Delhi District Court
State vs Ankur Etc. (2) on 28 March, 2025
THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-009329-2018
SC No. 684/2018
FIR No. 361/2017
PS Mahendra Park
U/s: 308/325/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. ANKUR
S/o Sh. Baldev Raj,
R/o A-1618, A-Block, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
2. RAKESH KUMAR @ RINKU,
S/o Sh. Jang Bahadur,
R/o A-1617-18, A-Block, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
Date of institution : 31.08.2018
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 26.09.2018
Date of institution in Sessions Court : 08.10.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of prosecution are that on receipt of DD No.13A dated 11.10.2017, IO / SI Raj Kumar along with HC Bharat Lal reached at the place of occurrence i.e., A-1579, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where on inquiry, SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 1 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 16:58:35 they were informed that a quarrel had taken place between the neighbors and the injured persons have been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR Vehicle. No eye- witness of the incident was found available at the spot. Thereafter, SI Raj Kumar along with HC Bharat Lal reached at BJRM Hospital where IO obtained MLC No.142996/17 of injured Sh. Kishan Pal whereupon doctor opined the injury to be simple and MLC No.142997/17 of injured Ms. Jyoti whereupon doctor mentions the nature of injury O/R. Statements of complainant Sh. Kishan Pal was recorded by SI Raj Kumar.
2. Complainant Sh. Kishan Pal S/o Sh. Hansraj stated in his statement that he was residing at A-1579, Jahangir Puri, Delhi with his family and he is working with a property dealer. That on 10.10.2017 i.e.,, yesterday when he (complainant) had parked his motorcycle in front of house of his neighbor Ankur, Nana (Maternal Grandfather) of accused Ankur asked him not to park his motorcycle in front of his neighbors house to which he stated to Ankur's Nana Sh. Darshan Lal that he had not parked his motorcycle in front of his house, however, he was ready to moved the same from there and the quarrel ended there itself. Thereafter, on 11.10.2017, at about 9:30 am, when he was getting ready for his office, at that time, accused Ankur called him down stairs and at that time, Ankur's relative accused Rakesh @ Rinku was also standing there. Accused Ankur told complainant 'Tu Raat Ko Mere Nana Ke Saat Behas Baaji Kyun Kar Raha Tha ' and thereafter, both the accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku started giving slaps to him. When he raised alarm, his wife also reached there at the spot. Accused Ankur took an iron rod (Chadi) having handle which SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 2 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 was lying nearby and gave a blow from it on his head due to which he sustained injuries. When his wife Ms. Jyoti came to rescue Complainant, she was also beaten with the same Chadi due to which she also sustained injuries on her left hand.
3. On the basis of statement given by Complainant Sh. Kishan Pal, the present FIR was registered for the offence punishable under section 308/323/34 IPC. Site plan of the occurrence was prepared at the instance of complainant. Both accused persons were arrested at the instance of complainant. Weapon of offence i.e., Chadi was seized. Thereafter, doctor opined on MLC No.142997/17 (of injured Jyoti) that the injury sustained by her is found to be "Grievous", therefore, the offence punishable under section 325 IPC was added in the present FIR case. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku was filed for the offences punishable under section 308/323/325/34 IPC in the Court of concerned Ld. MM.
4. After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
5. Arguments on the point of charge were heard. As prima facie case was made out, charge for the offences punishable under section 308/325/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku vide order dated 17.12.2018, to which, both the accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 3 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution evidence.
6. In order to prove its case against accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses namely PW-1 Kishan Lal, PW-2 Ms. Jyoti, PW-3 ASI Bhrat Lal, PW-4 Retired Brij Mohan, PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav, CMO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, PW-6 Dr. Deepak, CMO, BJRM Hospital and PW-7 Retired SI Raj Kumar. It would be appropriate to have glance at the depositions made by above-named three prosecution witnesses examined by prosecution as under:-
7. PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal is the victim / complainant on whose statement the present FIR has been registered. Apart from identifying both accused persons, he has deposed that in the month of October-2017, he was residing at House No.1579, A-Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi with his family and he was working with a property dealer. He further deposed that on 10.10.2017, Sh. Darshan Lal who is maternal grandfather of Ankur had asked him not to park his motorcycle in front of his house, though the same was not parked in front of his house but still he changed the position of his motorcycle and parked it in front of his house on his asking.
