Delhi District Court
State vs Rohtash And Ors on 9 April, 2026
SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH WEST : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
Sessions Case No. 34/2017
CNR No. DLNW01-000546-2017
FIR No. 47/2014
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Section : 308/323/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Rohtash
S/o Dhanpat
R/o P-1, Jhuggi No. 57
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
2. Ashwani Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Umed Singh
R/o P-1, Jhuggi No. 79
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
3. Rekha
W/o Rohtash Singh
R/o P-1, Jhuggi No. 57
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
4. Sudesh
W/o Ashwani @ Sonu
R/o P-1, Jhuggi No. 79
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
.... Accused
Date of committal to 18.01.2017
this court
Date of final 06.04.2026
arguments
Date of Judgment 09.04.2026
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Kulwant Rana, Ld. counsel for all accused. Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 1 / 26 Date: 2026.04.10
14:45:05 +0530
SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
JUDGMENT
1. On 13th January, 2014, at approximately 11.30 PM, a quarrel erupted between two brothers - Rohtash and Rajiv - and their respective wives and associates. As a consequences, two separate First Information Reports were registered at Police Station Sultan Puri : the present FIR bearing No. 47/2014, and a cross FIR bearing No. 46/2024. Both cases have been tried by this court in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) Sup SCC 145, wherein it was held as under :
"2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 2 / 26 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:45:12 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."
2. The present FIR No. 47/2014 was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant, Rajiv Kumar, to the following effect: Approximately three years prior to the incident, he had entered into a love marriage with Ms. Sonu, which had caused deep offence to his family members. His brother Ashwani @ Sonu, along with his wife and children, resided in a jhuggi directly opposite his own, while his cousin Rohtash, together with his wife Rekha and their family, also lived in the same vicinity. Ashwani @ Sonu, Rohtash, and the members of their respective families would frequently taunt the complainant on account of his love marriage; however, the complainant and his family chose to ignore such provocations. On 13th January 2014, the complainant's brother-in-law (saala), Anil @ Kalu, visited his home and, thereafter, proceeded to lodge a complaint at Rohtash's residence in this regard. Shortly thereafter, Rohtash, accompanied by his wife Rekha, came to the jhuggi of the complainant Rajiv and began to abuse him. Upon hearing the commotion, Ashwani @Sonu arrived with his wife, and all four individuals launched a combined assault upon the complainant and his wife, attacking them with fists, kicks, and blows from a danda. Rekha caught hold of Ms. Sonu - the complainant's wife while Sudesh struck Ms. Sonu on the head with a danda.
3. The injured persons were subsequently taken to Sanjay Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 3 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:45:17 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc Gandhi Memorial Hospital, where they received medical attention. The investigating Officer collected the Medico-Legal Certificates (MLCs) of the injured persons, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared a site plan and arrested the accused persons.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the court of Ld. Magistrate for offences punishable u/s 308/34 IPC. After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. As a prima facie case for the offences punishable u/s 308/323/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons, charges were framed accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all, as detailed hereunder :
S.No Witness Nature of testimony
1. PW 1 Rajiv Kumar Complainant / injured.
2. PW 2 Ravi Injured.
3. PW 3 Ct. Sandeep. Member / Photographer Mobile Crime Team.
4. PW 4 Smt. Sonu Injured.
5. PW 5 ASI Kunwar DD Writer Pal.
6. PW 6 Dr. Brijesh Proved MLCs of injured Rajiv and Singh Ms. Sonu.
7. PW 7 ASI Ram In-charge, Crime Team.
Nisha Sahay
FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 4 / 26 Saxena
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
Date: 2026.04.10
14:45:23 +0530
SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
Kumar.
