Delhi District Court
State vs Premnath on 8 May, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
FIR No. 368/2004
U/sec. 323/325 IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case: 09.11.2004
Date for final arguments: 30.05.2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 08.05.2025
CNR No. DLNE02-000216-2004
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 463944/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 03.08.2004
c) Name of the complainant : Ms. Narain Pati
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Prem Nath
S/o Lt. Sh. Daya Ram
2) Parvati
W/o Lt. Sh. Daya Ram
3) Daya Ram (Abated)
e) Offence complained of : Section 325/34 IPC
f) Offence charged of : Section 323/325/34 IPC
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.05.08
16:45:16
+0800
FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 1/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Convicted
i) Date of such order : 08.05.2025
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 03.08.2004 at about 7.00 AM, somebody had exterminated the iron net from the drain/sewer. When complainant questioned her neighbour Parvati she started verbally abusing her loudly On hearing the noise, her son Prem Nath and her Daya Ram (abated) (hereinafter referred to as the accused) came out and started quarrelling with the complainant. Accused Parvati held the complainant with her hand and accused Prem Nath gave her fist blow on her face, due to which her four teeth of upper jaw got broken and fell in the drain which could not be found even on searching. Her husband Dharam Raj and son Ashok came out. Then accused Prem Nath and Daya Ram started beating Dharam and Ashok. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons under sections 325/34 IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 325/34 IPC was filed before the court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 09.11.2004 and the accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.08.2008 charges under sections 323/325/34 IPC were framed by the then Learned MM against accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses. Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:45:25 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 2/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. Prosecution Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Smt. Narayanpati
2. PW2 Sh. Dharamraj
3. PW3 Sh. Ashok Kumar
4. PW4 SI Ram Manohar
5. PW5 SI Ombir Singh
6. PW6 ASI Aruna
7. PW7 Retd. Home Guard Sh. Jai Bhagwan
8. PW8 Retd. SI Satender Pal
9. PW9 Dr. Banarsi
10. PW10 Dr. Neha
11. PW11 Inspector Jai Prakash Meena Documents relied upon by the prosecution S. No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Statement of Smt. Narayanpati
2. Ex. PW2/A Rukka
3. Ex. PW2/B FIR
4. Ex. PW5/A & Ex. Arrest memo of accused Prem Nath PW5/B and Daya Ram
5. Ex. PW5/C & Ex. Personal search memo of accused PW5/D Prem Nath and Daya Ram
6. Ex. PW6/A Arrest memo of accused Parvati
7. Ex. PW6/B Personal search memo of accused Parvati
8. Ex.PW-9/A MLC No. B-2621/04
9. Ex. PW9/B & MLC No. A-2600/04 and MLC No. A-
Ex.PW-9/C 2599/04 10 Ex. PW-11/A Tehrir Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:45:34 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 3/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.+0800 11. Ex.PW-11/B Site plan Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. Statement of accused was recorded on 12.03.2025. The accused perons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was a drain in front of the house of the complainant in which complainant installed an iron gauge due to which water had accumulated and flowed towards his house. He removed the iron gauge one day before the day of incident. On the next day he was present in the house. A hot talk ensued. Complainant thrashed him and he fell down. The family member of the complainant had hit him on his head with some sharp object due to which he fell unconscious. The parents of Prem Nath came to rescue him and they were also beaten by the family of the complainant. They are the victims in the present case. Accused Prem Nath was taken to the hospital and he along with his mother were given treatment and MLCs were prepared and the complainant falsely implicated him, his father and mother for saving themselves from criminal case. Police falsely implicated them.
Evidence of the Defence
5. Accused examined four witnesses in his defence.
Defence Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. DW1 Accused himself
2. DW2 Neighbour
3. PW3 Neighbour
4. DW4 Doctor Banarsi Documents relied upon by the accused Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:45:43 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 4/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. S. No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. DW-1/A Complaint given to the police
2. Mark-A MLC
3. Mark-B MLC Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 29.04.2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and have prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out that there was a delay in registration of FIR. He further argued that delay in registration of FIR has not been explained. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the case titled as Mallanagaouda Ravsaheb Patil & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2015(4) Crl. Court Case 254 (SC) and State of UP vs. Virendra, 2015 (Cr.) Cases (108) DB wherein there was a delay of forty days in lodging of FIR which was not satisfactorily explained. He also argued that accused persons also sustained injuries. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. This Court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the said Section 323/325/34 IPC against accused persons. It is apt to quote section 319 IPC.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2025.05.08
16:45:53
+0800
FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 5/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
319 IPC - "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
323 IPC. "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt-Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
325 IPC- "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine."
8. Further in order to prove offence u/s 323 IPC, the prosecution is also required to prove the (1) Identity of the accused (2) Voluntarily causing of simple hurt.