PW-1 further deposed that on 11.10.2017, at about 9:30 am, when he was getting ready for his office, accused Ankur called him down stairs while hurling abuses. He further deposed that he went down stairs and asked accused Ankur as to why he was hurling abuses and that he would talk to him later on as he had to go to his office. He further deposed that on which accused Ankur slapped on his SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 4 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 face. He further deposed that accused Rakesh was also standing with accused Ankur. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Rakesh hit with fist on his chest. He further deposed that Sh. Darshan Lal was also sitting in front of his house with metal Chhadi. He further deposed that wife of accused Rakesh took Chhadi from the hand of Sh Darshan Lal and handed over the same to accused Ankur and accused Ankur hit with said Chhadi on his head. He further deposed that he raised noise on which his wife, who was cooking the meal, came down stairs to save him. He further deposed that when she tried to save him, accused Ankur and Rakesh started beating his wife and accused Ankur also hit his wife with Chhadi. He further deposed that accused Rakesh twisted the hand of his wife as a result of which she sustained fractured in her left hand. He further deposed that he made a call at 100 number. He further deposed that PCR van came to the spot and took him and his wife to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital, police recorded his statement.
PW-1 identified case property i.e., one metal Chhadi as Ex.P-1 as the same with which accused Ankur hit on his head. PW-1 further deposed that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police. He further deposed that on 11.10.2017, both the accused were arrested by the police. He further deposed that due to the head injury, vision of his eyes have deteriorated.
During cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that that he was not called by accused Ankur on 11.10.2017 or that he had not come down stairs on calling of accused Ankur or that no injuries had been caused to him or to his wife by any of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused were present at the spot at the time of incident. He denied the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 5 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 16:58:57 +0530 suggestion that his wife is a quarrelsome person or that she use to quarrel with neighbors on petty issues and had quarreled with a number of neighbors. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident also his wife had quarreled with Sh. Darshan Lal, Nana of accused Ankur and had abused him. He denied the suggestion that lot of neighbors had collected at the spot at the time of incident. He voluntarily deposed that neighbors remained confined in their houses. He further deposed that due to incident, he got perplexed and could not noticed as to whether any person had passed through the gali during that time.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had tried to stop his wife from misbehaving with Sh. Darshan Lal or that on this, she started quarreling with him or that in that quarrel, he and his wife sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case by her and his wife only to extort money from them.
8. PW-2 Ms. Jyoti is also an eye-witness and victim in the present FIR case. In her examination-in-chief, she has correctly identified both the accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rink. She has deposed that in the month of October 2017, she alongwith her family used to reside at 1579, A-block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. She further deposed that on 10.10.2017, his husband Sh. Krishan Lal parked his bike in front of H.No. 1618, A-Block, which was in neighborhood. She further deposed that Nana of house owner of that person asked her husband to remove the bike from there and on her husband removed his bike from there. She further deposed that thereafter, she went to her job (she used to take care of patients at their house) and returned to her house at around SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 6 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:02 6.30 a.m next date.
PW-2 further deposed that on 11.10.2017 at around 8/8.30 a.m, accused Ankur called her husband from outside their house. She further deposed that they were residing at first floor and on calling of accused Ankur, her husband went down stairs. She further deposed that accused Ankur asked from her husband as to what had happened on the previous evening between her husband and Nana of Ankur. She further deposed that during conversation, accused Ankur started abusing her husband. She further deposed that she also heard heated altercation and she also came down stairs. She further deposed that when she came down stairs she saw that accused Ankur and another accused Rakesh were giving beatings to her husband. She further deposed that accused Ankur was having some iron object in his hands with which he hit her husband on his head due to which her husband sustained injuries on his head and he fell down on the ground. She further deposed that when she tried to rescue her husband, both the accused persons also gave beatings to her due to which she sustained injuries in her back, on her head and fracture injury in her left hand wrist. She further deposed that she shouted for help. She further deposed that some one made a call at 100 number. She further deposed that police reached at the spot and took her and her husband to BJRM hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. She further deposed that subsequently, IO of this case met her and recorded her statement.
