Delhi District Court
State vs Shamsher Singh on 18 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
Sessions case No. 524/18
CNR No. DLSW01-013486-2018
FIR No. 180/17
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar
BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18
17:11:06
Charge-sheet filed under Sections U/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC
+0530
& 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act
r/w/s 34 IPC
Charges framed against all the 323/325/341/509/34 IPC &
accused person u/S 3 (1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act
r/w/s 34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Shamsher Singh
S/o Sh. Hargyan Singh
R/o B-106, Sultan Garden,
Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
2. Rekha
W/o Sh. Shamsher Singh
R/o B-106, Sultan Garden,
Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Jagjeet @ Nile
S/o Sh. Hargyan Singh
R/o H. No. 16, Sultan Garden,
Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
4. Urmila Devi @ Nitesh
W/o Sh. Jagjeet @ Nile
R/o A-106, Sultan Garden,
Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 1 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
5. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Hargyan Singh
R/o A-106B, Sultan Garden,
Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
6. Mukesh
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
Digitally
R/o A-106B, Sultan Garden,
signed by
SHIVALI Main Nangloi Road, Najafgarh,
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: New Delhi.
2025.09.18
17:11:02
+0530
Date of Institution of case 11.12.2017
Date of case received to Sessions 13.07.2018
Court
Date of Arguments 06.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on 18.09.2025
Decision Conviction u/s 323/325/
341/34 IPC and acquittal
u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA)
Act
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.09.2017 complainant 'R' (name withheld to conceal her identity) gave her statement which is as under: -
"... On 25.08.2017 at about 6:20 P.M, I was at home with my family and my brother 'S' was coming home after leaving his children for tuition. When my brother was parking his motorcycle on the road in front of the house, the neighbors namely Shamsher, Ashok, Nile, and their wife namely Rekha, Mukesh and Nitesh beat my brother with sticks and abused him. Later, when I and my family came out of the house to save 'S', they also beat us and abused us. Ashok hit my hand with an iron pipe due to which I got injured. Legal action should be taken against them...."
2. On the aforesaid complaint, present FIR was got registered. FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 2 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
During investigation of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, initially all the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 323/325/341/509/34 IPC. Later on supplementary charge-sheet was filed against all the six accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s Digitally 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act.
signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL 3. Vide order dated 11 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 7 , copy of the charge-sheet BANSAL Date:
was supplied to the accused persons by the order of Ld. 2025.09.18 17:11:04 +0530 MM. Vide order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the then Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South-West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and supplementary chargesheet was supplied on 27.9.2018.
4. On 29.10.2021, charges for the offences punishable U/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC & 3 (1) (r) SC/ST (POA) Act r/w 34 IPC were framed against accused Shamsher Singh, Rekha, Jagjeet @ Nile, Urmila Devi, Ashok Kumar and Mukesh. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. PW-1 'R' who is the complainant in the present case, deposed that she is chamar by caste and on 25.08.2017, at about 06.00- 06.30 P.M, her brother namely 'S' brought his children from tuition classes. At that time, she was present there on the first floor alongwith his bhabhi 'L', 'M', her younger sister 'P', mother 'SD' and father 'BD' as she was residing at her parental FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 3 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
home. Shamsher, Ashok. Nile, Rekha, Urmila and one more lady whose name she does not remember came there carrying lathi, danda, rods and pipes in their hands. She further deposed that all of them were shouting "chure chamar niche aa jao hum tumhe fadenge aur jaan se mar dalenge". In the meanwhile, her brother 'S', who was parking his bike, was Digitally surrounded by accused persons and they started beating him. signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL She also came downstairs and accused Ashok hit her with rod BANSAL Date:
on her hand and due to this, her hand broke. Thereafter, she 2025.09.18 17:11:04 +0530 called at 100 number. It is further stated that at about 1 hour, police came at the spot and took her to Hospital Jafarpur where she was bandaged and her X-ray was done. Thereafter, she went to Police Station where her thumb impression was taken on some blank papers but no action was taken by police.
7. As per PW-1, after 15-20 days she came to court and filed a complaint case and then FIR was registered. She proved her statement dated 08.09.2017 as Ex PW1/A; and site plan of place of occurrence as Ex. PW 1/B. She further deposed that during investigation, she handed over the copy of caste certificate to the IO.
8. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for State as she had not supported the prosecution case on some material aspects and during her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestions put to him on behalf of State. PW-1 also proved her complaint dated 15.9.2017 to DCP concerned as Ex PW 1/C.
9. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 stated that in her complaint-Ex.PW1/C, she did not FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 4 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
mentioned that on the day of incident, police official took her thumb impression on some blank papers. PW1 stated that when caste remarks were uttered by accused persons, many neighbours were present there. She was confronted with her statement-Ex.PW1/A where it was not so recorded. PW1 denied the suggestion that since her parents were raising Digitally illegal construction and complaint was made against them by signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL accused persons, the present case has been registered against BANSAL Date:
the accused persons.
2025.09.18 17:11:03 +0530
10. PW-2 Smt. Sona deposed that around 4-5 years ago, on 25th of a month at about 6 pm, she went to the house of 'S', who is her tailor, to give her suit for stitching. She noticed crowd at the house of 'S' and saw that three ladies and three gents were holding danda in their hands. Those people were hurling casteist based remarks like "chude-chamar" towards 'R'. Then 'S' came there on bike and those people gave beatings to 'S'. Witness correctly identified accused persons in the court to be the persons who were beating 'S' and passing casteist remarks for 'R'.