9. Further in order to prove offence u/s 325 IPC, the prosecution is also required to prove the
1. That the person causing hurt must have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt
2. The hurt which is caused in consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 IPC.
10. At this stage it is pertinent to note 320 IPC. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
1. Emasculation.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI ZAIDI Date:
2025.05.08 16:46:04 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 6/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
11. As far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned the same is not disputed. All the prosecution witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons. The identity of the accused persons stands established.
12. In his examination in chief, PW1 deposed that she did not remember the date of incident as she is an illiterate woman. She further deposed that accused person started abusing her with respect to the dispute of iron gauge. Accused persons gave beatings to her. Accused Parvati caught hold of her hair. She further deposed that she became unconscious due to the beatings given by the accused persons. Her four teeth were broken and upper lip was torn as a result of beating. She further deposed that her husband and son came out and all the accused persons gave beatings to them also. She testified in her cross-examination that accused Daya Ram and Prem Nath abused her and she told the same to the police. She further testified that iron gauge was of size of hand palm which was fixed on the drain flowing in front of her house. She denied the other suggestions put to her Digitally by Ld. defence counsel.
signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:46:14 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 7/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
13. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2004 at about 7.00 am his wife was sitting outside her house. A quarrel took place between her wife and accused persons. Accused Parvati caught hold of hair of his wife and gave beatings to him and his son also due to which his son sustained injury on his head. He could not be cross-examined as he expired.
14. PW3 deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2004 he accused Parvati, Prem Nath, Daya Ram quarrel with his mother with respect to iron jali of the drainage. Accused Prem Nath gave fist blows on his mother's face and gave beatings to him and his father due to which blood started oozing out of his head. He further deposed that his mother lost four of her teeth. PW3 testified in his cross-examination that he is not aware about the age of Prem Nath on the date of incident. He further testified that when he came out he saw Prem Nath beating his mother. He testified in his cross-examination that when he came out, he saw accused Prem Nath beatings his mother. He further testified that accused Daya Ram came towards him with a danda and accused Parvati was standing there. He further testified that he came to save his mother but he sustained injuries with danda. He denied the other suggestions put to him by Ld. defence counsel.
15. PW4 was the duty office who got the FIR registered. He was not cross- examined despite opportunity. PW5 deposed in his examination in chief that IO arrested the accused vide separate arrest memo on 14.09.2004. He testified in his cross-examination that IO made inquiry from the accused persons regarding the incident. He denied the other suggestions put to him by Ld. defence counsel.
16. PW6 deposed in her examination in chief that she joined the investigation with the IO. Accused persons were arrested in her presence. She testified in her cross-examination that incident did not occur in her presence. She further testifiedDigitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:46:24 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 8/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. +0800 that IO did not request the public persons to join the investigation. She did not remember if at what time she reached the place of incident. She denied the other suggestions put to her by Ld. defence counsel.
17. PW7 deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2004 he was working as Home Guard and was deployed at PS Khajuri Khas. He went with the injured Ashok to the hospital for medical treatment. He testified that in cross- examination that he seen IO making inquiry from neighbours. He further testified that some dispute/altercation took place between neighbours. He denied the other suggestions put to her by Ld. defence counsel.
18. PW8 deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2004 he was posted as HC in PCR van and he received a PCR call regarding quarrel. He further deposed that he found three injured and took them to the hospital. He testified that in cross-examination that he did not make any inquiry as to who assaulted the victim. He was not aware if accused persons were taken to hospital before his arrival. He denied the other suggestions put to her by Ld. defence counsel.
19. In the present case the subsequent conduct of the injured witnesses in getting themselves treated is relevant in the present case under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
20. At this stage its pertinent to quote Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 "Section 8 Motive, preparation and previous or subse- quent conduct. - Any fact is relevant which shows or con- stitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceedings, in reference to such suit or pro- ceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an of- Digitally fence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:46:33 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 9/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was pre- vious or subsequent thereto."
Explanation 1- The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other sec- tion of this act.
