Delhi District Court
State vs Anand Kumar Thakur on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Anand Kr. Thakur
S/o Sh. Shekhar Kumar
R/o RZ-46A, P3-Block,
Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi,
2. Sushila Devi
W/o Sh. Shekhar Kumar
R/o RZ-46A, P3-Block,
Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi,
Sessions Case No. 769/18.
FIR No. 109/18.
PS Najafgarh.
CNR No. DLSW01-016977-2018.
Charge-sheet filed u/s 313/354/323/34 IPC.
Charge(s) framed against accused 354/323/313/34 IPC.
Anand Kr. Thakur
Charge(s) framed against accused 323/313/34 IPC.
Sushila Devi
Date of institution of case 07.08.2018.
Date of case received to Sessions 22.09.2018.
Court
Date of arguments 30.08.2025.
Date of judgment 12.09.2025.
Decision Conviction.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 1 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur is facing trial for offences alleged to be committed u/s 354/323/313/34 IPC and accused Sushila Devi is facing trial for offence alleged to be committed u/s 323/313/34 IPC. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur is accused of assaulting or used criminal force to Neelam, intending to outrage her modesty on 01.05.2018 at about 11.15 am at house no. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi, whereas accused persons Anand Kr. Thakur and Sushila Devi are accused of voluntarily caused miscarriage to Neelam, who was having 2-3 months pregnancy by giving her beatings with kick blow and push on 01.05.2018 at about 11.15 am at house no. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per charge-sheet, are that on 01.05.2018, on receiving DD No. 31A, ASI Dharambir alongwith Const. Ravi Kant reached at the spot i.e. House No. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, where complainant Neelam, her husband Deepak Yadav, her parents and accused Sushila Devi and her son/accused Anand Kr. Thakur were found. Complainant told that she was molested. As the case was related to molestation of a woman, the case was handed over to ASI Asmita vide orders of SHO concerned for further investigation. ASI Asmita reached at the spot. Complainant told that she is two months pregnant and accused Anand Kr. Thakur, who lives in House No. 46, P-3 FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 2 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, pushed and molested her. On account of bad health, the complainant went to her home and refused to give statement or to go to the hospital. Complainant refused to go to the hospital. Accused Sushila Devi and and her son/accused Anand Kr. Thakur met at the spot itself.
3. Thereafter, at about 7.15 pm, complainant alongwith her husband reached at the PS and got recorded her statement, wherein she deposed as under: -
"I live with my family at the above address and I am a housewife. My father Naresh Kumar's friend Shekhar Kumar lives at House No. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh. My father had sold his village land about 7 years ago, about which my father told Shekhar Kumar. Shekhar Kumar told my father that you have money and House No. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, is available for sale for Rs.22 lakhs. My father gave Rs.22 lakhs to Shekhar Kumar to buy the plot. Shekhar Kumar bought the plot and fraudulently got it registered in his name. Now, we are demanding Rs.22 lakhs from him. When we talk about money, he does not talk and switches off his mobile phone. My father is ill and he cannot walk or speak or understand anything. So, today morning, around 9.00 am, I went to Shekhar Kumar's house with my husband to talk. Shekhar Kumar was at home and at around 10.30 am, he said that he will come soon. Shekhar Kumar's wife was at home, so I sat there. Around 11.00 am, Shekhar Kumar's son Anand Kr. Thakur came to the house and asked what is your work. We have to go somewhere for some important work. You go out of our house. I said that we will talk to your father and then go and will wait for him here. Anand Kr. Thakur said that you will not go like this and with bad intentions he put his hand inside the suit, which I was wearing and pressed my chest and pushed me. When I screamed, my husband, who was talking on the phone outside, came running. I fell down due to push. My husband picked me up. I am two months pregnant. Reasons for falling due to push, I started having pain in my stomach. My husband brought me home to rest and I informed my mother over the phone and my husband sent his younger brother Nitish to bring her. My parents went directly to Shekhar Kumar's house FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 3 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
with Nitesh. My husband and I also reached there when the police arrived. After this, my health deteriorated, so I went home with my husband. Now, I have come to police station to record my statement. Legal action should be taken against the above mentioned Anand Kr. Thakur."
4. On the basis of aforesaid statement, a case u/s 323/354 IPC was registered and further investigation was carried out.
5. After this, statement of complainant Neelam was recorded u/s 161 CrPC and she complained of pain to IO, hence, complainant was sent for medical examination to RTRM Hospital alongwith her husband Deepak and Const. Sunita. Const. Sunita came to police station and told that after medical examination vide MLC No. 2139/18, complainant Neelam was admitted in hospital, where she is under treatment and her husband is with her.
6. During investigation, IO conducted a cursory inspection of the spot but found no CCTV camera installed there that could show the incident. Despite a lot of efforts, no eyewitness was found. At the instance of complainant, site plan of spot was prepared.
7. During investigation, complainant was discharged from the hospital and she suffered a miscarriage during treatment. Result and opinion of Gynae Doctor were obtained on the MLC and complainant has recorded her statement u/s 161 CrPC and u/s 164 CrPC, wherein she reiterated the facts mentioned in her complaint and that she had already informed accused Anand Kr. Thakur and Sushila Devi that she was pregnant, however, accused Anand Kr. Thakur pushed her and made her fall and accused Sushila Devi kicked her, hence, Section 313 IPC was added in the case.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 4 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
8. On 14.05.2018, accused Anand Kr. Thakur was arrested after telling the circumstances of the case to him. His mother i.e. accused Sushila Devi was informed about arrest of accused Anand Kr. Thakur. On 23.05.2018, statement of complainant Neelam u/s 164 CrPC was got recorded. During investigation, accused Sushila Devi was interrogated and has been kept in column no. 11 without arrest.