8. PW 8 Dr. M. Das Proved MLC of injured Ravi.
9. PW 9 HC Rajender Duty Officer.
10. PW 10 Ct. Satish Joined investigation with IO.
11. PW 11 SI Ravi Second IO, who filed charge-sheet.
Kumar
12. PW 12 SI Mukesh First Investigating Officer.
Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit 1. Statement of complainant. Ex. PW1/A. 2. Site Plan. Ex. PW1/B. 3. Arrest Memo of accused Rohtash. Ex. PW1/C. 4. Arrest Memo of accused Ashwani. Ex. PW1/D.
5. Personal Search Memo of accused Ex. PW1/E. Rohtash.
6. Personal Search Memo of accused Ex. PW1/F. Ashwani.
7. Photographs along with negatives Ex. PW 3/P1 clicked by Crime Team. (colly) & Ex.
PW3/P2.
8. True translation of DD No. 54. Ex. PW 5/A.
9. True translation of DD No. 55. Ex. PW 5/B.
10. Attested copy of DD No. 55 A. Ex. PW 5/C.
11. MLC of injured Ms. Sonu. Ex. PW 6/A.
12. MLC of injured Rajiv. Ex. PW 6/B.
13. MLC of injured Ravi. Ex. PW 8/A.
14. Endorsement on Rukka. Ex. PW 9/A.
15. FIR. Ex.PW 9/B.
16. Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Ex. PW 9/C. Act.
17. Disclosure Statement of accused Ex. PW 10/A. Rohtash Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 5 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:45:29 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
18. Disclosure Statement of accused Ex. PW 10/B. Ashwani.
19. Pointing out memo qua place of Ex. PW 10/C. occurrence.
20. Arrest memo of accused Smt. Sudesh. Ex. PW 12/A
21. Arrest Memo of accused Smt. Rekha. Ex. PW 12/B.
22. Disclosure Statement of accused Smt. Ex. PW 12/C. Sudesh.
23. Statement of Ms. Sonu. Mark PW 4/A.
24. Photocopy of Inspection Report Mark X1.
prepared by Crime Team.
(original placed in connected case bearing FIR No. 46/14)
6. In their respective statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, all the accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to have been falsely implicated by the police. They chose not to adduce any defence evidence.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sh. Kulwant Rana, Ld. counsel for accused persons. I have also applied my mind to the relevant case law and have carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
ANALYSIS & REASONING
8. In the present case, the complainant, Rajiv Kumar had married a widow, Smt. Sonu, against the wishes of his family members. This act deeply offended his brother, accused Ashwani @ Sonu, and other family members, giving rise to acrimony Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 6 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:45:36 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc between the parties, which ultimately constituted the root cause of the incident in question. In the said incident, the two brothers the complainant Rajiv and the accused Ashwani Sonu - who were on strained terms, had a quarrel that escalated into violence. Both parties not only inflicted physical injuries upon each other but also instituted cross criminal cases against one another.
9. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the injured persons. PW 1, injured Rajiv Kumar, deposed before the Court that in the year 2011, he had married Ms. Sonu, which was a love marriage. His brother, Ashwani @ Sonu, who resided in a jhuggi directly opposite his own along with his wife and children, was displeased with the said love marriage. His cousin, Rohtash, along with his wife Rekha and their children, was also residing in the same locality. PW 1 further deposed that on 13th January 2014, his brother-in-law (saala), Anil @ Kalu, came to his jhuggi and subsequently departed. At approximately 9:00-9:30 PM on the same night, accused Rohtash, his wife Rekha, Ashwani @ Sonu, and his wife Sudesh, all of whom he correctly identified, came to his jhuggi and began abusing him. He shut the door of his jhuggi, but the accused persons attempted to break it open. After some time, they departed, declaring: "iski shadi tassali se kerwate hai."