Explanation 2.- When the conduct of any person is relevant, anu statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
Illustrations K- The question is whether A was robbed.
The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to hte offence, the circumstances un- der which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
21. The subsequent conduct of the complainant and injured witnesses in get- ting themselves treated being injured is relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. The complaint i.e. Ex. PW1/A is being corroborated by the testimonies of the witnesses before the Court thus being relevant u/s 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. The series of events have been contemporaneous. It is relevant of under sec- tion 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is germane to quote section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
"Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. - Facts which though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in is- sue as to form part of the same transaction, are rele- vant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different time and places." Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:46:45 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 10/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.
23. The facts that complainant and injured went to the hospital immediately is not fact in issue but it is so connected to the fact in issue that is "complainant/eye witnesses were injured" and after being beaten by the accused persons they went to the hospital immediately for their treatment so as to form part of same transac- tion. The same is relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The MLC of all the injured witnesses were prepared on the date of incident i.e. 03.08.2004 which is again relevant in the present case.
24. PW9 deposed in his examination in chief that he was posted as CMO, GTB hospital in the year 2004 and MLC bearing No. B-2621/2004 was prepared by him Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that MLC bearing NO. A2600/2004 and A- 2599/2004 and the nature of injury was simple caused by blunt object. He testi- fied in cross-examination that such injuries are possible due to fall on hard sur- face. He did not remember whether he examined the accused before examining the complainant.
25. PW10 deposed in her examination in chief that she was unable to identify the signatures of Dr. Udayam Gupta as she never worked with him. She testified in cross-examination that there was no dental report in the file. She could not say whether the signatures on MLC were of Dr. Udayam Gupta as she never worked with him. At this stage reference may be made to section 47 of the Indian Evi- dence Act,1872 "Section 47 Opinion as to hand writing when relevant- When the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person is a relevant Digitally fact. signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:46:55 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 11/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. +0800 Explanation- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that per- son write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents writ- ten by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him."
26. As per section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a person is said to be ac- quainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write or when he received the documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to the documents written by himself or under his authority and ad- dressed to that person in ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. PW9 identified the signatures of doctor Arun Tiwari. Thus, being tenable at law.
27. Perusal of MLC of injured Ashok reveals that the nature of injury was sim- ple. One lacerated wound on the head of parietal region was found. Abrasion was also found on the back side of scalp. Perusal of MLC of the complainant reveals that it was observed by the doctor "Nasal bleed avulsion of incised teeth bleeding in gums", "Abrasions on knees of the complainant". The nature of injury ob- served by doctor is "grievous". Perusal of MLC of Dharam Raj reveals that nature of injury as observed by doctor was simple in nature by blunt object. All the MLCs were prepared under the supervision of Dr. Banarsi, who has been duly ex- amined by the prosecution. The avulsion of incised teeth clearly falls under the definition of section 320 IPC.
28. Section 293 Cr.PC provides that - the report of scientific experts upon any matter duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in course of Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:47:07 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 12/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. any proceedings may be used as evidence in enquiry, trial or other proceedings which is relevant u/s 293 Cr.PC.
29. PW11 is the IO who deposed that on 08.15 PM, a DD entry regarding quar- rel was received. He along with Jai Bhagwan and Ct. Omvir reached at the spot. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot, one PCR was there carrying injured Narayan Pati, Dhanraj and Ashok. He came to know that opposite party was sent to GTB hospital. He reached GTB hospital and result of MLC was pend- ing. On 13.09.2004 he obtained the result of MLC's. Thereafter, on the state- ment of Narayan Pati, FIR was registered. He testified in his cross-examination that MLC of the accused persons was prepared prior to the preparation of MLC of complainant and his family members. He further testified that he recorded the statement of both parties i.e. 107/150 CrPC Kalandra. He admitted that he did not place on record MLC of Prem Nath and Parwati with the file. He denied the sug- gestions put to him by Ld. defence counsel.
30. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons in the present case, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
3. All these witnesses are the victims (who had sustained injuries) and eye-wit- nesses in the present case.
31. PW1, the complainant/injured, eye-witness and one of the injured persons in her testimony had given a detail account of the incident and the way she along with other injured person were beaten by the accused persons. PW1 and PW3 had categorically stated in their testimony that on the day of incident, complainant was beaten by the accused and Prem Nath and Daya Ram. Accused Parvati caught hold her hair. PW2 also deposed on the same lines that accused Parvati caught hold hair of his wife and her husband had beaten him and his wife and son. PW3 also Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:47:17 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 13/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. +0800 deposed that he saw accused Prem Nath hit struck face of her mother with fist blows and her mother lost four of her teeth.