11. PW-3 Dr. Someshwar Bardoloi, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan deposed that on 25.08.2017 at about 07:25 pm, he had examined Mr. 'R' Saxena vide MLC No. 4576 (Ex PW 3/A) and examined him with alleged history of physical assault. After examination, he referred the patient to SR Orthopedics and the patient was further advised for X-ray of the left forearm. As per X-Ray report no. 1030 dated 25.08.2017 prepared by Dr. Nisha, SR Radiology, there was a fracture in middle one third of the shaft of Ulna left side (left forearm). On the basis of X-ray report nature of injury FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 5 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
was grievous. PW3 had also examined 'L' vide MLC No. 4578 (Ex. PW3/B), with alleged history of physical assault. After examination, he opined that 'L' suffered simple injuries. PW3 also examined 'P' vide MLC No. 4577 (Ex PW 3/C) with alleged history of physical assault and after examination, he opined that she suffered simple injuries.
Digitally
12. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL PW3 admitted that nothing is mentioned in the MLC as to BANSAL Date:
how the patient sustained injury and by whom. However, 2025.09.18 17:11:02 +0530 PW3 denied the suggestion that injuries were self inflicted.
13. PW-4 HC Krishan Kumar deposed that on 25.08.2017, he was on emergency duty alongwith IO ASI Bachu Singh and at about 6.30 pm, DD No. 27A was marked to IO. Thereafter, he alongwith IO reached at B-Block, Sultan Garden, Najafgarh, where 'S' was shouting and abusing Shamsher. IO prepared a kalandara u/s 107/151 CrPC and arrested 'S'. 'S' was medically examined. They alongwith 'S' came back at police station Najafgarh and 'S' was lodged in lock up. PW4 proved kalandara u/s 107/151 CrPC dated 25.08.2017 as Ex.PW4/A.
14. PW-5 'S' deposed that on 25.08.2017 he was not at his home.
At about 6.00 pm, he returned to his home on his motorcycle. He noticed that accused persons Shamsher and his wife Rekha, Jagjit @ Nile and his wife Urmila and Ashok and his wife Mukesh, who are residing at a distance of 3-4 plots from his house, were standing in front of their house with wooden dandas. PW5 further deposed that accused persons were abusing his family members and as soon as he reached there, all of them started beating him with dandas. His family members including his elder sister 'R', his younger sister 'P', FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 6 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
his bhabhi 'L' and his Jijaji 'A' and his bhanji 'AL' came downstairs and saved him. His sister 'R' suffered a fracture due to beatings given by accused persons and all other persons suffered minor injuries. 'P' called at 100 and PCR came there. PCR took all of them to RTRM Hospital where they were treated. From the hospital, he was taken to police Digitally station, where a kalandara was prepared against him. signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL 15. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, BANSAL Date:
PW5 stated that his statement was not recorded by the Police 2025.09.18 17:11:00 +0530 in the present case at any point of time. Proceedings u/S 107/151 Cr.PC continued against him for about 5-6 months. PW5 admitted that FIR No.52/18 PS BHD Nagar u/S 354A/354D/509/506/34 and u/S 12 POCSO Act is registered against him.
16. PW-6 'KP' deposed that the owner of his house is his father.
Apart from him, his two brothers 'PR' and 'S' also reside in it with their families and one of his unmarried sister 'P' also reside with them. His eldest sister 'R' lives a little far away with her family and often comes to their home. PW6 is a driver by profession. He further deposed that their family belong to Jatav (Chamar) caste. Accused persons Shamsher @ Kale, Ashok and Leele live in their neighborhood in the same street and they are Jaat by caste. PW-6 further deposed that in August 2017, they were building their house by demolishing it. Many times debris used to fall on the way which they used to throw in the vacant plot. However, many times the debris remained lying for some time due to which three accused started complaining to them. PW-6 further deposed that two days before the incident i.e. on 23.07.2017, FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 7 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
accused Shamsher and Leele had abused him and told him to get the house built properly and don't trouble anyone else otherwise they will not be able to build their house. As per PW-6, on 25.08.2017 in the morning, he went out of his house for work and in the evening, at about 7.00 pm, he was telephonically told from home that there was a fight at home Digitally between them and accused persons. Then he came to know signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL that many people hurt his family members in the house. PW6 BANSAL Date:
straightway went to RTRM Hospital. PW6 was not present at 2025.09.18 17:11:01 +0530 the time of quarrel or abuses at home but the family members told him about the incident.
17. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 admitted that incident in question did not take place in his presence nor any abuses were hurled in his presence. Two days prior to incident, he did not make any police complaint against accused persons.
18. PW-7 'A' deposed that his wife's maternal house is near to his house where her father and sister, brother and sister-in-law live. In August 2016, when family members of his wife were demolishing their house and building it, his wife also used to go to help. He came to know that his neighbors are creating trouble due to debris falling in the street. On 25.08.2017 at around 5.00 pm, his wife went to her father's house in Sultan Garden. After some time, he got information on phone that there was a fight and, hence, he also reached to his in-laws house. He saw that his brother-in-law 'S' was being beaten outside the house by accused persons namely Shamsher @ Kale, Ashok and Jagjit @ Neele alongwith their wives with sticks and iron pipes in their hands. Accused persons were FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 8 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
also abusing them loudly stating that 'chude-chamaro niche aao". In this fight, his wife 'R' and her family members 'L' and 'P' were badly hurt by accused persons. Police took them to RTRM Hospital where they were treated. 'S' was also hurt but the police took him to the police station.
19. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, Digitally PW7 admitted that he did not accompany the injured to signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL hospital. He did not receive any injury during the incident. BANSAL Date:
PW7 further admitted that his statement was not recorded on 2025.09.18 17:11:05 +0530 26.8.2017.
20. PW-8 'M' deposed that on 25.08.2017 at about 6.00-7.00 pm, they got their house demolished to built it again. Many times, debris used to fall on the way due to which accused persons Shamsher @ Kale, Leele and Ashok who lived in their street, used to quarrel with them. At about 5.00 pm, his elder sister- in-law (nanad) "R" came to them, who lived nearby and kept coming frequently. They were breaking the house at that time. The doors of the house were locked from inside and they were on the terrace. At that time, his sisters-in-law "R", "P", "L", his parents-in-law were at home and they all were on the terrace. PW8 further deposed that at about 6.00-7.00 pm, he heard abuses "chude-chamaar" from below and then she saw that accused persons namely Kale, Ashok, Neele, Rekha, Urmila and Mukesh came outside their house. Accused persons were carrying sticks and iron pipes in their hands and were standing, shouting and abusing them and saying that they will be taught to build houses. PW8 further deposed that when his brother-in-law 'S' came from outside on his motorcycle, accused Shamsher, Ashok and Jagjit and their FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 9 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
wives attacked him with sticks and iron pipes. When they tried to save 'S', accused persons also gave them beatings and also abused them. His sister-in-law called police. Police reached the spot and shifted the injured to RTRM Hospital.
21. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW8 stated that she did not remember the date, month or year Digitally when Police recorded her statement. She stated to the police signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL in his statement that accused persons called them " chude- BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 17:11:02 +0530 chamaar". She was confronted with her statement-Mark PW8/DX1 where it was not so recorded.
22. PW-9 'L' deposed that in the month of August prior to incident, they were building their house by demolishing it. Many times, debris used to fall on the way and they used to throw the same in a nearby vacant plot. Many times the debris used to remain lying for a while due to which Jaat Shamsher @ Kale, Leele and Ashok who lived in their street, used to quarrel with them and told that the debris should not fall in the street even for a minute. PW-9 further deposed that even two days prior to incident, accused Shamsher and Leele abused her husband and told him that " to get the house built properly, don't trouble anyone else, otherwise you will not be able to build the house". Then her husband said that "brother, don't do bullying, will not tolerate". PW-9 further deposed that in the morning of 25.08.2017, her husband went to work and at about 5.00 pm, his elder Nanad 'R' came to them. They all were breaking their house. The door of their house was locked from inside and they were on the terrace. At that time, 'R', his younger nanad 'P', his sister-in-law 'M', his mother-in-law 'SD' and father-in-law 'BD' were at home and FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 10 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
they all were on the terrace. At about 6.00 pm, she heard abuses from downstairs and saw that accused Shamsher @ Kale, Ashok, Jagjit @ Neele and their wives Urmila, Mukesh and Rekha came outside of their house. They were having dandas and iron pipes in their hands. They were calling them "chude-chamar, randi, kutiya, came down, today we will Digitally teach you to build houses". They were publicly insulted by signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL taking the name of their caste again and again. Then his BANSAL Date:
brother-in-law 'S' came from outside on his motorcycle. 2025.09.18 17:11:07 +0530 Accused Shamsher, Ashok, Jagjit, Urmila, Rekha and Mukesh attacked on 'S' with dandas and iron pipes. Then they came down and tried to save 'S' by opening the door but they were also beaten by the accused persons due to which hand of her nanad 'R' was fractured. Her son Jatish called police at
100. Police came and took them to RTRM Hospital for treatment.
23. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW9 stated that Police recorded his statement after about 1-2 months of the incident. PW9 admitted that he had stated to Police in his statement that accused persons called them "chude-chamar' randi, kutiya, came down, today we will teach you to build houses." PW9 was confronted with statement u/S 161 Cr.PC-Ex.PW9/D-1 where it was not found so recorded.
24. PW-10 Ms. Afsana, deposed that on 25.08.2017 at about 6.00 pm, she went to the house of complainant to return his sewing work. She saw that a fight was going on there. She was standing in the street and everything was clearly visible and audible. Neighbours of complainant were uttering abuses like FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 11 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
"chude-chamaar" to complainant and his family members. Six neighbours who were three men and three women also gave beatings to 'S' with dandas. Then family members of complainant came and the matter was deescalated. PW-10 correctly identified the accused Mukesh, Rekha, Urmila and Jagjeet as the persons who were armed with dandas and gave Digitally beatings to complainant party. After sometime 'S' came there signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL on his motorcycle and accused persons also gave him BANSAL Date:
beatings. Thereafter, he left from there. 2025.09.18 17:11:03 +0530
25. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW10 stated that she did not disclose to complainant that on the date of incident, she came to spot to deliver the sewing work or that she had seen the incident at any point of time. She did not know whether complainant or his family members saw or notice her standing in the vacant plot.
