Delhi District Court
State vs Javed Khan Etc. (2) on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Vikas Madaan, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 68598/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLWT020028482013
FIR No. -: 196/2012
Police Station -: Tilak Nagar
Section(s) -: 452/506/509/323/427/34
IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
JAVED KHAN ETC.
.... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Smt. Simranjeet Kaur
1. Javed Khan
2. Name of Accused :
2. Bunty Offence complained of or
3. : 452/506/509/323/427/34 IPC proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 19.05.2012
6. Date of filing of chargesheet : 19.01.2013
7. Date of Reserving Order : 23.12.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2026 Convicted of the offence u/s
9. Final Order : 452/506/323/427/34 IPC & Acquitted of the offence u/s 509 IPC.
Argued by -: Sh. Vakil Ahmad, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Imran Mubeen, Ld. counsel for both accused.
Digitally signed by VIKASVIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2026.01.31 14:24:42 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 1 of 13
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. The case of prosecution is that on 18.05.2012 at about 10:30 PM, at Plot No. 264, First Floor, Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Nagar both accused committed house trespass by entering into the abovementioned house, having made preparations for causing hurt to or assaulting or wrongfully restraining complainant Smt. Simranjeet Kaur and her husband or to put them in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint, and that you have thereby committed offence punishable U/s 452/34 IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, on the abovementioned date, time and place both accused in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal intimidation by threatening complainant Smt. Simranjeet Kaur of death to complainant and her husband and intending to insult the modesty of the complainant Smt. Simranjeet Kaur uttered some abusive language and also caused injury to her, and thereby both accused committed the offence u/s 506/509/323/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, both in furtherance of your common intention, committed mischief and thereby caused loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards (breaking the household articles such as T.V., washing machine etc.), and thereby both accused are alleged to have committed offence punishable U/s 427/34 IPC.Digitally signed by VIKAS
VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2026.01.31 14:24:46 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 2 of 13 INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused persons were summoned to face trial.
3. On their appearance, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charges were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE Smt. Simranjeet Kaur (to prove his PW-1 :
complaint)
Sh. Harminder Singh @ Dimpi (to prove
PW-2 :
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC)
Dr. Udai Kumar (to prove MLC of
PW-3 :
complainant)
PW-4 : Ct. Anil Kumar (to prove his statement)
PW-5 : ASI Dharambir (to prove DD No.54A)
PW-6 : ASI Kaiphool (to prove his statement)
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS
MADAAN
MADAAN Date: 2026.01.31
14:24:51 +0530
Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 3 of 13
PW-7 : HC Jai Ram (to prove FIR)
SI Pradeep Rathi (to prove tehrir and
PW-8 :
statement of complainant)
Insp. Basant Kumar (to prove arrest
memo, personal search, disclosure
PW-9 :
statement of accused Javed Khan and
Bunty, pointing out memo,
SI Ajay Pratap Bhatt (to prove site plan PW-10 :
and seizure memo of base ball)
Sh. Deshraj, Record Clerk (to prove
PW-11 :
MLC of complainant)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW-1/A : Statement of Complainant
Ex. PW-1/C : Seizure memo
Ex. PW-2/A : Arrest memo of accused
Ex. PW-2/B : Arrest memo of accused
Ex. PW-2/C : Personal search memo of accused
Ex. PW-2/D : Personal search memo of accused
Ex. PW-3/A : MLC
Ex.PW-5/A
: DD No.54A
(OSR)
Ex. PW-6/A &
: Disclosure statements of accused persons B Ex. PW-7/A : FIR (OSR) Ex. PW-7/B : Endorsement on Rukka Ex. PW-8/A : Tehrir Ex. PW-8/B : Case property Ex. P1 to P12 : Photographs Ex. X-1 : Case property STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -
5. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: 2026.01.31 14:24:56 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 4 of 13 recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. Both the accused persons have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They even do not know the complainant. All the witnesses have deposed against them at the instance of complainant and IO. They are innocent. Thereafter, accused persons closed their DE without leading any evidence.
ARGUMENTS -
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that the testimony of the eyewitnesses has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses, which renders the prosecution version doubtful. It has been further submitted that prosecution has not examined any independent witness nor efforts were made to examine Ms. Rano and Ms. Bawa Didi despite the fact that complainant categorically named them as persons present after the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that Afzal and Sanu were neither named as Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: 2026.01.31 14:25:00 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 5 of 13 accused nor any investigation was carried out against them. It is further stated that IO has even failed to take the fingerprints of the accused persons from the recovered baseball bat allegedly used by them and thus, there is nothing on record which connects the fact that the alleged baseball bat was used by the accused persons. It has been further argued that the recovery of case property has been planted and the same has not been recovered from the accused persons. It is further stated that the complainant has acted with an ulterior motive to frame the accused persons in the present FIR. Therefore, prayer is made to acquit the accused persons.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCES -
9. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, it is imperative to refer to the definition of the offences charged against the accused persons. For a better understanding, relevant sections of the IPC involved in the present case are reproduced as follows:
Section 452 IPC - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 506 IPC- Criminal intimidation
(i) threatening a person with any injury: (a) to his person, reputation or property; or (b) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested; and (ii) the threat must be with intent: (a) to cause alarm to that person; or (b) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as means of avoiding execution of such threat; or (c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as means of avoiding execution of such threat.Digitally signed by VIKAS
MADAAN VIKAS Date:
MADAAN 2026.01.31 14:25:05 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 6 of 13 Section 509 IPC - Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
Section 427 IPC - Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 323 IPC - 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.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE -
10. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the star witness, PW-1 (Smt Simranjeet Kaur). PW-1 is not only the sole eye witness but also the complainant/injured himself who has been cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses. In her examination in chief, PW-1 deposed that she called a boy namely Shanu who was running a beauty parlor for the purpose of hair cutting and re-bonding etc at her house. She further deposed that Shanu told her that he is sending his brother Afzal for the purpose of hair cutting and re-bonding etc. She further deposed that, on that day the charges of the services was Rs.6800/- and she told him to come after two to three days to collect the said amount as on that day she has no money to pay him. She further deposed that on 17.05.2012, at about 10.30 pm, Shanu came to her house to collect the money and he told to her husband that her husband has to pay Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2026.01.31 14:25:10 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 7 of 13 the aforementioned amount to Javed financier and her husband told him that her husband is known to Javed and he will talk to Javed. She further deposed that, her husband talked to accused Javed on phone and Javed abused her husband and her husband also abused him on phone. She further deposed that on 18.05.2012, Javed, Bunty and two other boys came to the house of complainant and they have bats and sticks etc. in their hand and they pushed the door of complainant's house and entered into her house forcibly and started abusing her. She further deposed that they enquired from the complainant about her husband but he was not present in the house at that time. The accused persons namely Javed and Bunty started breaking the articles of complainant's house and they have broken T.V., Washing machine and other articles. She further deposed that she shouted for help, in the meanwhile, they pushed the complainant and she sustained injury on her head and they threatened to kill her and her husband.