32. PW2 and PW3 were also another injured and eye-witness of the present case. Perusal of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would clearly show that they had completely supported the case of the prosecution qua the culpability of the accused persons. No material contradictions could be seen among these PWs. They all were duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length and no ma- terial contradiction could also be seen therein. The statements given by the com- plainant and other injured persons could also be corroborated form the medical ev- idence available on record. Moreover, PW9 the expert witness who had proved the MLCs on record.
33. In the instant case, there are direct eye-witnesses of the incident i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 whose testimonies do not suffer from any material contradiction. They have completely supported the case of prosecution qua the culpability of the accused persons. Their testimonies could also be duly corroborated from the medi- cal evidence available on record.
34. The mere fact that the complainant had not stated in her initial complaint Ex.PW-1/A that her hair were caught by the accused Parvati is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It does not appear to be a material improvement so as to affect the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. It is also a well settled law that FIR is a not an encyclopedia of offence which must disclose all facts and details relat- ing to the offence reported as it was held in the case of CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175.
35. Apart from some minor discrepancies which is not affecting the truthfulness of the statement of the witness. Testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW3 are reliable and Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:47:26 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 14/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. inspires confidence well supported by testimonies of police witnesses. Testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded because of minor contradic- tions or omissions. At this stage, its profitable to rely upon the Judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India speaking through the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Sh. N.V Rammana for a three Judge Bench in the case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2022 SCC Online SC 497 "17. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed on hand or foot but the constant narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on informant PW-6. However, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission as observed by this court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457. This Court while considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, held that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment reads as under:
"42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness."
36. Complainant and other material witnesses also stood the test of cross examination. There is nothing on record to disbelieve in the testimony of the Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:47:55 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 15/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.+0800 prosecution. It is in consonance with testimony of other witnesses and supports the version of the case of prosecution. The testimony of rest of the witness is also corroborated by the testimony of the formal witness. The Complainant and other prime witnesses have not only reiterated given to the police in examination-in- chief but also undoubtedly faced the questions in cross-examination and made their testimony firm.
37. Accused Prem Nath examined himself as DW1 and deposed that on 03.08.2004 at about 7-7.30 AM his mother was cleaning outside the house and he was sitting outside his house and his father was standing, his neighbors namely Dharamraj, his wife namely Narainwati and son Ashok Kumar suddenly came out of their house and attacked upon all of them. He further testified that Narainwati grabbed his private part, Dharamraj hit upon his head with either rod or danda and Ashok gave blows on his chest and that he fell down. He further testified that he did not know what happened thereafter as he was in an unconscious. Later on he came to know that police took him to the hospital. The complaint given by him to the CP is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A, his MLC is Mark-A (Colly. 03 pages) and MLC of Parvati is Mark-B. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State he testified that on the day of incident he used to clean the drainage in-front of his house. He further testified that one that day heavy rain fall took place due to which garbage was fastened at the drainage(Kuda Fas Gaya tha Nali Ki Jali mein) due to which they had removed the Jali and because of that the complainant and her family became upset but on that day the family of the complainant did not say anything to them. The original MLCs marked as A & B were not produced before the court.
38. Accused examined Sh. Raj Kumar as DW-2 who deposed that he does not remember the date but in the morning at about 8.00 AM, he was coming after dropping his daughter to school. When he reached near his house, he heard the Digitally signed by ISRA ISRADate:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 16:48:05 2025.05.08 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 16/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.+0800 noise "Bachao Bachao". After reaching his house, he saw that Prem Nath was injured, lying in unconscious condition and blood was oozing out of his head. Thereafter police reached at the spot and took Prem Nath, Dayaram and Parvati to the hospital. Thereafter two police officials came in a motorcycle. Police inquired about the persons who caused injury to Prem Nath. They had bolted the gate from inside. Police persons went inside their house. He further deposed that he does not know what transpired thereafter. After five minutes another police vehicle reached at the spot and took Dharamraj, Ashok and their mother Narainwati to the hospital. The entire testimony of DW2 is silent that complainant and family gave beatings to accused and caused injuries to accused or his family members.