26. PW-11 Ashfaq Ahmed deposed that he dealt in the business of property work and belonged to "Luhar" (Blacksmith) caste. He further deposed that on 25.08.2017 at about 6.00-6.30 pm, he went at Sultan Garden to show his plot to a party. There was also houses of 'KP' and 'S' and he knew many people of that street because he used to go there. When he reached in the street, he saw that a fight was going on. Accused persons Shamsher @ Kale, Ashok and Neele and their wives were calling "chude-chamaron mather chodo, get down, today we will teach you how to make a house " to family members of complainant. Accused persons were having dandas in their hands. PW-11 correctly identified accused Mukesh, Rekha, Urmila, Jagjeet Shamsher and Ashok as the persons who were armed with dandas and gave beatings to complainant party. FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 12 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
PW11 further deposed that after sometime 'S' came there and accused persons also gave beatings to him.
27. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW11 stated that he shifted the injured to the hospital and, as such, complainant was aware about his presence at the spot. He did not disclose the number of his plot which was near to Digitally the alleged place of occurrence.
signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL 28. PW-12 ASI Banwari Lal deposed that on 16.04.2018 IO ACP BANSAL Date:
S.P. Tyagi recorded statements of 'R', 'A', 'S', 'L', Ashfaq and 2025.09.18 17:11:05 +0530 Ms. Afsana u/s 161 CrPC and he had done videography of their statements. He also made a DVD of videography and handed over the same to IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. PW12 also issued certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the DVD as Ex.PW12/B. He proved DVD as Ex.P-1. In his cross- examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 admitted that there is word "B" is not written on Ex.PW12/B.
29. PW-13 Inspector Rajeev deposed that on 12.04.2018 IO prepared site plan. On 16.04.2018, statement of witnesses were recorded by IO in his presence. On 19.05.2018, IO interrogated accused persons in his presence and recorded the proceedings on his personal mobile phone as Government Photographer was not available. He copied the video in a DVD and handed over it to IO alongwith certificate u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW13/A. As per PW12, HC Banwari Lal produced a DVD to IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 admitted that while he joined the investigation with IO on 12.4.2018, FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 13 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
16.4.2018 and 19.5.2018, his statement was not recorded by IO.
30. PW-14 Vatan Singh, Data Entry Operator in the office of SDM, Najafgarh, New Delhi deposed that as per their record, the applicant belongs to 'Jatav Chamar Caste' under schedule caste community. The certificate in this regard was issued on Digitally 07.03.2018. He proved computer generated certificate of 'R' signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL as Ex.PW14/A. BANSAL Date:
PW-15 'P' deposed that she belongs to 'Jatav Chamar Caste' 2025.09.18 17:11:04 31.
+0530 under schedule caste community by birth. On 25.08.2017 at about 6:30 p.m, she was present on the first floor of her house alongwith her Bhabhies i.e 'L', "M', mother 'S', sister 'R' and her father 'BS'. Suddenly, accused persons i.e their neighbour Shamsher, Ashok, Niley, Rekha, Urmila and Mukesh came there and all were carrying lathi, danda, rods and pipes in their hands. All of them were shouting "Tum Sabhi Niche Aao Ham Tumhe Phad Denge, Maar Denge or Yahan Par Rehne Nahin Denge". They all were also uttering their caste based derogative remarks by calling their caste name. Thereafter, when they all came down, they were apprehended and were given beatings. During incident accused Ashok hit an iron pipe on the head of her sister 'R' and caused fracture injury to her. They all were also threatened by accused persons for dire consequences. In the meanwhile, her brother 'S' came there and when he tried to intervene, then 'S' was also beaten by all the accused persons. Police was informed by her by dialing 100 number. PCR Van staff came there and they were taken to RTRM Hospital for their treatment. During incident caused by accused persons, FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 14 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
they also caused multiple injuries to her.
32. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, she stated that her statement was recorded in the present case after a cross case was registered against them. In her statement recorded u/S 161 Cr.PC she had stated that accused persons uttered caste based derogatory remarks by calling Digitally their caste name. In this regard, she was confronted with signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL statement Mark PW15/D1 where it was found no so recorded.
BANSAL Date:
PW-16 HC Poonam Kumari deposed that on 13.09.17, she 2025.09.18 17:11:05 33.
+0530 alongwith Ct. Rahul and ASI Bachu Singh went to House No. 106, Sultan Garden, Najafgarh where complainant of the present case met them and at his instance, accused Shamsher, Rekha, Urmila, Jagjeet, Ashok and Mukesh were apprehended and all the accused persons were interrogated about the incident in question and on the basis of investigation, they all were arrested in this case vide arrest memos Ex PW 16/B to Ex PW 16/G respectively. Thereafter, accused persons were released on bail. Disclosure statement of accused Ashok was recorded vide Ex PW16/A. It is further stated that despite their best efforts, the weapon of offence i.e iron pipe could not be recovered.
34. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW16 stated that accused persons were arrested from their house. She further stated that she did not know as to upto how many floors the house of accused persons were constructed.
35. PW-17 HC ASI Bachu Singh Meena deposed that on 25.08.2017, on receiving of DD No. 27A Ex.PW17/A, he alongwith Ct. Krishan reached the spot i.e. Sultan Garden, Najafgarh, where they met complainant and injured persons.
FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 15 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
PCR van also came there. He took complainant and injured persons to RTRM Hospital for medical examination in their vehicle as well as in PCR van. On that day, complainant did not give any statement. MLC No. 4576/17 was kept pending for result by the Doctor concerned. Later on, MLC No. 4576/17 was sent to RTRM Hospital for opinion and doctor Digitally opined nature of injuries as grievous. PW-17 further deposed signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL that on 08.09.2017, complainant 'R' came to the police BANSAL Date:
station and gave her statement Ex.PW1/A. He made 2025.09.18 17:11:01 +0530 endorsement Ex PW 17/B on the same and got registered the present FIR through duty officer concerned. As per PW17, during investigation, he prepared site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant. It is further stated that during investigation, he arrested accused Shamsher, Rekha, Jagjit, Urmila Devi, Ashok and Mukesh vide their arrest memos and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ashok as Ex.PW16/A. PW-17 further deposed that on 25.08.2017, a kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was prepared against one of the complainant namely 'S'. He tried to search the weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe but it could not be traced. PW17 recorded statements of relevant witnesses and on completion of investigation, prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court for trial.
36. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW17 admitted that when he reached the spot, he found that one of complainant 'S' was abusing in the street to accused persons and that is why a Kalandra was prepared on that day only against 'S'. Complainant 'R' was in her fit state of mind but she did not given any written complaint or got recorded FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 16 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
her statement on the date of incident.
37. PW-18 ACP Sh. Somender Pal Tyagi (retired) deposed that this case was registered on 08.09.2017 on the statement of complainant 'R' and charge-sheet in the case was filed U/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC. During pendency of the case, complainant made a written complaint dated 15.09.2017 to Digitally DCP wherein she alleged that she was also humiliated with signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL caste related abusive words on 25.08.2017 by the accused BANSAL Date:
persons and her allegations were not included in the FIR. It is 2025.09.18 17:11:06 +0530 further stated that upon her complaint a subsequent legal opinion recommended that allegations made under SC & ST (POA) Act be also investigated. Accordingly, further investigation of the case was taken up by him. As per PW18, complainant produced 3 independent witnesses and they all were examined U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by him. Family members of the complainant, who were eye-witnesses to the incident dated 25.08.2017 were also examined and they supported the claim of complainant. PW-18 further deposed that he also verified Caste Certificate - Ex PW 14/A from the office of Tehsildar Najafgarh and as per the certificate, complainant belonged to "Chamaar" caste which is a notified Scheduled Caste. All accused are from Jaat caste. Thereafter, he inspected scene of crime and prepared site plan - Ex PW 18/A. Accused persons were not arrested and notice U/s 41-A CrPC - Ex PW18/B to B-6 respectively was issued to each of the accused persons to join investigation. A bond U/s 170 CrPC - Ex PW 18/C-1 to C-6 respectively was got executed from each accused. On completion of investigation, PW18 filed the charge-sheet under the relevant provisions of law.
FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 17 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
38. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW18 stated that no castiest remarks are mentioned in the FIR. After about 10-12 days of the initial complaint, the allegations of caste based abuses were made by the complainant. On being asked about the delay regarding the said allegations, complaint did not give any satisfactory reply.
Digitally During investigation it revealed that a quarrel took place signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL between the parties as some construction material was BANSAL Date:
scattered on the road and that construction was undertaken by 2025.09.18 17:11:04 +0530 relative of complainant. PW18 admitted that complainant herself produced 3 independent witnesses before him. He further admitted that in the initial FIR presence of these three independent witnesses at the time of incident is not mentioned.
39. In their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, all the accused persons admitted FIR as Ex.PX-1, certificate u/s 65B the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PX-2, and DD No. 31A dated 25.08.2017 as Ex. PX-3.
40. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all the accused persons were recorded. When the accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence, they denied the allegations. Further, all the accused persons deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. All the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in their defence.
41. I have heard Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutors for State assisted by Sh. Shiv Kr. Chauhan, ld. counsel for complainant and Sh. Jai Singh Yadav, Ld. counsel for accused persons. I have also perused entire material on FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 18 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
record.
42. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he Digitally argued that complainant/PW-1 'R', has remained consistent signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL and have withstood cross-examination. It is stated that to BANSAL Date:
prove the offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act the prosecution has 2025.09.18 17:11:04 +0530 examined three independent witnesses namely, PW2 Sona, PW 10 Ms. Afsana , PW11 Ashfaq Ahmed and to prove the commission of offences u/s 323/325/341/509 IPC the prosecution has additionally examined PW5 'S', PW6 'KP', PW7 'A', PW8 'M', PW9 'L' and PW15 'P'. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the accused persons Shamsher Singh, Rekha, Jagjeet @ Neela, Urmila @ Nitesh, Ahsok Kumar, Mukesh should be convicted for the offences u/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC and 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act.
43. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the no such incident has ever happened and the present case is false. It is stated that the injuries sustained by the complainant/PW1 'R', PW9 'L' and PW15 'P' are self- inflicted. It is further argued that the present case is concocted as FIR No, 52/18 of PS BHD Nagar u/s 354A/354D/509/506/34 IPC and 12 POCSO Act is registered against PW5 'S' and his family members. Therefore, it is FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 19 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
argued that the entire case is stage played to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is also argued that the entire prosecution story revolves around the fact that PW5 'S' was being assaulted by the accused persons and to save him, his family members intervened, who sustained injuries, but the truth is that PW5 'S' was the aggressor, for which a PCR call Digitally was made at 6:30 pm on 25.08.2017 registered as DD No. signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL 27A, upon which the police officials have taken preventive BANSAL Date:
action u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against PW5 'S' (Ex. PW4/A) and 2025.09.18 17:11:06 +0530 PW5 'S' was arrested. It is also argued that in the initial complaint dated 08.09.2017, the complainant had not stated about the casteist remarks that were uttered to her or her family members and the subsequent complaint to DCP on 15.09.2017 was an improved and thought over version. It is also argued that PW 2 Sona, PW10 Ms. Afsana and PW11 Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad are planted witness just to falsely implicate accused persons herein. He further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, accused should be acquitted under all sections of law under which charges has been framed against him.
