Delhi District Court
State vs Naveen @ Chuddi on 26 December, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022.
CNR No. : DLSE01-005018-2022.
State
versus
Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi
Son of Mr. Suresh
Resident of F-521, Khairpur Village,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
FIR No. 122 of 2022.
Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 25.04.2022.
Date of committal of the case : 24.05.2022.
Date of first hearing before the learned : 27.05.2022.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of framing of the charge : 20.12.2022.
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 19.12.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 26.12.2025.
Date of judgment : 26.12.2025.
Appearances : Mr. R. K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor (Officiating)
for the State.
Accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi on bail with Legal Aid
Counsel Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma.
***********************************************************
Digitally signed
by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26
14:35:00
FIR No. 122 of 2022. +0530
Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 1 of 43 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. On the complaint of one Mr. Deepak Sabherwal son of late Mr. D. N. Sabherwal, FIR bearing number 122 of 2022 was registered by the police of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur under section 307 of the IPC.
Chargesheet
3. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet for offence under section 307 of the IPC, which was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-11, South- East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 25.04.2022. Compliance of provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was made. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-11, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 24.05.2022 for trial being a sessions triable case for 27.05.2022.
Prosecution case
4. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2022, the complainant Mr. Deepak Sabarwal came to the police station and handed over his complaint. In his complainant, the complainant has alleged that he runs a business in the name of Alfa Electronics at Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:35:06 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 2 of 43 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
Gurudwara Road. On 21.02.2022 at 05:30 pm, he had gone to Naresh Crockery, Gurudwara Road, K. M. Pur, near Lal Mandir in the market for some work. Suddenly, he heard a loud voice saying 'I will kill you' coming from outside. When he went outside, a boy named Naveen (Chuddi) aged about 25 years was attacking someone with a knife in his hand. When he tried to stop him, he chased the complainant with the intention to kill him and kept threatening, saying 'Today, I will kill you', while waving the knife. To save his life, he ran towards Naresh Crockery. During this time, he attacked him with the knife, due to which he fell on the road. In self-defence, he used the nearby objects lying there and raised an alarm for help. Hearing the commotion, a crowd gathered in the market and overpowered Naveen @ Chuddi, thereby saving his life. Meanwhile, he made a PCR call by dialing number 100. Police staff from PS Kotla Mubarakpur also reached the spot. However, the accused Naveen @ Chuddi fled away from the spot. In this regard, the complainant made a PCR call which was received at PS Kotla Mubarakpur vide GD No. 57. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered. In the meantime, information regarding MLC of injured Mr. Udai Saini was received from AIIMS hospital. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed under section 307 of the IPC against the accused.
Charge
5. Vide order dated 20.12.2022, charge was framed against the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:35:13 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 3 of 43 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi under section 307 of the IPC that on 21.02.2022 at about 05:30 pm at Lal Mandir, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, the accused attacked upon Mr. Udai Saini and Mr. Deepak Sabarwal with a knife and caused simple injuries on the person of Mr. Udai Saini at his abdomen, left side forehead, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if the accused had caused their death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution witnesses
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine (09) witnesses.
7. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) is the complainant. Mr. Uday Saini (PW-2) is the injured. Dr. Kushal (PW-3) and Mr. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center (PW-4) have proved the MLC of injured Mr. Uday Saini prepared by Dr. Trisha Tarunita. ASI Yogesh Kumar (PW-5) is the Duty Officer. Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) is the father of injured Mr. Uday Saini. ASI Rajeev (PW-7) has joined the investigation with the IO Insp. Gajender Singh. Insp. Gajender Singh (PW-8) is the Investigation Officer. ASI Ram Phal (PW-9) had prepared the rukka on the complaint of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal and got the FIR registered.
Statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and defence
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 122 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:35:20 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 4 of 43 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
Naveen @ Chuddi has controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against him stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has preferred to lead evidence in his defence. However, as he did not produce any witness despite due opportunities, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 19.12.2025.