39. Accused examined Kunti Devi as DW3. She deposed that she did not remember the date but in the morning at about 07:00 AM to 7:30 AM after hearing the noise she came outside the house and saw that Prem Nath was lying on the street in unconscious condition and Ashok, Dharam Raj and his wife were beating him and after that police reached at the spot and took Prem Nath, his parents to the hospital. Thereafter, again police reached at the spot and inquired about the dispute. Public persons who had gathered told the police about the incident. Thereafter, police took Ashok, Dharam Raj and his wife to the hospital. There appears to be inter-se inconsistencies in version of DW2 and DW3. The testimony of DW2 is silent regarding beating by complainant and her family to the accused Prem Nath in an unconscious state contrary to PW3.
40. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Mallanagaouda Ravsaheb Patil & Ors., vs. State of Karnataka 2015(4) Criminal Court Case 254 (SC) and of Allahabad High Court titled State of UP vs. Virendra & Ors., 2015(2) Criminal Court Cases 108 (Allahabad)(DB). In the case relied upon by Ld. defence counsel the incised Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 16:48:15 2025.05.08 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 17/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. wound were found on the body of injured person but in the present case, the doctor has observed that "Nasal bleed avulsion of incised teeth bleeding in gums". The judgment namely State of UP vs. Virendra & Ors., relied upon by the accused is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case the MLC is itself reflective of grievous injuries sustained by Narayan Pati. It has been observed as "Nasal bleed avulsion of incised teeth bleeding in gums".
41. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that there is a delay in registration of FIR of about forty days and prosecution has failed to explain the delay in registration of FIR.
42. Delay in registration of FIR is a relevant fact of which court has to take the notice. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No strait Jacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts.
43. If prosecution fails to explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on an account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution, however, delay is explained to the satisfaction to the court delay cannot be itself a ground for disbelieving and disregarding the entire prosecution case. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, the delay in registration of FIR has been sufficiently explained by the prosecution because in the present case, IO has himself deposed in his examination in chief that on 13.09.2004 he received he MLC of all the parties. He saw that injuries was found to be grievous in MLC of Narayan Pati. On Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:48:27 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 18/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. the same day complainant gave the statement Ex.PW-5/A which is self explanatory.
44. The loss of teeth of the victim Narayan Pati is a significant injury, potentially indicating a more severe assault as compared to accused's minor injuries. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons caused injuries to victim. The fact that victim Narayan Pati sustained grievous injuries is in itself an indication that the actions of the accused persons were not in self defence or the causation of injuries to the victim was accidental. Disproportionate injuries to PW1 indicates the aggression. The loss of teeth clearly falls under the definition of grievous hurt as Dr. Banarsi, who examined the victim, has clearly observed that "Avulsion of upper incisor teeth and lower incisor teeth". Dr. Banarsi was examined as a witness and MLC of Narayan Pati was exhibited as Ex.PW-9/A. Prosecution has also proved motive in the present case. PW1 herself deposed that dispute was with respect to iron gauze. DW1 also admitted in cross-examination by Ld. APP that garbage got fastened in the drain due to which the accused removed the gauze. No cogent explanation was put forth by the defence regarding the loss of teeth by Narayan Pati and the fact as to why would anyone break her own teeth. In the present case, testimony of witness remained unimpeachable & uncontroverted. PW1/complainant, PW1, PW2 and PW3 are victim of offence.
45. As far as non-joining of any independent public witness by the Investigating Agency is concerned the same also does not the affect the credibility of statement of the complainant and other witnesses and they are cogent and consistent with their testimony. Accordingly, since the identity of accused, the causation of injuries on the body of complainant and other eye witnesses(injured) sufficiently stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts in view of testimony of Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.05.08 16:48:35 +0800 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 19/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc. witnesses and their MLCs, the court finds that the prosecution has proved the commission of both the above said offences by the accused against the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt under section 323/325/34 IPC.
46. It is a well settled law that in a criminal trial burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is cogent and convincing material available on record to suggest that accused has committed offence against the complainant/injured witnesses. Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
47. There is sufficient material on record warranting the conviction of accused Prem Nath and Parvati u/s 323/325/34 IPC.
Copy of Judgment given to both convict persons at free of cost.
Announced in the open Court today.
This judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 16:48:44 2025.05.08 +0800 (Isra Zaidi) JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi 08.05.2025 FIR No.368/2004 Page No. 20/20 State Vs. Prem Nath etc.