9. On the basis of investigation, statement of complainant, doctor's report, statement of witnesses and circumstances of the case, charge-sheet was filed u/s 313/354/323/34 IPC against accused Anand Kr. Thakur and Sushila Devi in the Court for trial.
10. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons u/s 207 CrPC. Vide order dated 14.09.2018, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 CrPC.
11. Vide order dated 19.01.2019, the Ld. Predecessor Court framed charges u/s 354/313/34 IPC against accused Anand Kr. Thakur and charge u/s 313/34 IPC against accused Sushila Devi. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, this Court framed additional charge u/s 323/34 IPC against accused persons Anand Kr. Thakur and Sushila Devi. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses alongwith its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
13. PW1 Neelam deposed that on 24.03.2010, she got married with Deepak. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur is son of Shekhar FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 5 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:28:00 +0530
Kumar, who is friend of her father and accused Sushila is wife of Shekhar Kumar. She further deposed that on 01.05.2018, about 9.00 am, PW1 alongwith her husband went to house of Shekhar Kumar to talk him as her father had given Rs.22 lacs to him for purchase a plot in the name of her father but Shekhar Kumar mischievously purchased the said plot in his own name. They had gone there as Shekhar Kumar was neither returning the money nor was picking up the phone. She also deposed that at about 10.30 am, Shekhar left from there to see a doctor. At about 11.00 am, accused Anand Kr. Thakur came there and confronted PW1 and her husband as to why they had come there to which PW1 replied that they need to talk to his father about the plot and either he should return their money or give his mobile number. She further deposed that accused Anand Kr. Thakur exhorted "hame kahin zaroori kaam se bahar jana hai, aap hamare ghar se chale jao" to which PW1 replied that they will not go before talking to his father. On this issue, accused Anand Kr. Thakur said "tu aise nahi jayegi. Ussne galat niyat se mere pehne hue suit ke andar haath daal ker meri chhati ko dabaya aur mujhe dhakka mara". When PW1 cried, her husband, who was talking on phone outside, came inside. Due to pushing, PW1 fell down and her husband hold her. She also deposed that accused Sushila Devi also gave beatings to PW1 on her abdomen. Initially, when PW1 and her husband had reached at the house of accused persons, PW1 had told accused Sushila Devi that she was pregnant. At the time of incident, PW1 FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 6 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:53 +0530
was having two months pregnancy. She further deposed
that PW1 made a call to her parents about the incident from the house of accused persons and they came there. PW1 also made a call to police from the house of accused persons about the incident. She also deposed that due to beatings and due to fall by accused persons, PW1 had severe pain in her stomach and her husband took her to their house. Thereafter, mother of PW1 made a call to her and informed that police had come at the spot and asked PW1 to come back at spot. PW1 was inquired and thereafter, she went to her house. PW1 went to PS at about 7.15 pm and police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. She also deposed that as PW1 was having severe pain, police took her to RTRM Hospital, where she was admitted and later on, she came to know that she had a miscarriage. PW1 shown the spot to police and IO prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B. During investigation, PW1 given bank statement and sale deed of the property, which her father had sold to purchase the plot in question, to the IO. She further deposed that during investigation, her statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/C was got recorded before a Magistrate on 23.05.2018. She was cross examined by ld. counsel for accused persons.
14. PW2 Deepak Kr. Yadav deposed that accused Anand Kr.
Thakur is his distant relative. On 01.05.2018, PW2 alongwith his wife Neelam Yadav went to house of accused to make him talk to his in-laws. Father-in-law of PW2 wanted to talk to accused but accused was not picking his phone. He further deposed that there was some monetary FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 7 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
transaction between father-in-law of PW2 and accused. Brother-in-law Karambir of PW2 had given Rs.22 lacs to accused to purchase a plot. He also deposed that when PW2 reached to the house of accused, at around 9.00 am, father Shekhar of accused Anand Kr. Thakur was present there. Shekhar was not speaking to them properly and went outside. After a short while, accused Anand Kr. Thakur came inside the house and asked them as to why they have come there. PW2 told accused that PW2 has come to ask for money which was given by his brother-in-law. He further deposed that accused told them that they should leave as accused has to go somewhere. Wife of PW2 told accused that she is pregnant and they cannot time and again visit his house. He also deposed that suddenly, PW2 got a call and he went outside to reply the call. While on call, PW2 heard screams of his wife. PW2 immediately rushed back and saw that accused was holding neck and chest of his wife and wife of PW2 was pushed by accused Anand Kr. Thakur and his mother Sushila Devi. He further deposed that PW2 intervened to save his wife and then brought his wife outside house of accused because she was telling him that she was having pain in her stomach. PW2 came outside and called his brother and told him the entire situation and told him to bring his in-laws to house of accused. PW2 also called to police. He also deposed that before arrival of police, condition of his wife deteriorated and he immediately took her to their house. Then again, upon receiving a call from his in-laws that they have reached to FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 8 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
house of accused persons, PW2 alongwith his wife again reached at the house of accused persons. He also deposed that upon making another call at about 4.00 pm, police reached at the spot and they went to police station, where his statement was got recorded. He further deposed that during recording of statement of his wife, her condition got worse and she was taken to RTRM Hospital, where she was treated. After 2-3 days, his wife suffered miscarriage due to assault by accused persons. On 14.05.2018, accused Anand Kr. Thakur was arrested at the instance of PW2 vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A.
15. PW2 was confronted by ld. counsel for accused persons with his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC on two aspects. First, he did not tell to police that when he entered the room, his wife was lying on the floor and secondly, he did not inform to police that he saw accused Anand holding his wife with her neck and chest.