Final arguments
9. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
10. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. It is prayed that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
11. On the other hand, the legal aid counsel for accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2), the injured/victim and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) his father as well as an eye witness and the other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The callers of the DD entries have not been identified and the mother of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) has not been examined. No independent person from the public has been associated in the Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
Under section 307 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:35:26 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 5 of 43 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
investigation, arrest of the accused, recovery of the weapon of offence, etc. There is no evidence on record to connect accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi may be acquitted.
Discussion, analysis and observations
12. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 122 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:35:32 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 6 of 43 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
13. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
Star witnesses Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6)
14. It is very relevant to elaborate the evidence of the most material witness i.e. Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) who is the injured/victim and the star witness of the prosecution. He has deposed as follows :
"On 21.02.2022 I was at my shop. It was about 04.00 pm I came to my shop from outside as some repairing work was going on at some other place and I had come from that place. There was a crowd in the market. The President of the Market Association was also present in the crowd. I was carrying a steel sheet to the place where the work was going on in the gali and I sustained injuries due to that steel sheet which I was carrying at my stomach. There was a crowd in the market but I did not see with whom the quarrel was taking place..."Digitally signed by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:35:38 FIR No. 122 of 2022. +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 7 of 43 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
15. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State sought permission of the Court to cross examine the witness as he had resiled from his previous statement made to police. In his cross examination on behalf of the State, Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) has denied that the accused had abused his father and when he intervened, the accused threatened to kill him and then stabbed him in the stomach with a knife and hit him with a bottle. He has failed to identify the accused as well as the weapon of offence i.e. knife. He has denied the contents of his statement (Ex. PW-2/A). He has denied that his mother informed the police and he has denied that he has made a compromise with the accused and as such, he is deposing falsely.
16. It is clear from the record that nothing material for the prosecution came forth in the lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the State of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) who has retracted completely and he has failed to identify the accused as the culprit who committed the offences against him and he has failed to assign any criminal role to him. He has also failed to identify the weapon of offence i.e. knife. He has not deposed an iota of evidence against the accused that he caused injuries on him with a knife. In fact, in his examination in chief, he has very categorically absolved the accused by deposing that he does not know the accused and that he was not stabbed by the accused. he has not identified the weapon of offence i.e. knife.
17. Similarly, Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6), father of Mr. Udai Saini Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:35:44 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 8 of 43 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
(PW-2) has deposed in his examination in chief as follows :
"On 21.02.2022 I was outside from the vicinity of the market where my shop is situated. I was not present at the shop. Later on, I came to know that a quarrel had taken place with my son Uday Saini but I do not know who caused injuries to my son. My son went to the police chowky and he informed about the incident. Police made enquiries from me also as who has caused injuries to my son. I told the police that I did not know who caused injuries to my son..."
18. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State sought permission of the Court to cross examine the witness as he had resiled from his previous statement made to police. In his cross examination on behalf of the State, Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) has denied that the accused, whom he knew earlier, had come to his shop with a vegetable cutting knife and abused him. He has also denied that his son intervened and confronted, the accused threatened to kill him and then attacked and stabbed him with a knife and hit him with a broken bottle. He has failed to identify the accused as well as the weapon of offence i.e. knife. He has denied the contents of his statement (Ex. PW-6/A). He has admitted to be correct that in the photographs (Ex. PW-1/J and Ex. PW-1/K) he is not sitting at his shop, but the person who is seen sitting in the shop is his neighbour. These photographs were not taken by the police or anybody else in his presence as he was not present in the vicinity.
19. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) has deposed as follows:
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:35:52 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 9 of 43 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
"It is correct that in the photographs already Ex. PW-1/J and Ex. PW-1/K I am not sitting at my shop, but the person who is seen sitting in the shop is my neighbour. These photographs were not taken by the police or anybody else in my presence as I was not present in the vicinity. The statement I had made today in the Court is true and correct."
