Sonu. Their testimony with respect to the place of incident remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
32. Now as per the prosecution story two witnesses deposed that they were injured in a brawl at the residence of accused Narayan and Sonu. The place is inspected and photographs are taken. The two accused persons do not deny the place of incident as their residence.
33. Accused Narayan and Sonu neither denied their presence at their residence at the relevant time nor the place of incident as their house. No motive for false implication has been cited by the accused persons.
34. In fact accused Narayan denied the fact that he consumed liquor with PW1 Hemraj after which a quarrel ensued between the two. Accused persons could have easily taken the motive for false implication as the previous quarrel but interestingly they confined the defence to the fact that the injuries were sustained by both the victims due to fall.
35. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC it is stated by all the accused persons that the injuries were sustained by the victims due to fall on the floor. Beyond this it is not explained as to how it came within their knowledge that both the victims fell on the floor and sustained injuries. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 27 of 33 Date: 2025.12.16 14:39:18 +0530 FIR no. 824/15
36. Moreover during arguments it is pointed by counsel for accused persons that it is a false case and even both the parties went to Hon'ble High Court for quashing. On being asked the Ld. counsel stated that the Hon'ble High Court did not allow their petition.
37. Though the accused persons during the cross- examination of PW1 Hemraj when he came after 6 years could bring on record that no accused inflicted any injury but the said testimony would be of any resort to them for the reason the same is vague and clearly made after being won over by the accused persons.
38. This observation is made for the reason that on one hand the presence of victims at their residence is not denied by accused Narayan and Sonu on the other they made Hemraj speak that no injury was caused by them.
39. Ld. counsel for accused persons relied on following judgments stating that in case of circumstantial evidence the guilty of accused persons fully established.
i) Kanan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala decided on 07.03.1979.
ii) Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Nct. of Delhi Crl. Appeal no.918/2024 INSC 211.
iii) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116:1984 INSC 121.
iv) Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 POOJA TALWAR SCC 681: 2006 INSC 691.
Digitally signedv) George Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Crl. Appeal by POOJA TALWAR arising out of SLP (Crl.) no.5902/2021 2024 INSC 974. Date: 2025.12.16 14:39:24 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 28 of 33 FIR no. 824/15
vi) Mohamed Sameer Khan Vs. State presented by Inspector of Police Crl. Appeal no.2069/2024 dated 29.10.2025.
40. Having gone through the judgments, I am of the considered view that these judgments would be of no resort to the accused as the instant case is a case of eye witness/injured. The injured themselves have been brought in the witness box and the direct ocular evidence of the injured is available on record. The case is to be decided on the direct evidence of the eye witness/injured.
41. Now it would also be pertinent to decide presence of Chander Thakur at the time of incident. Accused Chander Thakur has been charged with the offence under Section 308/34 and 307/34 for causing injuries to Hemraj and Bunty on 02.10.2015 at about 7 pm at T-235/15A.
42. In case testimony of two material witnesses is discerned none of them mentioned about presence of Chander Thakur nor stated that they were inflicted with injuries by him. Both the witnesses categorically deposed that Narayan and Sonu assaulted them in their house when they reached the second floor. Witness Bunty denied presence of Chander Thakur at the place of incident.
43. No evidence has been brought on record qua presence of Chander Thakur at the place of incident or he in POOJA connivance with other two accused inflicted injuries on Hemraj TALWAR and Bunty. Prosecution failed to prove his presence. Accordingly Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR offence qua him stands unproved. Date: 2025.12.16 14:40:03 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 29 of 33 FIR no. 824/15
44. Reverting back to the other two accused persons Narayan and Sonu, prosecution through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses has been able to prove that both Narayan and Sonu having common intention to assault victim Hemraj and Bunty inflicted injuries on their person.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it stand proved that accused Narayan and Sonu assaulted victims Hemraj and Bunty.
46. Now the question which needs deliberation is whether they are liable under Section 308/34 IPC for causing injuries to Bunty with iron rod with an intention or knowledge that their act would have caused death of the victim and under Section 307/34 for causing injuries to victim Hemraj with an intention or knowledge that he could have died owing to the injuries sustained by him.
47. In case the MLC of victim Bunty and Hemraj is discerned it would reveal that both the victims sustained simple injuries with blunt weapon. The injuries sustained by Hemraj is on the nipple as well as the back and by Bunty on the frontal area.
48. Pre requisite to prove section 308 IPC and Section POOJA 307 IPC is intention or knowledge and the injuries caused are TALWAR such as are likely to cause death. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16
49. The intention or knowledge on the part of accused is 14:39:29 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 30 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 to be assessed from the manner in which the injuries were caused, the nature of injuries and the specific part of the body where such injuries were sustained. Hence it is difficult to hold that accused persons had intention or knowledge to inflict said injury which was sufficient to cause death and hold them guilty of culpable of homicide or murder.
50. It is proved on record that injuries were sustained by the aforesaid two victims at the hands of accused persons though not with an intention or knowledge to cause death. It is alleged by Hemraj that he was hit with a pointed object but MLC shows blunt injury.
51. Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 307 IPC is not made out.
52. Although, prosecution has failed to prove that offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 307 IPC is made out but in view of Section 222 CrPC when offence proved is included in the offence charged, even if the charged offence is not proved the same would not entail acquittal in case the offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence. Section is reproduced herein under:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged- (1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several POOJA particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a TALWAR complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 14:39:36 +0530 SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 31 of 33 FIR no. 824/15 remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
53. Offence under Section 323 IPC is a minor offence included within Section 308 IPC and Section 307 IPC. Section 323 reproduced herein under:
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.
54. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court it is settled law that for the purpose of Section 323 IPC the nature of injury is critical to determine the liability of the offender. It is also required to be proved that the offence was committed voluntarily with an intention to cause hurt.
55. It has been proved in the preceding paragraphs that POOJA TALWAR the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to victim PW1 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 32 of 33 Date: 2025.12.16 FIR no. 824/15 14:39:44 +0530 Hemraj and PW2 Bunty which is proved through the MLCs of both the victims coupled with the other reliable ocular evidence.
56. Keeping in mind the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion both the accused persons Narayan Singh and Sonu Singh having common intention caused hurt to the victims Bunty and Hemraj Offence under Section 323/34 IPC stands proved against accused Sonu Singh and Narayan Singh for causing hurt to victim Bunty. They are also held liable under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to Hemraj. However, prosecution failed to prove the presence of accused Chander Thakur, hence he is acquitted.
Conclusion:
57. In In view of aforesaid findings, accused persons i.e. Sonu Singh and Narayan Singh are convicted for commission of offence under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to victim Bunty and also convicted under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to victim Hemraj.
58. Accused Chander Thakur is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 308/34 and 307/34 IPC. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.12.16 on 16.12.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, 14:39:53 +0530 Tis Hazari Court, Delhi SC No. 608/18 State. Vs. Sonu Singh & Ors. Page : 33 of 33 FIR no. 824/15