16. PW3 Sunita deposed that about five years ago, her husband got ill and one of acquaintance of her husband namely Dr. Shekhar Kumar used to visit him during his illness to give him treatment. She further deposed that earlier her husband showed signs of recovery. Dr. Shekahr used to stay in their house for 1-2 days while carrying treatment. Dr. Shekhar treated her husband for about 2-3 months. After some time, health of her husband got deteriorated and hence, they took her husband to Apollo Hospital. She also deposed that later on, her husband unfortunately got expired. After death of her husband Shekhar stopped visiting them. One day FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 9 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
Shekhar met her son Karamveer and proposed him a land deal and her son told that he has given Rs.22 lacs to Dr. Shekhar for buying a plot. She further deposed that Karamveer told Shekhar to inform him when he will get the plot registered. Some time passed by and then her son contacted Shekhar and asked his money back or to register plot his name. She also deposed that when PW3 alongwith her daughter Neelam (PW1) and son-in-law PW2 went to the property which her son purchased, Shekhar and his family did not let them enter into the property. She further deposed that son of Shekhar namely accused Anand Kr. Thakur pushed her daughter.
17. PW4 Karamveer deposed that father of accused Anand Kr.
Thakur namely Dr. Shekhar was in visiting terms with his father and PW4 has also visited house of Dr. Shekhar with his father and their relations were cordial. He further deposed that in 2009, his father became unwell and suffered brain hemorrhage and Dr. Shekhar treated him but his father did not get any benefit by his treatment. Thereafter, he got admitted his father in Apollo Hospital, where his father was hospitalized for about a year. He also deposed that at the time of discharge of his father from the hospital, his sister's marriage got fixed hence, they required money and they decided to sell their land. He further deposed that in 2013, Dr. Shekhar offered to sell a land for Rs.22 lacs and PW4 gave him money, from which Dr. Shekhar purchased that plot but did not get it registered in the name of PW4, rather Dr. Shekhar got executed the documents of the plot in his FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 10 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
name. Despite repeated request of PW4, Dr. Shekhar did not give him the plot nor returned money. He further deposed that upon repeated demands, Dr. Shekhar returned Rs.1.50 lacs in the account of youngest sister Pooja of PW4 and promised to return the remaining amount as per his convenience. He also deposed that on 01.05.2018, PW4 sent his parents to the house of accused and mother of PW4 then called him that accused persons are stating that Dr. Shekhar is not at home. He also deposed that upon this, PW4 asked his sister Neelam to go to house of accused and ask for money. From there, Neelam informed PW4 that accused persons are manhandling her and are asking them to leave the place. Thereafter, Neelam lodged the complaint against accused persons.
18. PW5 Dr. Shruti Joshi Dabral deposed that on 02.05.2018, she examined patient Neelam, aged about 26 years, female, and put note Ex.PW5/A on MLC No. 2139/18. She found that patient was pregnant and a case of threatened abortion and patient was advised ultrasound for fetal well being. She clarified "threatened abortion" means that right now patient is pregnant, but there are chances of abortion. Later on, on the request of police, she gave detailed opinion Ex.PW5/B. The patient was again admitted on 04.05.2018 with history of bleeding per vaginum and USG of the patient was repeated, which showed no fetus in uterus and the patient was discharged with diagnosis of complete abortion.
19. PW6 Dr. Vivek Gupta deposed that on the directions of Medical Superintendent, he appeared in the Court in place FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 11 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
of Dr. Deepak Bhaskar and he is acquainted with handwriting and signatures of Dr. Deepak Bhaskar. He seen MLC No. 2139/18 of patient Neealm, aged 26 years, female. As per alleged history mentioned on the MLC, the patient was brought to hospital with physical assault. The MLC Ex.PW6/A is in handwriting of Dr. Deepak Bhaskar.
20. PW7 ASI Jaipal deposed that on 01.05.2018, at about 4.24 pm, upon receiving an information from Control Room vide GD No. 37A Ex.PW7/A, he recorded the same in CCTNS and handed over to ASI Dharambir for further necessary action. On the same day, upon receiving rukka from ASI Ashmita, he recorded present FIR Ex.PW7/B. He made endorsement Ex.PW7/C on the rukka and also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/D. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to IO ASI Ashmita for further investigation.
21. PW8 ASI Geeta deposed that on 01.05.2018, at about 3.01 pm, upon receiving an information from Control Room vide GD No. 31A Ex.PW8/A, she recorded the same in CCTNS and handed over to ASI Dharambir for further necessary action. On the same day, at about 3.42 pm, upon receiving another information from Control Room vide GD No. 34A Ex.PW8/B, she recorded the same in CCTNS and handed over to ASI Dharambir for further necessary action.
22. PW9 ASI Dharamvir deposed that on 01.05.2018, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm and upon receiving DD No. 31A, he alongwith Const. Ravi Kant reached at House No. 46, P-Block, Gali No. 10, New FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 12 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530
Roshanpura, Najafgarh, where Neelam, her husband Deepak and her parents met. Neelam informed that there was some money transaction of her father with one Shekhar for a total sum of Rs.22 lacs. Neelam also informed that she was molested by accused Anand Kr. Thakur. Being offence related against woman, he informed to SHO concerned and then ASI Asmita came at the spot, who asked Neelam to make a statement, but Neelam said that she is not well. Neelam also refused for medical examination. Police checked the CCTV camera, however, no CCTV camera was found installed near the spot.
23. PW10 ASI (Retired) Ram Mehar deposed that on 14.05.2018, he alongwith IO ASI Ashmita reached RZ-46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, where husband of complainant met and pointed out accused Anand Kr. Thakur. IO interrogated and arrested accused Anand Kr. Thakur vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW10/A. Information about arrest of accused Anand Kr. Thakur was given to his mother. IO recorded statement of husband of complainant. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur was taken to hospital for medical examination.