20. The Chief Prosecutor for the State has relied upon the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Antosh v. State, CRL.A.415/2009, decided on 04.07.2023 submitting that although Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) have retracted in evidence but the same indicates that the accused has managed to tamper with the evidence and win over the witnesses.
21. The legal aid counsel for the accused, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 decided on 14.11.2025, has prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
22. Here, it may be mentioned that a suggestion has been given on behalf of the State to Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) that he has made a compromise with the accused and as such, he is deposing falsely (which has been denied by him). He is, infact, very categorical in stating that the accused has not committed any offence against him and he has injured himself when he fell down accidently on a steel sheet which he was carrying. His father Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) has also absolved the accused.
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:35:58 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 10 of 43 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
23. The MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) shows that "Patient absconded from TC Emergency room" which also throws a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version.
24. There is nothing shown on behalf of the State to indicate that the evidence of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) is wrong. Nothing material for the State has come forth in their cross examination.
25. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) who are the injured/victim and an eye witness respectively, who are the star witnesses and the most material witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements and turned hostile to the prosecution case. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in their cross examination on behalf of the State. They have, in fact, deposed that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi has not committed any offence against them. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."Digitally signed by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:05 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 11 of 43 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
26. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
27. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
28. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
29. In the case of Antosh v. State, CRL.A.415/2009, decided on 04.07.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while discussing the judgments in the cases of Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP (2022) 12 SCC 200, C.Muniappan v. State of T.N.,(2010) 9 SCC 567;
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:12 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 12 of 43 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627, SCC p. 635, para 6 mentioned that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. It was observed in the above stated case as follows:
20. To summarize, the principles which can be culled out from the aforesaid decision are as under :
a. The term 'hostile witness' would refer to a witness who deposes in favour of the opposite party.
b. A witness may turn hostile either at the stage of examination-in-chief itself, or later during the cross examination.
c. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile, and the relevant parts of evidence which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
d. It is imperative that if the examination-in-chief is complete, the cross examination should also be completed on the same day and must not be deferred for a long period of time as it may provide opportunity to the accused to pressurise and win over the witness.
30. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 decided on 14.11.2025, it has been observed as follows:
19. Similarly, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
Under section 307 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:18 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 13 of 43 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
Bengal (2023) 6 SCC 605, the appellant was accused of murdering his wife with a bhojali (knife) which was found from an open place accessible to others. The Trial Court acquitted the accused though the High Court reversed the findings. While confirming the order of the Trial Court, this Court observed as under :
20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement as required under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law..."
.........
23. After the recovery, the pistol and cartridges were kept in the Malkhana, but the record does not indicate on which date these were handed over to PW-6 Baljeet Singh for deposit to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the same article was sent for forensic examination. The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved. Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution, primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who have either not been chargesheeted or have been acquitted by the Trial Court. The purported motive attributed to the appellant is founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement with the acquitted co-accused and lacks support from any credible evidence.
31. It is clear from the record that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:25 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 14 of 43 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) who are the injured/victim and an eye witness respectively, who are the star witnesses and the most material witnesses of the prosecution have retracted from their earlier statements and turned hostile to the prosecution case. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in their cross examination on behalf of the State. They have, in fact, deposed that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi has not committed any offence against them. A witness who changes his stand at different times cannot be considered to be reliable. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed upon the evidence of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) the purpose of convicting the accused.