During cross-examination, PW-2 denied the suggestion that her husband was not called by accused Ankur on 11.10.2017 or that her husband had not come down stairs on calling of accused Ankur or that no injuries had been caused to her husband or to her by any of the accused persons. She further denied the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 7 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 suggestion that none of the accused was present at the spot at the time of incident or that she is deposing falsely in this regard. She further denied the suggestion that she is a quarrelsome person or that she used to quarrel with neighbors on petty issues and had quarreled with a number of neighbors. She further denied the suggestion that on the day of incident also, she had quarreled with Sh. Darshan Lal, Nana of accused Ankur and had abused him. She further denied the suggestion that a lot of neighbors had collected at the spot at the time of incident. She voluntarily deposed that Neighbors remained confined in their houses and kept on watching. She further deposed that due to incident, she got perplexed and could not noticed as to whether any person had passed through the gali during that time. She denied the suggestion that her husband had tried to stop her from misbehaving with Sh. Darshan Lal or that on this, she started quarreling with her husband or that in that quarrel, she and her husband sustained injuries. She denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case by her and her husband only to extort money from them.
9. PW-3 ASI Bharat Lal had gone to the spot along with IO and he has assisted the IO at the spot during the course of investigation. He is also the witness of the arrest of accused persons. He has testified on the lines of prosecution version and he has materially corroborated, the testimony of IO / SI Raj Kumar (PW-7). He has identified his signatures on the writing work prepared by IO such as seizure memo, arrest memo, personal search memo etc.
10. PW-4 Retired SI Brij Mohan has deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 8 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:14 posted at P.S Mahendra Park as ASI and was working as MHC(M). He further deposed that on that day, SI Raj Kumar had deposited one iron rod wrapped with a piece of cloth which was stitched in the Malkhana relating to the present case. He further deposed that he made entry in this regard in register no. 19 serial no. 1719/17 in this regard. He further deposed that on 01.08.2018 the said pullanda was taken by IO to BJRM Hospital and on the same day deposited the same back in the Malkhana. He further deposed that he had made entry in this regard. He has proved on record original record as Ex. PW 4/A (OSR).
11. PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav has deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was working as CMO in BJRM Hospital. He has deposed that on that day, patients namely Jyoti W/o Kishan Lal, aged 40 years female and Kishan Lal S/o Hans Raj, age about 52 years were brought to casualty of the above-said Hospital by PCR officials with alleged history of physical assault. He further deposed that Dr. Ashish, JR who has left the Hospital and whose present whereabouts are not known to the Hospital, examined both the patients/injured persons under his supervision and prepared MLCs in his handwriting and the same are Ex. PW5/A & Ex. PW5/B bearing signatures of Dr. Ashish at point 'A' and that of his at point 'B'. He further deposed that after the medical examination, patient Jyoti was referred to Ortho Department for further treatment and management. He further deposed that as per record, the nature of injury is grievous on the MLC of patient/injured Jyoti and injury was opined as simple on the MLC of Kishan Lal. He further deposed that he had identified the signature of Dr. Ashish, JR as he had worked with him and seen him while signing and writing during the course SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 9 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 of his official duties.
12. PW-6 Dr. Deepak deposed that he has been deputed by MS of the BJRM Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Akash Rajesh, SR Ortho, who had left the Hospital and whose present whereabouts are not known to him. He deposed that he can identify his signature and handwriting as he had worked with him and seen him while signing and writing during the course of his official duties. He further deposed that the endorsement made at point 'X' on MLC Ex. PW5/A is in handwriting of Dr. Akash Rajesh & his signature at point 'C' on MLC Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that Dr. Akash Rajesh had opined nature of injury of patient Jyoti as grievous.
13. PW-7 Retired SI Raj Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present FIR. He has narrated all steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as SI. He further deposed that on that day, on receipt of DD No.31A , he alongwith HC Bharat Lal reached at the place of incident i.e., H. No. A-1579, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he came to know that injured had already been rushed to BJRM Hospital by PCR Van. He again said that on DD no.13A, he reached at the spot. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith HC Bharat Lal reached at BJRM Hospital, where injured Kishan Lal and Jyoti W/o Kishan Lal were found admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that he collected the MLC of injured Kishan Lal and Jyoti W/o. Kishan Lal. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Kishan Lal in the hospital as Ex.PW1/A . He further deposed that he attested the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 10 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 statement of injured Kishan Lal at point C. He further deposed that Jyoti wife of Sh. Kishan Lal had also signed the statement. He further deposed that in his statement injured Kishan Lal specifically mentioned the role of accused Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared rukka as Ex.PW7/A and sent HC Bharat Lal to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Kishan Lal and Jyoti were discharged from the hospital on the same day and thereafter, he alongwith Kishan Lal and Jyoti came at the spot. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, HC Bharat Lal came at the spot and handed over to him the original rukka and computerized copy of FIR. He further deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of Kishan Lal which is Ex.PW7/B. He further deposed that accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku were standing at the spot, both the accused persons were correctly identified by injured Kishan Lal by stating that they are the same persons who had caused injuries to him and his wife. He further deposed that he with the help of HC Bharat Lal overpowered both the accused persons. He further deposed that both the accused persons were duly interrogated and thereafter they were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/D. He further deposed that their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/E. He further deposed that their disclosure statements were also recorded in his presence vide memos Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G. He further deposed that one metal stick was found at the spot, the same was kept in white cloth prepared pullanda and duly sealed with the seal of RK and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 11 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that in their disclosure statements both the accused persons disclosed that they had caused the injuries to Kishan Lal and his wife namely Jyoti by using the metal stick found at the spot. PW-7 correctly identified both accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku. He further deposed that both the accused persons were medically examined at BJRM Hospital and were produced before Ld. MM and thereafter they were sent to Judicial Custody. He further deposed that he obtained opinion as to nature of injury on the MLC of both injured persons. He further deposed that concerned doctor opined nature of injuries on the MLC of injured Jyoti as grievous and on the MLC of injured Kishan Lal as simple. He further deposed that he also added section 325 IPC and recorded statement of witnesses. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court through SHO.