10. PW 1 further testified that at approximately 11:00 PM on the same night, when he and his wife Sonu stepped out of their jhuggi and proceeded towards the jhuggi of accused Rohtash, all the aforesaid accused persons apprehended them and launched an Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 7 / 26 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:45:42 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc assault using fists, kicks, and danda blows. Accused Ashwani grabbed his collar, while accused Rohtash struck him on the head with a danda. Accused Sudesh and Rekha inflicted danda blows on the head of his wife Sonu. Someone called the police on the emergency number 100, whereupon a PCR van arrived and conveyed both him and his wife to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
11. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW1 deposed that prior to the present incident, no quarrel had taken place between him and accused persons specifically on account of his love marriage. He acknowledged that certain criminal cases were pending against his brother-in-law Anil. He admitted that members of the public had gathered at the spot, and that one neighbour Rajinder assisted his wife in boarding the PCR van. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had occurred. He further deposed that the police had not taken him back to the scene of occurrence and that the IO had not prepared the site plan in his presence. He also stated that he had not heard any gunshots on the day of the incident.
12. PW 2, Ravi, deposed that the complainant Rajiv Kumar is his brother-in-law (jija), having married his sister Sonu in the year 2011, and that he resided with them. On 13 th January 2014, at approximately 10:30 PM, upon returning from work, he witnessed accused Rohtash, Ashwani, Rekha, and Sudesh, all of whom he correctly identified, beating his brother-in-law Rajiv and his sister Sonu with dandas and raining kicks and fist blows upon them. All four accused persons were armed with dandas and Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 8 / 26 Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:45:48 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc dealt a danda blow to the head of his sister Sonu. When he attempted to intervene and rescue his sister, the accused persons assaulted him as well, causing him minor injuries. He further deposed that, as his injuries were minor, he did not require medical treatment at the hospital.
13. In his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW 2 deposed that his own family members were pleased with the marriage of his sister and brother-in-law, but that the family members of his brother-in-law namely, the accused persons were not happy with the said marriage, and that the present incident arose from that resentment.
14. PW 4 Ms. Sonu, deposed that on 13 th January 2014, at approximately 11:15 PM, while she was passing through a lane, she sustained injuries to her head and face from some object, following which she lost consciousness and regained it only in the hospital. She stated that she did not know who had struck her, as it was dark at the time. She further deposed that the accused persons had not beaten her.
15. Upon cross-examination by the Ld. Public Prosecutor, PW 4 Ms. Sonu denied the suggestion that the family members of her husband had been unhappy with their marriage or that they used to taunt them. She also denied the suggestion that at approximately 11:00 PM, Rohtash, his wife Rekha, Ashwani, and his wife Sudesh had come to their jhuggi and abused them, and that when her husband asked them to stop, all the accused persons launched an attack upon them.
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 9 / 26 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:45:54 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
16. In her cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, PW 4 admitted that the police had not recorded her statement and that the police had obtained her signatures on blank sheets of paper. She stated that she had not seen the faces of the persons who had struck her.
17. Multiple police officers (PW 3, PW 5, PW 7, PW 9 and PW 12) testified with regard to various aspects of the investigation, including registration of the FIR, the collection of evidence, and the recording of witness statements.
18. Medical professionals PW 6 Dr. Brijesh Singh and PW 10 Dr. M. Das provided crucial testimony concerning the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the victims, Their evidence supported the prosecution's position regarding the gravity of the assault, while confirming that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature.
19. The evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, where in it was held that :
"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 tube well.
In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 10 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:46:00 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case, it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
20. As regards the credibility and appreciation of the evidence of an injured witness, it is well settled that the injured witness is the most important witness in any given case, and that the fact of having sustained injuries is generally proof of the witness's presence at the scene of occurrence. Minor contradictions in the testimony of an injured witness are of no consequence, inasmuch as they do not erode the credibility of the witness. As a general rule, the testimony of an injured witness is disregarded only when it is found to be vitiated by glaring infirmities and material contradictions that go to the root of the matter and cast doubt upon the very genesis of the prosecution case.