44. In the present case, charge under Sec. 323/325/341/509/34 IPC and 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act has been framed against the accused. This Section has been elaborated as 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.
325- Punishment for voluntary causing grievous hurt FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 20 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
341- Punishment for wrongful restraint Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Digitally 509- Word, gesture, act intended to insult modesty of a
signed by
SHIVALI woman
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman,
2025.09.18
17:11:05 utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits
+0530
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 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view"
45. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
46. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2017 at around 06:20 pm when PW5 'S' had returned to his home i.e H.No. FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 21 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
108, B-Block, Sultan Garden, Najafgarh, New Delhi, after leaving his children to tuition then he was attacked by the all the accused persons i.e., Shamsher Singh, Rekha, Jagjeet @ Neela, Urmila @ Nitesh, Ashok Kumar, Mukesh with sticks and rods, PW5 'S' was also abused and therefore, to save him, family members of PW5 'S' intervened. In the process of Digitally intervention, the accused persons have also hit other family signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL members and accused Ashok Kumar had assaulted the BANSAL Date:
complainant/PW1 'R' with an iron rod due to which she 2025.09.18 17:11:06 +0530 sustained grievous injury alongwith other family members. No complaint was lodged by the complainant on 25.08.2017. However, a formal complaint (Ex. PW1/A) was given by the complainant on 08.09.2017, on the basis of which present FIR came to be registered u/s 325/341/34 IPC against the accused persons. After investigation chargesheet dated 20.11.2017 was filed against the accused persons for the offences u/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC. Meanwhile, the complainant/PW1 'R' had also filed a complaint dated 15.09.2017 with the DCP alleging that casteist remarks were also uttered by the accused person on 25.08.2017, for which statement of independent witnesses PW2 Sona, PW10, Ms. Afsana and PW11 Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad was also recorded and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 07.06.2018. The facts and circumstances of the case are dealt in two tranches.
Firstly, with respect to commission of offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act and Secondly, for commission of offences u/s 322/325/341/509/34 IPC.
47. Before delving into the facts of the case it is essential to discuss the law that governs the field for Offence u/s 3(1)(r) FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 22 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
SC/ST Act (earlier act 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act).
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr (2008 AIR SCW 5758) has held as under: -
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the Digitally premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place signed by SHIVALI within public view, since the gate of a house is SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: certainly a place within public view. It could have 2025.09.18 17:11:03 been a different matter had the alleged offence been +0530 committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
(ii) In Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State, 109 (2004) DLT 915 it was held as under: -
"15. Basic ingredients for the offence under Clause
(x) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, revealed through the bare reading of this section are as follows: (a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC or ST; (b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST. As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST. This can be inferred even from long association; and (c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 23 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private place or a "public view"
as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present. I find myself in agreement with the following observations of learned brother Mr. Justice. B.A. Khan while expounding the ingredients of the offence: -
"If the accused does not know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is Digitally a member of SC or ST, an offence under signed by SHIVALI this section would not be constituted. SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: Similarly, if he does not do all this at any 2025.09.18 17:11:01 place within "public view", the offence +0530 would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 3(i)(x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, intimidate and humiliate him/her at a place within "public view". The place need not be a public place. It could be even at a private place provided the utterance was made within "public view""...........
19. The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(i) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub- clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 24 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under: -
"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from Digitally few who are not private and are as good signed by SHIVALI as strangers and not linked with the SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: complainant through any close 2025.09.18 17:11:03 relationship or any business, commercial +0530 or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used.""
(iii) In Smt. Deepa Bajwa vs State And Ors, 115 (2004) DLT 202 it was held as under: -
"6. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that a complaint, on the basis of which the complainant seeks registration of an F.I.R., must disclose essential ingredients of the offence and in case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and thereafter proceed to register the F.I.R. If such a course is permitted, it would give undue latitude as well as opportunity to unscrupulous complainants to nail others by hook or by crook in spite of the fact that their initial complaint does not make out the offence complained of. Such a course would be utter abuse of the process of law. First version as disclosed in a complaint is always important for adjudicating as to whether an accused has committed or not an offence. In the complaint dated 19th April, 2001, the Complainant himself alleged that the Councillor Chhannu Mal was introducing him to the petitioner. If that was the case, how could he say later that on that day the petitioner knew that he was a Scheduled Caste. This statement, FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 25 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
therefore, was a crude falsity introduced at the behest of the police to implicate the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act. This effort on the part of the police to supply the deficiency and cover up a lacuna in the complaint in view of legal opinion was totally unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law."
48. Having discussed the law as above, it is now pertinent to apply the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Digitally signed by incident has occurred on 25.08.2017 and the first complaint SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 was lodged on 08.09.2017 by the complainant/PW1 'R'. In the 17:11:03 +0530 complaint filed by her on 08.09.2017 (Ex.PW1/A) she has not disclosed the fact that the accused persons have made caste based utterances. It was only in her subsequent complaint to DCP on 15.09.2017 that she stated that the accused persons have hurled caste based remarks to her and her family. No explanation is offered by her as to why she has not given the complaint immediately after the incident/MLC (Ex. PW3/A) and why she waited until 08.09.2017 for reporting the incident. What is more amusing is that she did not disclose the caste made remarks in complaint dated 08.09.2017 (Ex. PW1/A). In reliance upon Smt. Deepa Bajwas (supra) the utterances of caste based remarks appear to be false and concocted as all the ingredients for the commission of offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act were not disclosed in the first complaint dated 08.09.2017 i.e, Ex. PW1/A.