32. Evidence of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1), complainant of the case and a victim has deposed in favour of the prosecution in his examination in chief. He has identified the accused in the pendrive which was played as well as the weapon of offence i.e. knife. He has deposed as follows:
"At about 05.30 pm I was at the shop of Naresh Crockery. I heard a noise out side the shop on the road. I saw the accused present in the Court today. Witness correctly identified the accused. Accused was arguing with some one and was saying maar doonga. Accused was carrying a knife in his left hand. I asked the accused not to quarrel but accused was angry. Accused though that I was interfering in the matter and he pushed me and threatened me not to interfere in his matter or he will kill me. I saved myself and put some articles infront of the accused to save myself. By the time, some shopkeepers of the market also assembled. I took the photographs of the accused from my mobile phone. I informed the police.... I handed over a Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under section 307 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.26 14:36:31 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 15 of 43 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
pen drive of Kingstan alongwith the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the genuineness of the contents of the photos and videos. The police seized the pen drive which is Ex. PW-1/H which bears my signature at point-A and Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/I which bears my signature at point-A...."
33. However, in cross examination on behalf of the accused, Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) has deposed as follows:
"On the day of the incident, I had gone to Naresh Crockery to meet the owner of Naresh Crockery for business purpose. When I came out from the shop, I heard a noise jaan se maar doonga... jaan se maar doonga. The owner of Naresh Crockery also came out of the shop. I saw that accused was making altercation with some other person. I do not know that person with whom accused was confronting. I knew the accused from the date of incident. The name of the accused was known as Naveen from the surroundings. I interfere in their hot altercations which was going on between the accused Naveen and other person. Then, suddenly I started to click photographs of accused Naveen. As a law abiding citizen, I tried to pacify the matter which was going on in the market. I could not take the photographs of the injured persons as they had escaped from that place. I informed the police..."
34. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:
i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA Date:
2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:36:38 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 16 of 43 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
ii. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
iii. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence. iv. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
v. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. vi. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
Under section 307 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:46 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 17 of 43 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
vii. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. viii. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
ix. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. x. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
xi. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
xii. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26
Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:36:53
+0530
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 18 of 43 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
xiii. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
35. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
a. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
b. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
c. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
d. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. e. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.Digitally signed
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
Under section 307 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:36:59 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur. +0530 State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 19 of 43 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
f. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
36. Also was held therein that in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. {Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365}.
37. It is clear from the evidence of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) that he has stated that he had gone to meet owner of Naresh Crockery Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. 2025.12.26 14:37:05 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 20 of 43 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
but he has failed to furnish his name and this owner also came out of the shop when there was noise and he saw that the accused was making altercation with some other person. He took photographs and video with his phone which he did not submit to the police nor before the Court. No explanation for the same is coming forth from the prosecution in respect of the same. Further Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) has deposed that "I heard a noise jaan se maar doonga... jaan se maar doonga." While Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) have not so deposed in their evidence and the statement of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) recorded by the police (Ex. PW-2/A) mentions "too bahut ban reha hai.. aaj mein tujhe jaan se mar doongaa.." No explanation from the prosecution regrading this material contradiction is coming forth due to which the veracity of the case appears doubtful.
38. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) has deposed that accused thought that he was interfering in the matter and he pushed him and threatened him not to interfere in his matter or he will kill him. He saved himself and put some articles infront of the accused to save himself. This part of the deposition of the witness indicates that there was no overt act on part of the accused which falls within the ambit of section 307 of the IPC for attempt to kill. Also with the retraction by Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) and the evidence of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) being doubtful, the prosecution version appears to be not true.
Digitally
signed by
NIVEDITA NIVEDITA
ANIL SHARMA
ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:37:11 FIR No. 122 of 2022. +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 21 of 43 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
Photographs and video
39. As regards the photographs (Ex. PW-1/J and Ex. PW-1/K) and video of the alleged incident in pen drive (Ex. PW-1/P-2), it may be mentioned that the prime source from where the same were prepared i.e. mobile phone of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) was not seized by the Investigation Officer nor sent to the FSL. The identification of the accused in the video contained in the pen drive is also doubtful as firstly, it was never sent to the FSL to ascertain whether or not it is the accused who is visible in the same and secondly as the video was blurred and identity of the accused cannot be established in the video {when it was played in the cross examination of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1)}. The screenshots from the video (Ex. PW-8/A1 to Ex. PW-8/A3) are too blurred and hazy and neither the faces of the persons in the same are clear nor defined. The photographs (Ex. PW-1/J and Ex. PW1/K) were not even put to Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) to ascertain the identity of the accused. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation for the same. How the Investigation Officer had directly taken the photographs and video in pendrive without taking into possession the mobile phone of Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) creates a doubt over the prosecution version. Mere filing of the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act by Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) does not suffice as the mobile from which electronic evidence is produced was not even sent to the FSL for examination to ascertain that the evidence is accurate and reliable. This requirement is non negotiable and Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:37:17 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 22 of 43 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
absolute. (Reliance can be placed upon Anwar P.V. v . P.K.Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1).