21. Ld. defence counsel has argued that PW 4 Smt. Sonu has effectively given a clean chit to all the accused persons by testifying that they did not beat her and despite cross examination by the prosecution, nothing incriminating against the accused persons emerged from her testimony. It has been further argued that since the testimony of PW 4 Smt. Sonu does not support the prosecution case, it belies the entire case of the prosecution, as her deposition stands in direct contradiction to the evidence of PW 1 Rajiv Kumar and PW 2 Ravi.
22. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the injured persons and the accused persons were all present at the scene, and Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 11 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date:
Saxena 2026.04.10 14:46:05 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc that a quarrel erupted between them. Although PW 4 Smt. Sonu has, in her examination-in-chief, given a clean chit to the accused persons, this does not negate the testimony of the other injured witnesses, who have duly corroborated the prosecution's case. It is settled law that the prosecution case does not fail merely because one witness turns hostile or does not support the case, provided that other witnesses lend support to the prosecution and their testimony is credible. The Court is entitled to rely upon the consistent portions of a partially hostile witness's testimony and to weigh the totality of the evidence, as minor variations do not invalidate the case as a whole.
23. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - false in one thing, false in everything - is not a rule of law in India but rather a rule of caution. Courts are not bound to reject the testimony of s witness in its entirety merely because some part of it is found to be untrue. Rather, courts are expected to act as diligent sifters of evidence, separating truth from falsehood-the grain from the chaff. The duty of the Court is to discard such portions of the evidence as appear to be unreliable. while placing reliance upon those portions of the testimony that are credible and are corroborated by the other circumstances of the case.
24. It is not in dispute that the accused persons and the injured persons are related to one another and that they were in the process of reaching a compromise in the matter. Several adjournments were sought by both the injured persons and the accused persons on the ground that a petition for quashing of the Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 12 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:46:14 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc proceedings was being filed before the Hon'ble High Court. However, despite specific directions of this Court and numerous opportunities afforded to the parties, they failed to place on record any order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said quashing proceedings, if any such proceedings were ever instituted.
25. In the circumstances, it may reasonably be inferred that the deposition of PW 4 Smt. Sonu was made with the intent to put an end to the litigation, and that her testimony before this Court does not represent the truth. The accurate version of events has been narrated in detail by PW 1 and PW 2.
26. Upon careful consideration of the testimony of the remaining two injured witnesses, I am satisfied that they have corroborated each other on all material aspects and have stood firm despite rigorous cross-examination. Their testimony remained uncontroverted, and there is nothing on record that would warrant disbelieving the same.
27. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt on account of certain discrepancies in the prosecution case, which, it is contended, go to the root of the matter. However, minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not render them unworthy of credit.
28. Minor contradictions or discrepancies in witness Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 13 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:46:19 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc statements are natural and do not automatically imply that the testimony is planted, rehearsed, or unreliable. Such small contradictions are often considered part of the human memory's fallibility and the trial process rather than deliberate falsehoods.
29. Minor inconsistencies or small contradictions in witness testimony should not overshadow the truth of their statements. Memory lapses, stress, and time gaps between incident and trial are common reasons for such variations. Minor contradictions that do not strike at the core of the testimony or change the fundamental facts of the case do not discredit a witness.
30. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., the danda, was not recovered. However, it is settled law that recovery of the weapon of offence is not an essential condition for recording a conviction where reliable eyewitness testimony or strong forensic or circumstantial evidence exists. Where witnesses give consistent and credible testimony regarding the assault, the absence of the weapon does not negate the charge. In State v. Laly @ Manikandan, decided on 14th October 2022, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1750-1751 of 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated as follows:
"7.... Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 14 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:46:25 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted".
31. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also dealt with this proposition of law in Judgment titled as 'Mukesh Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi' dated 17.04.2015, CRL.A.189/2012 :
"The position of law in this regard is very clear. In Lakshmi vs. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 198, it has been held that it is not an inflexible rule that the weapon of assault must be recovered. The Supreme Court did not accept as a general and broad proposition of law that in case of non recovery of the weapon of assault, the whole prosecution case gets torpedoed. In State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 115, the Supreme Court has again held that "..... mere non- recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable."
32. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the following facts emerged as undisputed :
(a). That presence of both the accused and the injured persons at the scene of occurrence.
(b). That a quarrel took place between the parties.
(c). That cross FIRs were lodged against each other.
Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 15 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date:
Saxena 2026.04.10 14:46:30 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
(d). That the injured persons Rajiv, Ravi and Smt. Sonu sustained simple injuries.
33. The defence put forward by the accused persons is that they have been falsely implicated by the police and are innocent. However, they chose not to lead any defence evidence in support of this claim. In view of the admitted fact that a quarrel took place between the parties and that the injured persons sustained injuries, the defence raised by the accused persons is found to be illusory and without any foundation.
34. On a careful and thorough scrutiny of the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, it emerges that the incident commenced with a verbal altercation between the accused persons on one side and the complainant Rajiv and his wife Sonu on the other hand, which then escalated into physical violence. The accused persons began assaulting the complainant and his wife with fists, punches and dandas. When Ravi - the brother of Smt. Sonu - arrived in an attempt to rescue his sister, he was also assaulted by the accused persons.
35. As per the MLCs of injured Smt. Sonu and injured Rajiv Kumar exhibited as Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B respectively and duly proved on record by PW 6 Dr. Brijesh Singh, both injured persons were found to have sustained injuries. Injured Smt. Sonu was found to have a contused lacerated wound (CLW) over the vertex measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, and a CLW over the right cheek measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 16 / 26 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:46:36 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc Injured Rajiv Kumar was found to have an abrasion over the vertex of the head and over the right leg. As per the MLC of injured Ravi-proved on record as Ex. PW8/A by PW 8 Dr. M. Das on local examination, the patient was found to have a lacerated wound in the right lower portion of the ear and a bruise over the right side of the forearm, which was reddish in colour. The nature of the injuries sustained by all three injured persons was opined to be simple by the respective treating doctors.
36. Although PW 6 Dr. Brijesh Singh, in cross- examination, admitted that the injuries noted in the MLCs of injured Rajiv Kumar and Smt. Sonu were consistent with injuries caused by a fall, in addition to physical assault, it is noteworthy that the defence of the accused persons throughout the trial was never that the injuries were sustained as a result of a fall, or that no quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and the injured persons. Similarly, during the cross-examination of PW 8 Dr. M. Das, no suggestion was put to him to the effect that the injuries sustained by the third injured person, Ravi, were consistent with a fall rather than physical assault. Accordingly, it stands proved that the injuries- simple in nature were sustained by the injured persons in the course of the quarrel that took place between the accused persons and the injured persons.
37. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has, with the aid of the material witnesses and the corroborative evidence of the police officials and the concerned doctors, established its case against the accused persons beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 17 / 26 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:46:42 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
- namely, that they assaulted Rajiv Kumar, Smt. Sonu, and Ravi by means of fists, slaps, punches, and dandas.
Section 34 IPC - Common Intention.
38. In the present case, all the accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 308/323/34 IPC on the allegations that they in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to the injured persons. At this juncture, it would be apposite to set out Section 34 IPC and the legal position in relation thereto.
"Section 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."
39. It is clear that Section 34 IPC is not a substantive penal provision in itself. Rather, it defines the principle of common intention when more than one person commits a crime, and each shares the requisite intention in relation to the offence committed. In such cases, this section is applied in conjunction with the substantive offence. In the present case, the offence was committed with a common intention, as evidenced by the acts attributed to the accused persons. Accordingly, Section 34 IPC has been applied.
40. The Supreme Court has recognised that a common intention can develop rapidly 'on the spur of the moment', and where all the accused act together, joint liability may arise.
Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 18 / 26
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
Date: 2026.04.10
14:46:47 +0530
SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
However, clear evidence must exist to show that each accused actively participated even minimally-in furtherance of the shared purpose.
41. In Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu vs State of Punjab (Supreme Court, 2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"21. Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by one, into others, in pursuance to a common intention. Onus is on the prosecution to prove the common intention to the satisfaction of the court. The quality of evidence will have to be substantial, concrete, definite and clear. When a part of evidence produced by the prosecution to bring the accused within the fold of Section 34 IPC is disbelieved, the remaining part will have to be examined with adequate care and caution, as we are dealing with a case of vicarious liability fastened on the accused by treating him at par with the one who actually committed the offence.
22. What is required is the proof of common intention. Thus, there may be an offence without common intention, in which case Section 34 IPC does not get attracted.
23. It is a team effort akin to a game of football involving several positions manned by many, such as defender, mid-fielder, striker, and a keeper. A striker may hit the target, while a keeper may stop an attack. The consequence of the match, either a win or a loss, is borne by all the players, though they may have their distinct roles. A goal scored or saved may be the final act, but the result is what matters. As against the specific individuals who had impacted more, the result is shared between the players. The same logic is the foundation of Section 34 IPC which creates shared liability on those who shared the common intention to commit the crime.
Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 19 / 26
Digitally signed
by Nisha Sahay
Saxena
Date: 2026.04.10
14:46:53 +0530
SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
24. The intendment of Section 34 IPC is to remove the difficulties in distinguishing the acts of individual members of a party, acting in furtherance of a common intention. There has to be a simultaneous conscious mind of the persons participating in the criminal action of bringing about a particular result. A common intention qua its existence is a question of fact and also requires an act "in furtherance of the said intention". One need not search for a concrete evidence, as it is for the court to come to a conclusion on a cumulative assessment. It is only a rule of evidence and thus does not create any substantive offense.
....
....
28. The existence of common intention is obviously the duty of the prosecution to prove. However, a court has to analyse and assess the evidence before implicating a person under Section 34 IPC. A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance. There may also be cases where a person despite being an active participant in forming a common intention to commit a crime, may actually withdraw from it later. Of course, this is also one of the facts for the consideration of the court. Further, the fact that all accused charged with an offence read with Section 34 IPC are present at the commission of the crime, without dissuading themselves or others might well be a relevant circumstance, provided a prior common intention is duly proved. Once again, this is an aspect which is required to be looked into by the court on the evidence placed before it. It may not be required on the part of the defence to specifically raise such a plea in a case where adequate evidence is available before the court.
42. The aforesaid principle has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Virendra Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 407 through the following paragraphs:
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 20 / 26 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:46:58 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc "15. Ordinarily, a person is responsible for his own act. A person can also be vicariously responsible for the acts of others if he had the common intention to commit the offence. The words "common intention" implies a prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan.
It must be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the prearranged plan. Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point of time, which need not be a long gap. Under this section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. Though common intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime showing a prearranged plan and prior concert. The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference. This has been clearly laid down by this Court in the case of Amrik Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1972 (4) SCC (N) 42:1972 CriLJ 465.
16. The essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to prove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. Therefore, in order to find whether a person is guilty of common intention, it is absolutely necessary to carefully and critically examine the entire evidence on record. The common intention can be spelt out only from the evidence on record.
17. Section 34 is not a substantive offence. It is imperative that before a man can be held liable for acts done by another under the provisions of this section, it must be established that there was common intention in the sense of a prearranged plan between the two and the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. Unless common intention and participation are both present, this section cannot apply.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 21 / 26 Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2026.04.10 14:47:04 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc
43. In their emphatic testimony, PW 1 Rajiv Kumar and PW 2 Ravi specifically named accused Rohtash, Ashwani @ Sonu, Rekha, and Sudesh, stating that all four, in furtherance of their common intention, had caused injuries to them by means of fists, slaps, punches, and dandas. Common intention can develop rapidly 'on the spur of the moment'. Their active participation in furtherance of a shared purpose has also been established on record. In the instant case, the common intention developed on the spot, in the course of the fight in which all the accused actively participated.