49. From the record it is evident that there was previous animosity between the complainant, her family members on one hand and the accused persons on the other hand. This animosity has stemmed out from the factum of construction raised by the family of the complainant/PW1 at their residence and the debris falling on the road due to FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 26 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
construction work. PW6, PW7, and PW9 all have corroborated that there was quarrel between the family of the complainant and the accused persons on account of debris falling due to construction. Also, PW5 in his testimony has stated that FIR No, 52/18 of PS BHD Nagar u/s 354A/354D/509/506/34 IPC and 12 POCSO Act is registered Digitally against PW5 'S' and his family members, which gives another signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL reason to the complainant to manipulate the incident and to BANSAL Date:
carve out a graver offence against the accused persons. The 2025.09.18 17:11:01 +0530 family members of PW1 like PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW15 have supported the version of the complainant. But for the reasons stated above their testimonies cannot be relied upon on this aspect as they all have previous animosity with the accused persons and are interested to support the claims of the complainant.
50. Complainant/PW1 for the purpose of achieving her evil design have not only made another complaint dated 15.09.2017 incorporating caste based remarks but have also present three independent witnesses before the police officials to support her case. She has produced PW2 Sona, PW10 Ms. Afsana and PW11 Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad to support her case. Police have recorded the statement of Sona on 19.05.2018, Afsana on 16.04.2018 and Ashfaq Ahmad on 16.04.2018, almost after 8 months from the incident. These witnesses were especially named by the complainant after investigation began for the commission of offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. Therefore, there testimonies have to be closely examined in light of the law laid down in Daya Bhatnagar (supra). From the testimony of PW2 Sona and PW10 Afsana FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 27 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
it is apparent that PW5 'S' was a tailor by profession and they both were customers of PW5 'S'. Thus, PW2 Sona and PW10 Afsana shares commercial relationship with the PW5 'S' and the complainant and cannot be taken as independent witnesses before whom utterances were made. The testimony of PW11 Ashfaq Ahmad also does not inspire confidence as Digitally he had come to the court with the complainant. There was signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL enough time with the complainant and her family members to BANSAL Date:
convince three known persons to depose in their favour. This 2025.09.18 17:11:05 +0530 court has already stated that the testimony of the complainant, her family members and these three independent witnesses is doubtful and do not inspire confidence because the complainant had not disclosed the commission of offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act at the first instance. Also, these three witnesses PW2, PW10 and PW11 were examined by the police officials at the instance of the complainant at a later stage. Thus, manipulation and concoction cannot be ruled out as they are not natural witnesses who had witnessed the incident and were not examined by the police officials themselves during the course of investigation. Also, the PW4 HC Krishan Kumar had categorically deposed that there were no caste based allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act reported against accused persons by PW5 'S' or his family members. Therefore, the testimonies of these three witness are discredited for basing conviction of the accused persons u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act. It is has been held that the offences under SC/ST Act are grave offences and requires strong proof and there is nothing on record that fulfills the criteria of a strong proof. It is not out of place to state that once it is FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 28 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
doubtful whether caste based utterances were made at by the accused persons, the other ingredients like intention to humiliate, public view etc. required for the commission of offence u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act need not be explored. Also, testimony of PW18 ACP Sh. Somender Pal Tyagi is relevant in this context who has stated as under:
"...I asked the reason from the complainant as to why Digitally signed by she did not allege about the casteist abuses in her initial SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL complaint but complainant was unable to give any BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 satisfactory reply.
17:11:03
+0530 ...
...
...
It is correct that complainant herself produced all the 3 independent witness before me. After about 7 months of the incident I recorded statement of witnesses. It is correct the initial FIR does not mention about the presence of these three independent witnesses at the time of incident."
51. Now adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case for commission of offences u/s 323/325/341/509/34 IPC. For the commission of offences u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC, there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. Prosecution has proved the grievous injury caused to PW1 'R' and simple injuries to PW15 'P' and PW9 'L' by examining PW3, who has proved three MLC NO. 4576, MLC No. 4578 and MLC No. 4577 i.e, Ex. PW3/A, Ex PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C, showing nature of injuries to 'R', 'P' and 'L', respectively. It is argued by the defence counsel that PW1 'R', PW9 'L' and PW15 'P' have self-inflicted these injuries. The argument of the defence counsel is not sustainable as the prosecution witnesses i.e, PW5, PW6, PW8, PW9 and PW15 have fully supported the story of the prosecution. The defence counsel tried to demolish the case FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 29 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
of the prosecution by arguing that PW5 'S' was arrested by the police officials (Ex. PW4/A) at 6:30 pm, then how can he be present at the spot when the alleged incident happened. Upon perusal of the testimony of PW4, it is found that at 6:30 pm a call was made and DD No. 27 A was marked to IO, thus by no means that the PW5 'S' was arrested at 6:30 pm. PW1 has Digitally stated the occurrence of event at 6:00 to 6:30 pm, PW5 has signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL stated it to be around 6:00 pm, PW8 stated it to be around 6:00 BANSAL Date:
pm to 7:00 pm, PW-9 has stated that time to be at 6:00 pm and 2025.09.18 17:11:04 +0530 PW15 has stated the same to be at 6.30 PM. Thus, the incident has occurred around 6:00 pm, though the time is not stated with exact precision. Just because the exact time is not stated by the prosecution witnesses, it does not mean that nothing has happened or the entire incident is concocted. There is ocular evidence and medical evidence to prove that the incident has occurred. Even PW4 has stated in his testimony that when he went to the spot PW5 'S' was shouting and abusing accused Shamsher, which means that the act of shouting was preceded or succeeded by some other acts. The act of PW5 'S' cannot be succeeded by violence as PW5 was removed/arrested from the spot of occurrence and the entire incident had revolved around him. So, this leads us to a conclusion that some quarrel/fight was preceded before PW5 was arrested by PW4. And in such act of violence assault has been committed by the accused persons in concert with each other. This court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured witnesses PW1, PW9 and PW15. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing with FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 30 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
the evidentiary value of injured witness has observed 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 Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of Digitally signed by major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL his presence on the scene stands established in case it is BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 17:11:01 +0530
29. In State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to its 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 (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana)."
52. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention has caused simple hurt to PW9 'L' and PW15 'P' by using wooden sticks/dandas and in the same transaction accused persons have caused grievous hurt to PW1 'R' by using an iron rod by wrongfully restraining the complainant and her family members. No specific role can be ascribed to accused persons as they all were acting in furtherance of common intention.
53. However, except PW1, PW9 and PW15, no other PW like PW5, PW6 and PW8 have not elaborated upon the abuses and filthy language other than caste based utterances used by the accused persons towards complainant, 'P', 'L' so as to prove offence u/s 509 IPC. The testimonies of PW1 'R', PW9 'L' and PW15 'P' are incoherent as to the spoken words and do FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 31 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
not corroborate with each other, therefore, their testimonies do not inspire confidence considering previous animosity between parties. For the offence of section 509 IPC, it is important to state the kind of abuses that were uttered which have lowered down the modesty of the woman. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhushree Datta v. The State of Digitally Karnataka & Anr, [2025] 2 S.C.R.191 has held as under: -
signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL "24. In the instant case, the chargesheet states that the BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 appellants used "filthy language" while scolding the 17:11:06 +0530 complainant; however, no such allegation is made against the appellants in the complaint. Furthermore, it is nowhere alleged that this act of using filthy language and insulting the complainant by the appellants, has provoked the complainant to commit breach of public peace or to commit any other offence. Therefore, from the materials on record, the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, as explained in the abovesaid decision, are not satisfied.
25. For ascertaining whether, prima facie, the provision of Section 509 of the IPC was attracted, it is essential to first understand the meaning of the term "modesty", to determine whether modesty has been insulted. While modesty is not explicitly defined in the IPC, this Court has addressed the essence of a woman's modesty in the decision in Ramkripal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 14 Excerpts from the decision read as under: -
"12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined in IPC. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive.
Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex..."
26. Further, this Court while discussing the test for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 15 observed as under: "15. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of 'modesty' which could be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 32 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the `common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Digitally Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for signed by SHIVALI ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: action of the offender such as could be perceived as one 2025.09.18 17:11:02 which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a +0530 woman..."
27. The conclusion that emerges from the above discussion is that it will be essential for this Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, to put it pithily, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman.
28. The term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures-- whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words--that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants.
29. In considering the term "filthy language"
objectively, in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the appellants' actions do not demonstrate the requisite intent or knowledge that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that their conduct could provoke such a severe emotional response as to constitute an insult to a woman's modesty...."
54. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 33 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
55. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that: -
"it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making statement Digitally u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any signed by SHIVALI explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you."
2025.09.18 17:11:05 +0530
56. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that: -
"if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you."
57. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under: -
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
58. In the present case, the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to him it is stated either 'I do not know' or 'it is incorrect'. The accused persons have not taken any specific defence FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 34 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused person are evasive in nature and accused person has not explained as to why, they have been falsely implicated in the present case or as to why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them. In these circumstances, Digitally applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and BANSAL Date:
2025.09.18 17:11:05 +0530 Sidharth Vashisth (supra)'. This court is of considered opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation. No defence is led by the accused persons.
59. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be of sterling quality. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that: -
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 35 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests Digitally to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called signed by SHIVALI as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date: court without any corroboration and based on which the 2025.09.18 17:11:06 guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of +0530 the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
60. In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) SCC 170 it is held that: -
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
61. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witnesses should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 36 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.
62. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW1 'R', PW 4 HC Krishan Kumar PW5 'S' PW7 'A', PW8 'M' and PW9 'L' are the witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are natural and they have withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the Digitally considered opinion that the testimonies of PW1 'R', PW 4 HC signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL Krishan Kumar PW5 'S' PW7 'A', PW8 'M' and PW9 'L' are BANSAL Date:
clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has 2025.09.18 17:11:01 +0530 been corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses as well as the medical/scientific evidence.
63. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons Shamsher Singh, Rekha, Jagjeet, Urmila Devi, Ashok Kumar, Mukesh for the offences punishable u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC.
64. Accordingly, accused persons Shamsher Singh, Rekha, Jagjeet, Urmila Devi, Ashok Kumar, Mukesh are convicted for offences punishable u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC, however, said accused persons are acquitted for offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) SC/ST (POA) Act.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 18.09.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 180/17. Page No. 37 of 37.
PS BHD Nagar. State Vs. Shamsher Singh & Others.