Weapon of offence
40. As regards the weapon of offence i.e. knife, the prosecution has not been able to prove the same properly. The knife (Ex. PW-1/P-1) produced in the Court during the evidence was identified by Mr. Deepak Sabharwal (PW-1) but not by Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6). The sketch of the knife (Ex. PW-1/D) seizure memo of the knife (Ex. PW1/E) were prepared when the knife was taken into possession but no independent person from the public was made a witness to the proceedings despite the place of incident being a market and public persons and shopkeepers being available including the owner of Naresh Crockery. The knife was neither produced before the doctor to ascertain whether or not the injuries suffered by Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1) could be caused by it nor sent to the FSL to ascertain whether or not it had the fingerprints of the accused and blood of the injured Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1). No explanation has been furnished by the prosecution as to why the same was not done.
41. Therefore, there is no authenticity regarding the same alleged weapon of offence and the one produced in the Court being the same.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:37:24 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 23 of 43 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
Medical evidence and FSL reports
42. As regards the nature of injury suffered by victim Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1), it may be observed that Dr. Kushal (PW-3) has proved his MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) prepared by Dr. Trisha, who has left the services of the hospital. It may be mentioned here that Dr. Trisha was not produced nor examined by the prosecution due to which the MLC is not properly proved as Dr. Kushal is not the author of the same. The nature of injury suffered by Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1) could not be opined as he absconded from the TC Emergency room. The MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) shows that "Patient absconded from TC Emergency room" which also throws a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. Dr. Kushal (PW-3) has also deposed in his cross examination that "It is correct that the injuries which have been mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW-3/A can be caused while falling on the road and can be self- inflicted injuries. It is correct that the injuries mentioned in the MLC can be caused by object made up of wood or any other metal...."
43. Also, Mr. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi (PW-4) has deposed that Dr. Trisha Tarunita had prepared the MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) and she has left the services of the hospital It bears two signatures of Dr. Trisha and both bear different dates on the same i.e. 21.02.2022 and 01.04.2022.
44. It is settled law that where the nature of injuries suffered by the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:37:31 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 24 of 43 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
victim has been proved by another doctor or Medical Record Clerk but not been proved by the concerned doctor who examined the patient/victim and gave opinion in respect of the nature of injuries, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction of the accused. In the absence of examination of a medical witness, the prosecution fails to establish that the alleged weapon was used in the commission of the offence.
45. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Amar Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 while emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness in such circumstances in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 as follows:
"We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice".
46. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of State v. Kamlesh Bahadur, Crl.L.P. 519/2019 decided on 12.09.2023 set aside the conviction under section 308 of the IPC and converted the same to Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:37:39 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 25 of 43 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
section 323 of the IPC. It was observed as follows :
"...In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely be- cause an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to com- mit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that 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, this 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 know- ledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. In Pawan Chaddha V State Criminal Appeal 640/2011 decided on 27.01.2016 by this Court, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while the co-accused were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC...
There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not at- Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022.
FIR No. 122 of 2022. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under section 307 of the IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA PS : Kotla Mubarakpur. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.26 14:37:46 +0530 State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 26 of 43 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
tracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC..."