Determination of Criminal Liability u/s 308 IPC
44. The accused have been charged for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC. For ready reference, Section 308 IPC is being reproduced herein below :
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
45. The facts of the present case must be examined to ascertain the culpability of the accused for the offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, with which they are Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 22 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:47:12 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc charged.
46. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that following the altercation between the parties, the injured persons were assaulted by the accused persons, and that the accused delivered danda blows to injured Smt. Sonu and Ravi. He further submitted that even if the injuries are characterised as simple, the nature of the injury alone is not determinative; rather, what is material is the intention and knowledge of the accused, which are to be inferred from the locus of injury. In the present case, the accused struck Smt. Sonu on the head with a danda, which is a vital part of the body.
47. In order to establish the offence under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that had the said act caused death, the accused would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
48. In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, the Hon'ble High Court altered conviction from 308/34 IPC to 323/34 IPC holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an injury was found on the eye, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide.
49. In a case reported as Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, the Hon'ble High Court altered the conviction from Section 308 IPC to 323/34 IPC holding that Nisha Sahay FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 23 / 26 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:47:24 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015 too, Hon'ble High Court altered the conviction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant.
50. The central question that arises for consideration is whether the act of the accused persons in causing injuries to injured Smt. Sonu, Rajiv Kumar, and Ravi satisfies the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC. In order to constitute such an offence, it must be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that had the accused, by that act, caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge of the accused is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries were caused, as well as from the nature of the injuries and the part of the body where such injuries were suffered.
51. As regards knowledge, this Court finds that the quarrel arose only when the injured persons came out of their jhuggi and proceeded towards the jhuggi of the accused persons. The accused persons had no pre-formed plan to beat the victims. Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 24 / 26 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:47:30 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc The impact of the danda blows further indicates that the accused did not have any intention to cause the death of Smt. Sonu or Ravi. The intention to kill the victim was clearly absent in the instant case. As per the testimony of PW 1 Rajiv Kumar, accused Sudesh and Rekha delivered danda blows to the head of his wife, Smt. Sonu; however, the injuries sustained by her as a result of such blows were opined to be simple in nature.
52. Section 308 IPC requires that the accused must have committed the act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that had it caused the death of the victim, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, neither such intention nor such knowledge can be gathered from the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims, nor from the circumstances in which those injuries were caused. The quarrel between the accused persons and the injured persons arose suddenly and over a trivial matter. The accused persons, acting in the heat of passion, assaulted the victims without any premeditation. The injuries sustained by the injured persons are not of such a nature as would be sufficient to indicate that the accused had any intention or knowledge that their acts might cause the death of the victim. It is trite law that intention and knowledge are to be gathered from the circumstances in which injuries are caused and from the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. Accordingly, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not attracted in the present case. Rather, the case falls within the ambit of Section 321 IPC, read with Section 323 IPC, which provides that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person whether with the intention Nisha FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 25 / 26 Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.04.10 14:47:36 +0530 SC No. 34/17 State Vs. Rohtash etc of causing hurt or with the knowledge that hurt is likely to be caused is said to have voluntarily caused hurt, and is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
53. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, the offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is not proved. However, it stands proved on record that the accused persons caused simple injuries to Rajiv Kumar, Smt. Sonu, and Ravi, and the prosecution has thereby successfully brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
54. Accordingly, all four accused Rohtash, Ashwani Kumar @ Sonu, Smt. Rekha and Smt. Sudesh are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
Digitally signedNisha by Nisha Sahay Saxena Announced in the open Court Sahay Date:
2026.04.10 today i.e. 09th April, 2026 Saxena 14:47:43 +0530 (Nisha Sahay Saxena) Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi (k) FIR No. 47/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 26 / 26