PW-7 identified case property i.e, one metal stick (CHHADI/छडी) as Ex. P-1.
During his cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that the place of incident is thickly populated area. He further deposed that the place of incident is a gali and it is about 7-8 feet in width. He further admitted that there were houses in the gali in front of each other. He further deposed that in the gali, people used to park their scooter, motorcycles etc. in front of their houses. He further deposed that no CCTV Cameras were installed at the place of incident. He further deposed that no one had given any video of the incident. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of any independent person/neighborers except the injured persons. He further deposed that accused persons have not been arrested in the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 12 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:40 presence of independent person. He admitted that when he had recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons, no independent person was present there. He further deposed that when he had reached the hospital injured Kishan Lal and his wife Jyoti were found admitted there. He further deposed that no independent person was with them in the hospital. He further deposed that he did not verify the allegation of injured Kishan Lal from the independent person in the locality.
PW-7 denied the suggestion that injured Kishan Lal and Jyoti had given a false statement that is why he did not verify the allegations of statement of injured. He further denied the suggestion that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons on his own and no such statement was given by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that complainant Kishan Lal had lodged a false complaint against the accused persons in order to extort money from them. He further denied the suggestion that on the alleged date of incident complainant Kishan Lal and his wife Jyoti had quarreled each other and no such incident had occurred with them as alleged by the accused persons and thereafter, they made a false and concocted story. He further denied the suggestion that complainant Kishan Lal and his wife Jyoti disturbed the public peace. He further denied the suggestion that he did shoddy investigation.
14. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to both the accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku and their separate statements were recorded u/s 313 Cr..PC., wherein they denied the case of prosecution and claimed false implication.
SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 13 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
However, both of them wished to lead defence evidence.
15. In their Defence Evidence, both accused persons have examined Sh. Gaurav Kumar as DW-1. DW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar has deposed that he has been residing at the above-said address since 2006. He deposed that in the 1600 wali Gali, Complainant Kishan Lal and his wife Jyoti were also residing. He further deposed that in the said 1600 wali Gali, Sh. Darshan Lal and accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku were also residing. He further deposed that he know all the abovesaid persons very well. He further deposed that the date was about 11 October, 2017 at about 09.00-10.00 am. He further deposed that he was present in the 1600 wali gali and at the distance of 4-5 houses away from the house of the complainant Kishan Lal. He further deposed that he saw that the wife of Sh. Kishan Lal had picked a walking stick and hit on the head of complainant Sh. Kishan Lal. He further deposed that the said stick was snatched from Sh. Darshan Lal, aged about 65 Years, who was sitting in front of house. He further deposed that after that he saw that quarrel had taken place between the complainant Kishan Lal and his wife and they were beating each other by fist. He further deposed that he does not know as to why the wife of the complainant had hit him on his head or both were quarreling with each other. He further deposed that complainant and his wife used to quarrel with each other regularly. He admitted that due to the conduct of the wife of complainant and due to her abuses, whole neighborhood was disturbed. He admitted that 1600 wali gali is narrow. He further deposed that motorcycles were parked in the said narrow gali and due to parking of the motorcycles in the said gali, wife of the SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 14 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 complainant used to hurl abuses to the neighbors. He further deposed that when complainant Kishan Lal was trying to pacify his wife Jyoti, she started beating him by stick and fists. He further deposed that some other neighbors were also present at that place and they were trying to pacify the complainant and his wife. He further deposed that he along with his neighbors had given complaint to the police against wife of complainant Kishan Lal.