47. The alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife was not produced before the doctor to ascertain whether or not it could be used for causing injury upon the victim and no explanation for the same has been furnished by the prosecution. The MLC (Ex. PW-3/A) of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2) shows that "Patient absconded from TC Emergency room" which also indicates that the possibility of the accused not having caused any injury upon him cannot be completely ruled out. The same throws a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. The doctor who prepared the MLC of the victim was neither produced nor examined by the prosecution.
48. The medical evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. The possibility of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife being planted cannot be ruled out. Also, there is nothing incriminating on the record in respect of the medical evidence to connect accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi to the alleged offence.
DD entries
49. The case was set into motion with three DD entries i.e. DD No,.
57-A (PW-5/A), DD No. 58-A (Ex. PW-5/B) and DD No. 72-A (Ex. PW-5/C) which have been proved by ASI Yogesh Kumar (PW-5).
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:37:52 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 27 of 43 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
50. DD No. 57-A finds mention that caller bol reha hai ki... yahan eak aadmi chakoo lekar ghoom reha hai... or mere sath maar peet karne ki koshish ki hai... DD No. 58-A finds mention that lady caller or uske bete ko eak aadmi ne bottle maar kar sir phad diya hai... need police help... DD No. 72-A is regarding admission in AIIMS Trauma Centre of Uday Saini son of Pawan Saini after a quarrel.
51. In his cross examination, ASI Yogesh Kumar (PW-5) has deposed that "It is correct that no name of caller has been mentioned in the DD No. 57-A, 58-A and 72-A. It is correct that all the calls were received by different persons and it is possible that it is not related to one single incident."
52. Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) has deposed that "...It is wrong to suggest that my wife informed the police at 100 number and PCR Van reached the spot and took my son to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi..."
53. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why no investigation was conducted to identify the callers of the above stated DD entries as the first informant of the alleged offence was required to be produced and examined by the prosecution. This lapse strikes a fatal blow to the prosecution version.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:37:57 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 28 of 43 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
No independent witness associated
54. It is clear from all the witnesses of investigation that no public or independent witness has been associated in the investigation of the case, at the time of arrest of the accused and at the time of recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. The prosecution witnesses of investigation have admitted the same.
55. Even the mother of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1) and wife of Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6) has not been examined as the caller of DD No. 58-A had claimed that her son was injured.
56. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the independent public persons were available at the time of commission of the alleged offence as it was a market, arrest of the accused and recovery of alleged weapon of offence. It is also clear that they were neither joined in the investigation nor any action was taken in case of their refusal to join the investigation. It is apparent that the police has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramparkash & ors., 1989 Criminal L.J 1585; Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (2) RCR 421. The discovery in the presence of subordinate police officials from an open place is of no importance. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Harish Chander @ Billa, 1995 (2) CC Cases 503.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:38:05 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 29 of 43 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
57. ASI Rajeev (PW-7) has deposed as follows:
"...When I went to the house of the accused, no public witness was present there. There are about 40-50 houses nearby the house of the accused. IO asked public persons from the locality to join the investigation at the time of recovery of the knife, but none of them agreed...."
58. Insp. Gajender Singh (PW-8) has deposed as follows:
"...It is correct that the accused was not apprehended at the spot at the time of the incident. I do not know whether the public witnesses i.e. Sh. Deepak Sabarwal, Sh. Pawan Saini and Sh. Udai were present at the spot when the incident had taken place as I am the 2 nd IO and not dealt with these three witnesses... There are several other residential houses near the house of the accused. It was night time when accused was apprehended and public persons were not available. No public person was available to join the proceedings of search and seizure of knife......"
59. ASI Ram Phal (PW-9) has deposed that "...It is correct that I did not interrogate the accused of this case nor I visited the spot of the incident. I prepared the rukka while sitting in the police station. It is correct that I have not seized the CCTV footage / video or photographs from the complainant. Complainant had refused for medical examination and so he was not sent to the hospital..."