24. PW11 SI Asmita deposed that on 01.05.2018, on the instructions of SHO concerned, regarding DD No. 31A Ex.PW8/A, DD No. 34A Ex.PW8/B and DD No. 37A Ex.PW7/A, she reached at the spot i.e. House No. 46, P-3- Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, where ASI Dharamvir and Const. Ravi Kant met. Complainant Neelam FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 13 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
also met with her husband and parents. She further deposed that complainant informed that she was having pregnancy of 2 months. Complainant further informed that accused Anand Kr. Thakur had pushed and molested her. Complainant further told that she is not feeling well and requested that her statement may be recorded later on. PW11 requested complainant to go to hospital for medical examination but she refused at that time and went to her home. She also deposed that accused Sushila Devi and his son/accused Anand Kr. Thakur also met at the spot. On the same day, around 7.15 pm, complainant alongwith her husband came to PS and made statement Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of said statement, PW11 prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A and got registered present FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW7/B. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/D was issued by Duty Officer. She further deposed that after registration of case, complainant told that some of the facts, she could not state in her statement. Then PW11 recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/B of complainant. Thereafter, victim/complainant sent to RTRM Hospital for medical examination alongwith Const. Sunita. PW11 recorded statement of ASI Dharamvir and Const. Ravi Kant u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D. Thereafter, PW11 went to spot and tried to find out CCTV camera in nearby spot but no CCTV camera was found installed there. Thereafter, she came back to the PS. Const. Sunita came back to PS and informed that victim/complainant was got admitted in the hospital. She further deposed that on FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 14 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
03.05.2018, PW11 went to RTRM Hospital, where victim/complainant was admitted in the hospital and husband Deepak of complainant met in the hospital and PW11 recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/E of husband of complainant namely Deepak. She also deposed that on 09.05.2018, PW11 collected discharge medical documents Ex.PW11/F-1 to Ex.PW11/F-3 of victim/complainant from complainant. PW11 submitted all related documents to Medical Officer of RTRM Hospital for result on MLC vide her letter Ex.PW11/G. She further deposed that during investigation, she collected MLC Ex.PW6/A of victim/complainant and opinion regarding delivery and miscarriage of patient Neelam Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter, after discussion with senior police officers, PW11 arrested accused Anand Kr. Thakur from his residence vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A in presennce of HC Ram Mehar and Deepak (husband of victim/complainant). She also deposed that accused Anand Kr. Thakur was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW10A. She further deposed that on 19.05.2018, PW11 added Section 313 IPC after discussions with senior police officers. On 23.05.2018, PW11 got recorded statement of victim/complainant u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PX-1 (colly). On the same day, PW11 went to the spot with complainant and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at her instance. During investigation, PW11 issued notice u/s 91 CrPC Ex.PW11/H on 23.05.2018. I also recorded statement of Neelam u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/I. She further deposed that on 13.06.2018, FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 15 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
PW11 recorded statement of Sunita (mother of complainant Neelam) u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/J. On 27.06.2018, PW11 recorded statement of Karamvir (brother of complainant Neelam) u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW11/K. She also deposed that on 10.07.2018, complainant provided photocopies of some documents (on page no. 115 to 145 and are collectively Ex.PW11/M), which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/L. She further deposed that on 12.07.2018, PW11 interrogated accused Sushila Devi at her residence. After completion of investigation, PW11 prepared final report Ex.PW11/N.
25. PW12 HC Ravi Kant deposed that on 01.05.2018, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm alongwith ASI Dahramvir. Upon receiving DD No. 31A, he alongwith ASI Dharamvir reached at House No. 46, P-3 Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, where Neelam, her husband Deepak and her parents met. He further deposed that Neelam informed that there was some money transaction of her father with one Shekhar for a total sum of Rs.22 lacs and that Shekhar had left the house and after some time, his wife/accused Sushila Devi and son/accused Anand Kr. Thakur came there and manhandled with her due to which she fell down and that accused Anand Kr. Thakur had also molested her. He also deposed that being offence against woman, ASI Dharamvir informed to the SHO concerned and then ASI Asmita came at the spot. He further deposed that when ASI Asmita asked Neelam to make a statement, Neelam said that she was not well and also FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 16 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
refused for her medical examination. They checked CCTV camera, however, no CCTV camera was found installed near the spot.
26. Accused persons have admitted statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC as Ex.PX-1 (colly) (running into 6 pages) u/s 294 CrPC.
27. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 CrPC (351 BNSS), wherein they have denied all the allegations against them. They also stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case because complainant want to extort money from father of accused Anand Kr. Thakur and husband of accused Sushila Devi. They also stated that on 01.05.2018, complainant and her husband visited their house when father of accused Anand Kr. Thakur and husband of accused Sushila Devi was not present there. Accused Anand Kr. Thakur requested them to leave his house as they had to leave for some place, but they did not listen to their request and continuously asked to meet father of accused Anand Kr. Thakur and husband of accused Sushila Devi. Having no other option left with accused Anand Kr. Thakur, he called the police at number 100 after which police reached at their house at about 4.00 pm, where though rank of the police official he does not remember but his name was Vikas, who asked Neelam and her husband to go out of their house and accused Anand Kr. Thakur informed police official Vikas about the entire incident that they are asking for some money, which they are alleging FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 17 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
that they have given to father of accused Anand Kr. Thakur and husband of accused Sushila Devi. Thereafter, police official Vikas asked Neelam and her husband to give their complaint in PS in relation to their money and thereafter, he went away from there. After some time, police officials Dharambir and Ravi Kant came there to whom also accused Anand Kr. Thakur narrated entire incident and complainant Neelam also informed the same to them, who also asked Neelam and her husband to give complaint to PS in respect of their alleged money transaction. Accused persons further submits that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in collusion with police officials.
28. Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence, however, no evidence in their defence was led and accordingly, defence evidence was closed vide separate statement of ld. defence counsel in this regard.
29. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, ld.
Additional PP for State and Sh. Ankit Mutreja, ld. counsel for accused persons.
30. Ld. Additional PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW1 Ms. Neelam, PW2 Deepak Kumar Yadav, PW3 Smt. Sunita and PW4 Karamveer have completely supported the case of prosecution and PW1, PW2 and PW3 have correctly identified the accused Anand Kumar Thakur and accused FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 18 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
Sushila Devi in the Court during trial. It is argued that due to acts of pushing and kicking of accused person the complainant/PW1 has suffered miscarriage and have thus committed offence under Section 313/323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. It is also submitted that the accused Anand Kumar Thakur had touched the chest of complainant/PW1 and have thereby committed the offence of outraging modesty of woman u/s 354 IPC. It is stated that PW1 had remained consistent in her statement and the medical records Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B are duly proved by PW5 and PW6. Thus, the accused persons Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila should be convicted for the offences u/s 313/323/34 IPC and accused Anand Kumar Thakur should also be convicted for the offence u/s 354 IPC.
31. Per Contra, ld. counsel for accused persons have argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the medical documents cannot be relied upon as the police officials have not taken the opinion of treating doctor despite being advised. It is further argued that the accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case and they are not responsible for the miscarriage of the complainant Neelam. It is also argued that the accused persons were unaware about the pregnancy of complainant Neelam and therefore, they cannot have the intention to cause her miscarriage. It is also argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3, hence, they are not reliable. He further argued that FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 19 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, accused should be acquitted under all sections of law under which charges has been framed against him.
32. In the present case, charge under Sec. 313/323/354/34 IPC has been framed against the accused. This Section has been elaborated as under: -
"313- Causing miscarriage without woman's consent:
Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
323- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
354- Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
33. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 20 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
34. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2018 at about 11:15 AM at house no. 46, P-3, Block, Gali No. 10, New Roshanpura, New Delhi, complainant Neelam had suffered miscarriage due to the acts of accused persons Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila Devi. Furthermore, accused person Anand Kumar Thakur had also outraged the modesty of Neelam by touching/pressing her chest and pushing her. It is stated that on fateful day complainant Neelam had visited the house of the accused persons in morning at 9:00 am so that she can meet Shekhar (father of Anand Kumar Thakur and husband of Sushila Devi) in regards to some dispute over money allegedly given by father of complainant to Shekhar for purchase of a plot. It is stated that Shekhar had left the house at 10:30 am leaving behind accused Sushila Devi. Thereafter, accused Anand Kumar Thakur came and both accused persons had assaulted complainant. The husband of the complainant had also accompanied the complainant but when the incident happened he had gone outside the house to attend a phone call. This court has dealt with the accusations of the prosecution story one by one, as per the alleged offence.
35. Firstly, prosecution has alleged that accused Anand Kumar Thakur has outraged the modesty of complainant Neelam by inserting his hand under the suit of the complainant, pressing her chest and pushing her. To prove its case prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 21 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
Neelam, who is examined as PW1 and her husband, who is examined as PW2. . PW1 in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C has stated that accused Anand Kumar Thakur had said "tu aise nahi maegi, phir usne mujhe gale se pakad liya aur chhati par haath mara, phir usne mujhe dhakka mar kar ghar se bahar nikal diya." Further, PW1 in her examination- in-chief before this court has stated that accused Anand Kumar has done the following act "tu aise nahi jayegi. Usne galat niyat se mere pehne hue suit ke andar haath daal ker meri chhati ko dabaya aur mujhe dhakka mara ". Upon cross-examination she stated that "when I refused to leave from house accused Anand held me by neck and pushed me to go out". Although, during her cross examination, she did not state that accused Anand Kumar Thakur had inserted his hand inside her suit and pressed her chest but that is not a material contradiction as the PW1 had remained consistent in her testimony throughout and withstood cross- examination. The cross-examination is not recorded in the form of question and answers so this court does not have the opportunity to understand the nature of question that was asked to PW1. The answer of the witness depends upon the question being asked to such witness. The answer of PW1 would not mean that she had resiled from her statement in examination-in-chief. Otherwise, the testimony of PW1 has remained consistent throughout and her testimony inspires confidence. There is no reason for this court to disbelieve testimony of PW1. It is a settled law that conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix in cases of sexual FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 22 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
assault. In this regard, it is imperative to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while dealing with the contention of the akin effect, inter alia noted as under: -
"21. ...The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
36. Analogously, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pratap Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3207, in the similar context observed as under: -
"17. It is now well-settled that conviction for an offence of rape/sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix, if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars..."
37. Demonstrably, it is observed from above that it is a settled law that conviction for an offence of sexual assault/rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In fact, even on a general principle, it has been recurrently avowed by superior courts in a catena of decisions that there is no FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 23 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:53 +0530
legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness if his version is clear and reliable, reason underlying the same being; 'the evidence has to be weighed and not counted'. Notably so, in the instances of sexual offences, courts have even gone on to the extent to appreciate and declare that to seek corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 12 SCC 680, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, and Munna v. State of M.P., (2014) 10 SCC 254, before relying upon the same would amount to adding insult to the injury sustained by such victim and have, consequently, deprecated the said practice. Unmistakably, the reasons for the same can be easily inferred from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under: -
"17. We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. An Indian FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 24 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those who violate the societal norms. The standard of proof to be expected by the court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that reference also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity."