A complaint whereupon DD entry 38B dated 17.10.2017 at 06.00 PM at PS Mahendra Park was mentioned was shown to DW-1 and he admitted his signature on the same. He further deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 11.10.2017, accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku were not present at the place of incident and they had not beaten the complainant.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl PP for state, DW-1 deposed that he has been knowing the complainant Kishan Lal since 2006 upto 2017. He voluntarily deposed that after 1-2 years of the incident, he left the said gali. He further deposed that his house is at the distance of 4-5 houses from the house of the complainant. He further deposed that complainant was not knowing her, only he was knowing the complainant. He further deposed that he was not having any visiting term with the complainant. He admitted that they had given the complaint to the concerned SHO, PS Mahendra Park after the incident. He further deposed that he had not seen any previous quarrel of accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh with the complainant. He admitted that he was not the eye witness of the kaha-suni between complainant Kishan Pal and Darshan Lal who is Nana of accused Ankur on 10.10.2017. He denied the suggestion that accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh and quarrel with complainant on SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 15 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 11.10.2017 at about 09.30 am on the pretext of kaha suni happened between the complainant and Darshan Lal or that at that time, accused persons had slapped him and when his wife Jyoti came to rescue, accused Ankur had hit on the head of the complainant by iron stick. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot or that he had not seen the actual incident reported to the police on 11.10.2017 or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he had concocted a false story involving complainant and his wife in order to save the accused persons who were present at the spot and had beaten the complainant and his wife. Thereafter, both accused persons closed Defence evidence on 25.10.2024 and the matter was fixed up for final arguments.
16. The Court has heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for accused persons and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
17. To prove the case against accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku, the prosecution was obliged to prove that on 11.10.2017 at about 09:30 AM, in the street in front of A-1579, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries over the mid parietal region and on the left forearm of complainant Sh. Kishan Lal with an iron Chhadi with handle with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that both of them, by their said act, had caused the death of Kishan Lal, both the accused persons would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Prosecution was also obliged to prove that SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 16 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Smt. Jyoti W/o Sh. Kishan Lal.
18. In the present case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses, out of which two are eye witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal is the complainant / victim on whose statement the present FIR has been registered. PW-1 has narrated the incident frame by frame in his deposition. It has come in his testimony that on 11.10.2017, at about 9:30 am, when he was getting ready for his office, accused Ankur called him down stairs while hurling abuses and he went down stairs and asked accused Ankur as to why he was hurling abuses and that he would talk to him later on as he had to go to his office. It has further come in his testimony that on which accused Ankur slapped on his face and accused Rakesh, who was standing with accused Ankur, hit with fist on his chest. He has further deposed that Sh. Darshan Lal was also sitting in front of his house with metal Chhadi and that wife of accused Rakesh took Chhadi from the hand of Sh Darshan Lal and handed over the same to accused Ankur. He has further deposed that accused Ankur hit with said Chhadi on his head and he raised noise on which his wife, who was cooking the meal, came down stairs to save him. He has further deposed that when she tried to save him, accused Ankur and Rakesh started beating his wife and accused Ankur also hit his wife with Chhadi. He further deposed that accused Rakesh twisted the hand of his wife as a result of which she sustained fractured in her left hand. Thus, he has given vivid account of the events occurred at the time of incident in question.
SUSHIL SC No. 684/2018 FIR No. 361/2017 State Vs Ankur & Anr. KUMAR Page 17 of 21 PS Mahendra Park Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.03.28 17:00:07 +0530
19. The second eye-witness Ms. Jyoti is a victim in the present FIR case. She is wife of complainant Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1). She has testified on the lines of prosecution story and she has materially corroborated the testimony of her husband Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1). It has come in the testimony of PW-2 that on 11.10.2017 at around 8/8.30 a.m, accused Ankur called her husband from outside their house and on calling of accused Ankur, her husband went down stairs. She further deposed that accused Ankur asked from her husband as to what had happened on the previous evening between her husband and Nana of Ankur. She further deposed that during conversation, accused Ankur started abusing her husband. She further deposed that she also heard heated altercation and she also came down stairs. She further deposed that when she came down stairs she saw that accused Ankur and another accused Rakesh were giving beatings to her husband. She further deposed that accused Ankur was having some iron object in his hands with which he hit her husband on his head due to which her husband sustained injuries on his head and he fell down on the ground. She further deposed that when she tried to rescue her husband, both the accused persons also gave beatings to her due to which she sustained injuries in her back, on her head and fracture injury in her left hand wrist. Thus from the from the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal and PW-2 Ms. Jyoti, it is clearly established by the prosecution that accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku had made an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Complainant/victim Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1) by causing injury on his vital part i.e., over mid parital region of his head with an iron Chadi due to which he had fallen on the ground. It has further come in the testimony of Sh. Kishan Lal SC No. 684/2018 Digitally State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 18 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 signed by PS Mahendra Park SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:12 +0530 (PW-1) and Ms. Jyoti (PW-2) that both accused persons had also attacked Ms. Jyoti wife of Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1) and caused grievous injury to her.