60. The prosecution has failed to associate any independent witness at the time of arrest of the accused, recovery of the weapon of offence, preparation of documents, etc. Therefore, the possibility of the prosecution case being false cannot be completely ruled out.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:38:12 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 30 of 43 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
Shoddy investigation
61. It is revealed from the record that despite being available, no public person was joined in the investigation the day of incident or later on. Even the mother of Mr. Udai Saini (PW-1) has not been associated in the investigation to ascertain whether not she had called the police and DD No. 58-A (Ex. PW-5/B) was registered on her information. No sample of blood or any other incriminating article seized from the spot. No fingerprints lifted from the knife nor any photograph of the knife was taken. No public witness joined in the proceedings of search and seizure of the knife. No effort was made to identify the callers of DD Nos. 57-A, 58-A and 72-A.
62. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "knife" was neither produced before the doctor to ascertain whether or not the alleged injury could be caused by the same nor it was sent to the FSL to ascertain whether or not it had any finger prints of the accused person or blood of the victim. Also, the opinion of the doctor was not obtained on the weapon of offence of this case regarding injuries sustained by the injured.
63. The weapon of offence i.e. knife was neither produced before the doctor to ascertain whether injuries could be caused by it nor it was sent to the FSL to ascertain if it had any fingerprints of the accused or the blood of the victim Mr. Udai Saini (PW-2). No investigation was conducted to identify the caller (s) of DD No. 57-A, DD No. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:38:19 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 31 of 43 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
58-A and DD no. 72-A. No explanation for the same has been furnished by the prosecution due to which the investigation conducted does not appear to be fair and impartial.
64. It is clear from the record that the investigation has not been properly conducted in the present matter and much was left in the same. All the lapses, as detailed above, indicate that the accused merits to be acquitted.
65. The prosecution has failed to examine some very material witnesses and this lapse gives a severe blow to the prosecution case. By not citing, producing and examining the independent persons, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused.
66. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v.
State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 that undoubtedly, heinous crimes are committed under great secrecy and that investigation of a crime is a difficult and tedious task. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has taken the accused for ride and trampled upon his fundamental personal liberty and lugged him in the capital offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC by freely fabricating evidence against the innocent. The liberty of a citizen is precious and its deprivation shall be only in accordance with law. Before accusing an innocent Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:38:26 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 32 of 43 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.302 IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e. Central or State Governments to organize periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
67. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has been conducted properly, fairly and impartially.
68. It must be mentioned here again that the prosecution story is unreliable and not worthy of credence, as discussed above. It would have been appropriate that these lapses were not committed Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:38:33 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur. +0530 State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 33 of 43 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
considering the gravity of the case.
69. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation.
Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important.
70. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
71. In the present case, the investigation is bad and shoddy. Weapon of offence was neither produced before the doctor nor the FSL to ascertain whether or not the injury could be caused using the same and whether or not there were any finger prints of the accused on the same; recovery of weapon of offence appears manipulated and planted; most material witnesses i.e. Mr. Udai Saini, the injured/victim (PW-2) and Mr. Pawan Saini (PW-6), his father have not supported the case; independent public witnesses have not been associated in the investigation; etc. The investigation, in the present case, has not been conducted fairly and properly.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:38:40 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 34 of 43 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
Mens rea and defence of the accused
72. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
73. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and un- amenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
74. In the present case, a story has been projected that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi has committed the alleged offence. This version Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:38:47 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 35 of 43 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
appears to be untrue as there is no reason why he would do so. No reason is shown by the prosecution as to why the accused would jeopardize his future. Admittedly there was no dispute or enmity between accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi and victim/injured Mr. Udai Saini as well as complainant Mr. Deepak Sabharwal . In fact, the victim/injured and his father have completely absolved the accused by deposing that he not caused injuries to Mr. Udai Saini with a knife.
75. There is nothing on the record to show that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi has committed the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. He is a mature man and capable of understanding the implications of his acts. He has completely denied committing the offence.
76. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
77. There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 122 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:38:56 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 36 of 43 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
the part of accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi.
78. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He preferred to lead evidence in his defence but did not produce any witness and the defence evidence was closed on 19.12.2025.
79. There is no medical and forensic evidence against the accused.
There is no direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. The recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. knife appears to be manipulated by the police, as discussed above. It is also clear while discussing the evidence of the prosecution, as above, that the prosecution version is neither reliable nor believable.
80. In the judgment Partap v. The State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 966 has reported that the burden is on the accused to establish a plea of self defence and that on the prosecution to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability.
81. The defence of the accused of innocence although is not proved by him as he has not led any defence evidence but considering the unreliable evidence of the prosecution which suffers from Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 122 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 Under section 307 of the IPC. 14:39:04 +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 37 of 43 ::-
-:: 38 ::-
overwhelming contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, the prosecution version is neither believable nor reliable nor trust worthy.
82. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.
83. Therefore, as the prosecution version is unreliable and unbelievable that accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi had committed the alleged offences, the defence of the accused of innocence appears to be plausible that he has not committed any offence.
Final conclusion
84. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. The inherent contradictions strike at the very root of the prosecution story making it unbelievable and improbable. In the instant case, the evidence and different statements of the witnesses of the prosecution suffer from such infirmities and the probabilities due to which the prosecution has come out with a story, which is highly improbable. The overwhelming contradictions are too major to be ignored and they strike a fatal blow to the prosecution version. In fact what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that accused Mr. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:39:12 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 38 of 43 ::-
-:: 39 ::-
Naveen @ Chuddi has not committed the alleged offences.
85. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence.
86. Since the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable as there are overwhelming contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence.
87. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 122 of 2022. SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:39:20 Under section 307 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 39 of 43 ::-
-:: 40 ::-
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
88. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it stands established that the accused had not committed any offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC that on 21.02.2022 at about 05:30 pm at Lal Mandir, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, the accused attacked upon Mr. Udai Saini and Mr. Deepak Sabarwal with a knife and caused simple injuries on the person of Mr. Udai Saini at his abdomen, left side forehead, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if the accused had caused their death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
89. There is no incriminating evidence against accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
90. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offence as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and unworthy of credence.
91. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:39:27 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 40 of 43 ::-
-:: 41 ::-
weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
92. If the prosecution evidence is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other material on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, the deposition does not inspire confidence and is unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime.
93. It is a case of attempt to culpable homicide which carries grave implication for accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi , if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that of a high standard and not mere possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
94. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi and none else who is culprit and has committed the alleged offences.
Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date: SHARMA 2025.12.26 14:39:34 +0530 Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. FIR No. 122 of 2022. Under section 307 of the IPC. PS : Kotla Mubarakpur. State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 41 of 43 ::- -:: 42 ::-
95. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 21.02.2022 at about 05:30 pm at Lal Mandir, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, the accused attacked upon Mr. Udai Saini and Mr. Deepak Sabarwal with a knife and caused simple injuries on the person of Mr. Udai Saini at his abdomen, left side forehead, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if the accused had caused their death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
96. All the above facts indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case in respect of the offences of attempt to culpable homicide by accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi and the accused merits to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC.
97. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi and he merits to be acquitted.
98.Accordingly, accused Mr. Naveen @ Chuddi is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offence of attempt to culpable homicide punishable under section 307 of the IPC.
99. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.26 FIR No. 122 of 2022. 14:39:41 +0530 Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 42 of 43 ::-
-:: 43 ::-
100. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
101. One copy of the judgment be given to the Chief Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the legal aid counsel for the accused, as requested.
102. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.26 14:39:48 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 26 day of December, 2025. Principal District & Sessions Judge, th South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 26.12.2025.
*********************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 350 of 2022.
FIR No. 122 of 2022.
Under section 307 of the IPC.
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur.
State versus Naveen @ Chuddi. -:: Page 43 of 43 ::-