38. Concurrently, this Court is also cognizant of the fact that the incidents of sexual offences usually occur in secrecy, out of public gaze and even in the cases where witnesses to such events exit, they may not be forthcoming in supporting the prosecution's case. Unmistakably, under such circumstances, to discard the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, consistent in material particulars and withstanding the rigors of cross- examination, would amount to causing gross prejudice as well as aggravating the plight of such victim/prosecutrix on one hand, while acting as impetus for the potential perpetrators of similar offences to proceed with their nefarious designs. Needless to mention the same would not only perpetuate a sense of blameworthiness in the prosecutrix/victim of such offences, rather, expose such a victim to stigmatization and penalization in the hands of the society despite the courage exhibited by her to speak out against her perpetrator. Indisputably, such a recourse would act antagonist to, both, the rule or law as well as the sense of FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 25 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
justice, on which the entire criminal jurisprudence and rule of law are premised.
39. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The testimony of the complainant, in the instant case, is not only natural but also trustworthy and worth being relied upon. Having observed as above, in the instant case, the prosecution has also relied upon testimony of PW2 to prove commission of offence u/s 354 IPC. However, the testimony of PW2 is not reliable on this aspect as he was contradicted by the defence with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had seen accused Anand Kumar Thakur holding neck and chest of PW1 Neelam but said fact was not stated by him in his statement before the police. The version of PW2 appears to be exaggerated and improved. His version is not in consonance with the testimony of PW1 who stated that PW2 was outside the house at the time of alleged incident, as he had to attend a phone call but had rushed inside the house after hearing her shrieks. Even if testimony of PW2 is disregarded to prove offence u/s 354 FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 26 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
IPC, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of PW1, as already discussed above.
40. Now adverting to the offence u/s 313/34 IPC, for which prosecution has alleged that accused Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila Devi had caused miscarriage of PW1 by their act of assaulting PW1. To convict a person under section 313 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients: -
(a) The woman should be with child that means she should be pregnant, it is immaterial that she was quick with child or not.
(b) She should have suffered miscarriage i.e., premature expulsion of the child or foetus from the mother's womb at any period of pregnancy before the term of gestation is completed.
(c) The accused person should have 'voluntarily' caused miscarriage i.e., the accused should have caused the effect by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely, to cause it.
(d) Such miscarriage was caused without the consent of the woman.
41. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. PP that the accused Sushila and Anand Kumar Thakur were aware that complainant Neelam was pregnant and with full knowledge of this fact, accused Anand Kumar Thakur had pushed Neelam due to which she fell and accused Sushila had kicked complainant Neelam in FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 27 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:53 +0530
her abdomen, so that complainant could miscarry. The prosecution has relied upon testimonies of PW1 and PW2 to prove its case. From a bare perusal of examination-in-chief of PW1 and PW2 it can be seen that PW1 had informed the accused persons about her pregnancy initially when she went to the house of the accused persons. PW1 in her examination in chief has stated that "Accused Sushila also gave me beating on my abdomen. Initially, when we had reached at the house of accused I had told accused Sushila that I was pregnant." And PW2 in his testimony has stated that "Accused told us that we should leave as he has to go somewhere. My wife told him that she is pregnant and we cannot time and again visit his house. Suddenly, I got a call and I went outside to reply the call. While on call I heard screams of my wife..." The testimony of PW1 and PW2 fully corroborates with each other on the aspect that the accused persons Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila Devi had knowledge that complainant Neelam was pregnant and the acts of accused Anand Kumar Thakur to push PW1 with force so that she fells down and accused Sushila Devi to give beatings on abdomen of compalainant specifically shows that they had the intention to cause miscarriage of PW1. It is argued on behalf of the defence that the presence of accused Anand Kumar Thakur is not established by the prosecution when complainant/PW1 had disclosed her pregnancy and therefore, the offence u/s 313 IPC is not made out against the accused Anand Kumar Thakur. The contention of the defence counsel does not hold water as FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 28 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:54 +0530
accused Sushila Devi and Anand Kumar Thakur were acting with common intention, they both were present at time of incident. This court cannot assume that accused Anand Kumar Thakur did not know about the pregnancy of complainant as both the accused have acted in concert with each other and there acts cannot be separated from each other and viewed in isolation.
42. Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW6/A are duly proved by PW5 and PW6. Ex. PW5/B, is the opinion of PW5 Dr. Shruti that states that in the present case assault can be a reason for the miscarriage. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had pointed out certain discrepancies in Ex. PW5/B. It is stated by him that the document is undated and is based on the medical reports only and not upon examination of the complainant by her treating doctor despite a specific recommendation by Dr. Deepak Bhaskar and for this he has relied upon the testimony of PW11, wherein, during her cross-examination, she has stated "Complainant did not inform me that prior to the subject incident, complainant had abortion for about 2-3 times. It is correct that I had obtained the opinion from Dr. Shruti Joshi Dabral in respect of miscarriage of the complainant. No request letter has been specifically sent for the purpose of getting the opinion of from Dr. Shruti Joshi Dabral in respect to the miscarriage of the complainant except Ex. PW11/G, which is the request letter to provide result on MLC No. 2139/18. It is correct that in Ex. PW11/G Dr. Deepak Bhaskar, Medical Officer, had advised to take FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 29 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530
opinion in regard to the nature of injuries from the treating doctor Gynae Department on 19.05.2018. I do not remember, if I had sent any letter requesting the doctor of Gyane Department to provide the opinion in respect to the nature of injuries in the present case." To the mind of this court, the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for accused persons are baseless. Just because another opinion was not sought by treating doctor, the case of the prosecution does not remain unproved. Ex. PW5/A is the MLC No. 2139/18 wherein the alleged history was reported as physical assault with abdominal pain and upt positive and thereafter, the complainant had suffered miscarriage, despite medical treatment. PW5 has stated that the complainant was admitted in hospital on 04.05.2018 with history of bleeding per vaginum and USG of the patient/complainant was repeated, which showed no foetus in uterus and the patient/complainant was discharged with diagnosis of complete abortion. The abortion of the complainant is proximate in time with the date of incident and therefore, it can be concluded that physical assault was the reason for miscarriage. The acts of the accused person has resultantly led to the miscarriage of the complainant. The defence counsel is not allowed to take shield of a faulty investigation to escape liability of their acts. It has been held by in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654, wherein it was observed as under: -
"In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 30 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
43. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complaint was 7 weeks 6 days pregnant (Ex. PW11/F1) on 02/05/2018, she had suffered miscarriage without her consent, due to the voluntary acts of the accused persons Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila Devi. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sat Paul & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 756-SB of 1999 wherein it was held as under: -
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, the trial Court held that the accused had the knowledge about the pregnancy of complaint Anita Rani. The accused, five in number, had waylaid the complainant and caused injuries on her abdomen and other parts of the body knowing fully well that she was pregnant and, thus, committed offences under Sections 313/341/143/323/ 149 IPC. They were, accordingly, held guilty of the said offences and sentenced, as mentioned above. However, all the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC as evidence in that respect was found to be contradictory.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
Both the parties were closely related to each other. Manoj Kumar, husband of complainant Anita Rani, was brother of accused Sat Paul and Mohan Lal. Rajesh accused is son of Sat Paul while Devinder Gogna is son of Mohan Lal. Surinder Kumar, another brother of accused Sat Paul and Mohan Lal, was husband of accused Smt. Santosh. Keeping in view their close relationship inter se as well as the fact that both the parties were residents of the same village, it can safely be concluded that the accused were well aware of the fact that the complainant was pregnant at the time of the occurrence in question.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 31 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:53 +0530
None of the accused pleaded that he or she did not know that the complainant was pregnant. Their stand was that she was not pregnant. From the medical evidence, it stands established that the complainant was having a pregnancy of 2/3 months at the relevant time. Due of the injuries received by her, the complainant had started bleeding. Attempts were made by the medical authorities to treat her but finding that her life would be in danger if the pregnancy was not terminated, Dr. Usha Kiran PW2 went ahead with termination of the pregnancy. The said doctor had categorically stated that the abortion was possible in view of the kicks and fist blows received by a pregnant woman, i.e. the complainant on her abdomen.
Civil Suit Mark 'A' was filed by Sat Paul and Mohan Lal against Ajit Singh and others. Complainant Anita Rani was one of the defendants in the said suit. According to the complainant, she had attended the hearing of the suit on 17.9.1996 and at that time she was accompanied by her father. After hearing, the suit was adjourned. Then, she alongwith her father started for the village. She boarded a three wheeler/tempo. Reaching Langroya, she started walking towards her village but when she had covered half the distance, she was waylaid by the accused who caused injuries to her. Sat Paul and Mohan Lal caught hold of her from her arms whereas Smt. Santosh gave knee blows in her abdomen. Rajesh and Devinder Gogna gave fist blows in her abdomen. Santosh, Rajesh and Devinder Gogna also gave fist blows on her arms and hand. All the accused proclaimed that they would kill the complainant and her unborn child. Even while appearing before the trial Court as PW5, the complainant stated that she was waylaid by the accused at about 4.00 P.M. whereafter Mohan Lal and Sat Paul caught hold of her from her arms and stated that either she should leave her claim to the disputed house or she would be killed. Upon this, Santosh gave knee blows on her abdomen whereas Rajesh and Devinder Gogna gave fist blows on her back and abdomen and threatened to teach her a lesson for having purchased the disputed house. Similarly, PW6 Rajinder Pal deposed before the trial Court that when he reached the canal between Langroya and Bhan Mazara, he saw all the accused having waylaid the complainant and preventing her from proceeding towards village Bhan Mazara. Mohan Lal and Sat Paul had caught hold of her from her arms while Santosh was giving knee blows in the abdomen of the complainant. The remaining accused were giving fist blows in her abdomen on her back. Her clothes got torn from some places. The complainant was pregnant at that time and this fact was known to all the accused.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 32 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:59 +0530
They were holding out threats to put an end to her life. After the occurrence, the complainant became unconscious and started bleeding from her private parts. He took her to village Bhan Mazara, from where her husband shifted her to Civil Dispensary, Jadla. On 20.9.1996, she was referred to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr where she remained under treatment. The child in her womb died due to the injures received by her on her abdomen.
All the accused had been specifically attributed roles in the occurrence. Two of them had caught hold of her from her arms while other three had caused injuries, including knee and fist blows in her abdomen. On account of the injuries received by the complainant she started bleeding which led to the termination of her pregnancy later on.
In view of the above, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants for the various offences do not call for any interference."
44. It is apropos to refer the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Hardip Kaur@ Sandhu & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.., in Criminal Misc. No. M-8663 of 2010, wherein it was categorically held as under: -
"8. The inherent powers with which the Criminal Courts are clothed are to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Though the power is unrestricted and undefined, it should not be used capriciously or arbitrarily, but should be exercised, in appropriate cases, to do real and substantial justice, for which alone the Courts exist. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the petitioners, deserve the indulgence of the Court or not. There are serious allegations, against the accused- petitioners, that they caused miscarriage of two months child, in the womb of the complainant, by giving her injuries. The mere fact that, the petitioners, entered into compromise (Annexure P2) with the complainant, did not absolve them of their criminal liability. The provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for quashing the FIR, relating to such serious offence. If, in such like cases, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, are quashed, then there will be complete chaos in the society. Even otherwise, the offence, punishable under Section 313 IPC, allegedly FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 33 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530
committed by the petitioners, is against the public policy and society......"
45. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the accused persons are falsely implicated in the present matter as the root cause of dispute between the parties is property and money. No doubt that the dispute between the complainant and accused persons emerges over property and transactions of money, but would that automatically mean that the present case is false? To the mind of this, the answer is in negative because had the complainant lodged a false complaint, she would have also implicated Shekhar, to whom money was given by the father of the complainant. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses, no CCTV footage of the said incident, then this court is forced to think, that why in a false complaint, complainant had not implicated Shekhar. The only possible reason is that the complaint of the complainant is genuine.
46. To substantiate, the aforesaid submission, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also argued that as per the prosecution story the incident occurred in morning at around 11:15 am but the FIR was lodged at around 8:20 pm in evening. It is also argued that three DD entries were made on 01.05.2018, out of which two DD No. 031A (alleging ghar khali karna) and 034A (need police) were made at 3:01 pm and 03:42 pm respectively, by accused Anand Kumar Thakur whereas DD No. 037A was made at 4:24 pm by the complainant alleging "ladki se saath cher char". It is stated that the complainant was the aggressor and it was only when FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 34 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:55 +0530
her trick of occupying the property failed she filed the present complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that after the alleged incident the complainant and her husband had returned to their house, as the complainant was in pain and thereafter, they again went to the house of the accused person, when the mother and father of the complainant had also reached at the house of the complainant. As per the testimony of PW3 Smt. Sunita, PW3 reached the house of the accused persons at 1:00 pm and stayed there for two-two and a half hours. It is stated that during their stay at the house of accused person quarrel had taken place and in that quarrel accused Anand had pushed complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons is trying to get advantage of some confusion with regards to the time of incident as per the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3. It is pertinent to mention that the confusion is only in the mind of the defence counsel, on a combined reading of testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is already proved that PW1 was assaulted by the accused persons in the morning and when they again went to the house of the accused persons, she was once again pushed by accused Anand Kumar Thakur. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW3 had witnessed the incident that took place in morning. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant and her husband had once again went to the house of the accused person with her mother and father. PW3 is a witness to corroborate that fact that they were present at the house of the accused persons alongwith complainant and her husband in afternoon also.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 35 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:56 +0530
The accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. has confirmed the presence of PW1 and PW2 at their house in morning at 09:00 am. It is stated by them that "it is correct that PW1 on 01.05.2018 alongwith her husband came to house of Shekhar Kumar at house no. 46, P-13, Gali no. 10, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, about 9:00 am, to talk to him as her father had given Rs. 22 Lakhs to Shekhar Kumar for purchasing a plot in the name of her father." It also admitted by accused Anand Kumar Thakur and Sushila Devi that they shad asked complainant and her husband to leave from the house. All the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be nullified just because there was delay in reporting the incident. The delay in the present case is self-explanatory, PW1 and PW2 in their testimonies have stated that after the incident PW1 suffered abdominal pain and she was taken to her house for rest. It is not unnatural that a pregnant female was taken to home for rest before the police station for reporting the offence, so as to avoid further worsening of condition of the pregnant woman. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501, dealing with the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
"12. First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused: The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 36 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story As a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
47. However, in Ram Jag And Others vs The State Of U.P (1974) 4 SCC 201, the position was explained that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no motive for implicating the accused and / or when a plausible explanation is offered for the same. In the instant case, there is a plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.
48. It is also argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr. P.C was recorded on 23.05.2018 after 22 days of the alleged incident and therefore, suffers from improvement. The argument of the defence counsel is totally misplaced, the complainant had suffered miscarriage and she was discharged from the hospital on 10.05.2018. The complainant would have needed proper rest and care both physically and emotionally after an abortion and therefore, this court cannot take this delay as intentional for the purpose of improvisation.
49. Lastly, the physical acts of hitting, kicking and pushing by the accused persons is already established in the above said FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 37 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530
discussion and thus the accused persons are also liable for offence of voluntarily causing hurt u/s 323 IPC.
50. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
51. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 , has held that: -
"it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you."
52. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1256, has held that: -
"if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you."
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1, while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under: -
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 38 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:53 +0530
in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
54. In the present case, the statements of accused person u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to him it is stated either 'I do not know' or 'it is incorrect'. The accused person have not taken any specific defence either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused person are evasive in nature and accused person has not explained as to why, they have been falsely implicated in the present case or as to why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)'. This court is of considered opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation. The accused persons have not examined Shekhar as a witness, who might have thrown some light upon the entire incident. No defence is led by the accused persons.
55. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be of sterling quality. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that: -
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 39 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
56. In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (2007) SCC 170, it is held that: -
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 40 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:57 +0530
there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
57. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witnesses should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
58. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW1 Neelam, PW2 Deepak Kumar Yadav and PW3 Sunita are the witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are natural and they have withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW1 Neelam, PW2 Deepak Kumar Yadav and PW3 Sunita are clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses as well as the medical/scientific evidence.
59. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused person Anand Kumar Thakur for the offence u/s 354/323/313/34 IPC and Accused person Sushila Devi for offence u/s 323/313/34 IPC.
FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 41 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530
60. Accordingly, accused Anand Kumar Thakur is convicted for offences punishable u/s 354/323/313/34 IPC and accused Sushila Devi is convicted for offences punishable u/s 323/313/34 IPC.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 12.09.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 109/18. Page No. 42 of 42.
PS Najafgarh. State Vs. Anand Kr. Thakur & Another.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.12
16:27:58 +0530