20. Prosecution has also examined PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav and PW-6 Dr. Deepak to prove the injuries sustained by PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal and PW-2 Ms. Jyoti. PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav has deposed that on 11.10.2017, Dr. Ashish had examined patients namely Ms. Jyoti and Sh. Kishan Lal under his supervision.
He has further deposed that after medical examination, patient Ms. Jyoti was referred to Ortho Department for further treatment and management and as per record, the nature of injury sustained by her is grievous. He has further deposed that injuries sustained by Sh. Kishan Lal was simple in nature. He has identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ashish who had left the hospital and whose present whereabouts were not known. Further, Dr. Deepak came into the witness box to identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Akash Rajesh who had also left the hospital and whose present whereabouts are not known. He has deposed that the endorsement made at point X on MLC Ex. PW5/A was made by Dr. Akash Rajesh and he had opined the nature of injury of patient Ms. Jyoti as grievous. Perusal of the MLC bearing No.142996 of patient Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1) shows that on observation, it was found by doctor that he was having the following injuries:- (i) Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm over left forearm (ii) CLW 05 x 02 cm over mid parital region. The said injury caused by accused persons to PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal is found to be given on vital part i.e., head. Further, it has come in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that after getting said injury, PW-1 Sh. Kishan lal had fallen down on the ground. It has also come in the testimony of PW-1 Sh.
SC No. 684/2018 FIR No. 361/2017 SUSHIL State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 19 of 21PS Mahendra Park KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.03.28 Kishan Lal that vision of his eyes has been deteriorated due to the said injury. Both the eye-witnesses have been cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel, however, nothing damaging their veracity could be elicited in their cross-examination. The testimonies of eye-witnesses is found to be reliable and credit-worthy.
21. The police witnesses i.e., PW-3 ASI Bharat Lal and PW-2 SI Raj Kumar have testified on the lines of prosecution story and both of them have corroborated the testimony of each other in material particulars. Nothing damaging the credit-worthiness of any of said witnesses has come in their cross- examination. The accused persons have examined a defence witness namely DW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar in their defence. DW-1 has deposed that complainant Sh. Darshan Lal was beaten by his wife and he sustained injury due to the same. However, the version of defence witness DW-1 Sh. Gaurav Kumar does not appear to be true and his testimony seems to be unreliable, therefore, the facts stated by him in his testimony are liable to be discarded.
22. After considering the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal and PW-2 Ms. Jyoti coupled with the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav, PW-6 Dr. Deepak and IO PW-7 SI Raj Kumar, there is no iota of doubt that the prosecution has been successful in establishing on record that accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku, in furtherance of their common intention, had made an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Complainant Sh. Kishan Lal (PW-1) by inflicting injuries on his head with a iron Chhadi and Digitally signed by SC No. 684/2018 SUSHIL State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 20 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017 PS Mahendra Park SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:22 +0530 also caused grievous injuries to Ms. Jyoti (PW-2) and ran away from the spot. From the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Inderpal Yadav and PW-6 Dr. Deepak, it has been established by the prosecution that PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal had sustained injuries on his head and PW-2 Ms. Jyoti had got grievous injury. The testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal, PW-2 Ms. Jyoti and other prosecution witnesses examined in the present case is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku.
23. In the light of above discussion, this Court is of view that both accused the accused persons namely Ankur and Rakesh Kumar @ Rinku are guilty for the offence punishable u/s 308/325/34 IPC and they are accordingly convicted for the same. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.03.28 17:00:27 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sushil Kumar)
on 28th of March, 2025. Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 684/2018 State Vs Ankur & Anr. Page 21 of 21 FIR No. 361/2017PS Mahendra Park