11. The testimony of the complainant prove the version/prosecution since complainant's/PW1 testimony clearly mentions that accused persons have forcefully entered into the house of complainant alongwith baseball bat with an intention to hurt the complainant and pushed her and damaged the articles of her house and also broken T.V., washing machine and other articles.
PW-1 has also correctly identified Ex. P1 to P12 i.e. the photographs of her damaged goods. The value of the said goods are clearly more than INR 50/-. Complainant has also established by her ocular evidence that she was pushed by the accused persons and she was also medically examined and MLC vide Ex. PW-3/A was Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN VIKAS Date:
MADAAN 2026.01.31 14:25:15 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 8 of 13 prepared which shows that the complainant was taken to hospital after the alleged occurrence. Complainant has also established that accused persons have threatened to kill her and her husband. Accordingly, the ingredients of section 452 IPC, 323 IPC, 506 IPC, 427 IPC r/w 34 IPC are duly fulfilled. However, sofar as the ingredients of offence u/s 509 IPC is concerned, PW-1 has not deposed in her testimony that accused persons have made any gestures, indecent remarks or any verbal harassment intentionally to outrage her modesty. Testimony of PW-1 is conspicuously silent about usage of any such word or remarks or gestures made by the accused persons to the complainant.
12. It is a settled position of law that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded greater value in law, due to the reason that such a witness would seldom implicate someone falsely and let the real culprit go scot-free. In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its earlier judgments reiterated that special evidentiary status should be accorded to an injured witness. Relevant part of the judgement is reproduced as under:
28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN VIKAS Date:
MADAAN 2026.01.31 14:25:20 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 9 of 13 that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.
13. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness in the following words:
26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
14. Accordingly, it is a settled position in law that the testimony of an injured witness is a highly corroborative piece of evidence. Unless 'highly compelling circumstances' are established on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, which cast a reasonable doubt over the statement of the injured witness, such statement can be safely relied upon by the Courts to convict the Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: 2026.01.31 14:25:25 +0530 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 10 of 13 accused. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 needs to be accorded great weight considering the fact that she is an injured witness.
15. Accordingly, based on the aforesaid position of law, the accused persons were required to highlight/bring on record major contradictions/discrepancies in the version of the complainant casting a reasonable doubt over the statement of the injured witness in order to establish their case for acquittal. In order to show the same, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the IO has failed to take the statement of any independent witness and no fingerprints were collected from the alleged baseball bat.
16. This court finds this argument to be without any merits because the sole eye-witness of the present case has duly deposed about the incident and the participation of both the accused persons in committing the offences. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that independent witnesses were present there, it is pertinent to note that it is not uncommon for independent members of public to be reluctant to become witnesses in criminal proceedings. In fact, this exact contention was dealt in detail and rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2000) 2 SCC 646:
12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is a known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2026.01.31 Cr. Case 68598/2016 14:25:29 +0530 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 11 of 13 be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses.
17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of UP v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998, has held that public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court and that it is not correct to reject the prosecution version for want of corroboration by independent witnesses:
15. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version.
The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Bihari Maiti v. Matangini Dasi [AIR 1919 PC 157 : 24 Cal WN 626] the Privy Council had this to say (at p. 628):
"That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants ....to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence."
18. Therefore, lack of joining of public witnesses cannot be termed as major discrepancy which can negative the testimony of the PW1/complainant.
Digitally
signed by
Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 12 of 13
VIKAS
VIKAS MADAAN
MADAAN Date:
2026.01.31
14:25:34
+0530
-:CONCLUSION:-
19. To conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of complainant is cogent and convincing. There is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the version given by the complainant. Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Consequently, accused Javed Khan S/o Mohd. Yamin Khan and Bunty S/o Mohd. Sikander Khan are hereby CONVICTED of the offences punishable under section 452/323/427/506(ii) IPC. However, both accused are acquitted of the offence u/s 509 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2026 in presence of the accused. 2026.01.31 14:25:38 This judgment contains 13 pages, and each page has been signed by the +0530 undersigned.
(VIKAS MADAAN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-07 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi/31.01.2026 Cr. Case 68598/2016 State v. Javed Khan Etc. Page 13 of 13